Find Insurance Online

According to Newsweek, when the magazine asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test in early 2011, 29 percent "couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty-four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar. For as long as they’ve existed, Americans have been misunderstanding checks and balances and misidentifying their senators." The magazine's analysis treats all of the questions as equally important. However, I contend that the lack of knowledge on matters such as governmental checks and balances is more problematic than whether a citizen knows the name of his or her U.S. Senator. To take another pair, only 20 percent could name the U.S. President during World War I, while roughly the same percentage could name one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. The second lapse is more serious, for if the electorates do not know the constitutional limits placed on the power of the U.S. Government, the founders' assumption that elections would correct for any encroachment can no longer be relied on in the absense of other checks on the federal government. Given the continued growth in the power of the federal government relative to the state governments during the twentieth century, it could be that the voters are the last remaining wall in the way of complete political consolidation. However, if only one fifth of American citizens know what the federal constitution enumerates for the U.S. Government, how can a majority determine whether that government has overstepped its constitutional authority? Lest we leave this matter up to the U.S. Supreme Court, we might want to be reminded of the institutional/governmental conflict of interest in a branch of one of the governments in federalism contest being the umpire. Ordinarily, one could point to the constitutional amendment process superseding the high court's decisions, but this process involves representatives elected by the citizens, and most of us haven't bothered to study our own federal constitution.

As another example of some ignorance being more harmful than others, Newsweek reports that "(a) 2010 World Public Opinion survey found that Americans want to tackle deficits by cutting foreign aid from what they believe is the current level (27 percent of the budget) to a more prudent 13 percent. The real number is under 1 percent." This ignorance could well mean the demise of the United States, for a $14 or $15 trillion debt held by the federal government alone (Illinois, California, Nevada and Florida having sizable sovereign debts of their own) may well be unsustainable. It is conceivable that American electorates will elect representatives who will placate them by cutting waste to "make a dent" in the deficit (which is the annual increase in the debt), as if that would deal with the problem. 

In general terms, the American founding fathers believed that for a republic to endure, its citizens must be virtuous and knowledgeable concerning the republic and the issues of the day. Public education was thus viewed as having a civic as well a vocational and academic function.  Hence, American college students typically get an undergraduate degree in the Liberal Arts or Sciences before moving laterally over to a law or medical school for its undergraduate (i.e., first) degree (i.e., the J.D. and M.D.).  The E.U.'s states do not require such a broad education at the college level, though their pre-college education is said to be more rigorous than in the American states.  In fact, even in making this comparison, even educated Americans suffer from ignorance, as we tend to mistake political categories, such as in likening the U.S. to one of the E.U.'s states rather than to the E.U.  Anyone want to guess how many American citizens know of the E.U. at all? I would put the figure at 5 percent, but this could be overly optimistic.  To see the category mistake in action among the "best and brightest" in this land of isolationism, consider the following argument presented in Newsweek.

"Most experts agree that the relative complexity of the U.S. political system makes it hard for Americans to keep up. In many European countries, parliaments have proportional representation, and the majority party rules without having to 'share power with a lot of subnational governments,' notes Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker . . . In contrast, we’re saddled with a nonproportional Senate; a tangle of state, local, and federal bureaucracies; and near-constant elections for every imaginable office (judge, sheriff, school-board member, and so on). 'Nobody is competent to understand it all, which you realize every time you vote,' says Michael Schudson . . . 'You know you’re going to come up short, and that discourages you from learning more.' While at Yale, I took a seminar on the politics of American education in the political science department. I don't know if Hacker was on the faculty then, but his ignorance in comparing the U.S. and E.U. is startling. I suspect that he is simply stuck in an old paradigm traditionally used in trans-Atlantic comparitive politics. I contend that the E.U. is just as complex politically as are the U.S. For example, in terms of education alone, just as the American states must deal with local school boards, so too must the European states.  Furthermore, just as the American states must deal with federal regulation, so too must the European states. Indeed, the E.U.'s executive branch, the European Commission, has been actively involved in education policy in standardizing the various degrees offered by various state universities. While it is true that some of the E.U.'s states have regional governments that are also involved in education policy, whereas the American states only have counties and localities, the differential amount of complexity is not significant as compared with the basic union-state-locality structure that characterizes both the E.U. and U.S.  Newsweek reports that European citizens tend to do significantly better than Americans on citizen questions; the reason is not because the U.S. is somehow more complex.  Rather, I would point to the relatively lax schooling in the U.S. and the attitude of American parents (and students) toward academics, self-discipline and homework. Anti-intellectualism thrives amid such disvalues.

In the end, the American plight is one of values, and this transcends love of money and even knowledge. The ignorance reported by Newsweek is kein Zufall (no accident), and it will continue unless knowledge stands up not only to power and money, but also to conceit and the ignorance itself to break the cycle of "I can't be wrong."  Ignorance presuming itself as impossibly wrong!  This is the tragedy of the American dream--of modernity as having "made it."  Of course, we have no need of the classics; they have nothing to teach us!  We are the highpoint of human civilization, standing here among our sophisticated technology in the twenty-first century. We are like the Arian Christians who said more than a millennium ago that they could save themselves, as though they were gods on earth. Augustine sought to hammer humility into them by (overstating) the depravity of the fall in creation and mankind. The question for us is perhaps how a crack in arrogance can be found such that ignorance may finally be made uncomfortable in its own presence. Modernity is too comfortable with itself--too convenient wallowing in its own ignorance, which too many American citizens portray as knowledge. A bad smell!  Sadly, we have grown so accustomed to it that we can no longer smell it, so we presume it no longer exists. We presume.

Click to add a comment or question (and view published comments) on arrogance and American education.

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/2011/03/20/how-dumb-are-we.html

Just after winning the World Cup of 2010, FIFA officials handed the trophy to the team captain of the Spanish team rather than to the coach or a team owner (in this case, an official of Spain).  In contrast, at the Kentucky Derby, the honors went to the horse’s owner, rather than to the jockey. The distinctively American value on wealth could not be more evident, and the contrast with the World Cup confirms it.  We value wealth so much that we regularly hand trophies to team owners rather than to the players, even as the world does otherwise.  Hence when George Steinbrenner died, the NYT ran a front-page article describing him as “a visionary and a giant in the world of sports.” To be sure, he was a notable team owner. However, in terms of the winning, what of the players and coach of the renowned Yankee teams that won the World Series? It was their talent that was decisive. It is odd at best that at Steinbrenner’s last appearance at the 2010 home owner, the manager and team captain presented him with his 2009 World Series championship ring. That being an owner would justify getting a ring evinces a sort of sordid category mistake—and at the very least an over-reaching.  Putting money on the table does not mean you won; rather, to be out on the field would be necessary.  Sports, in other words, cannot be vicariously won.  Yet wealth is vaunted so in the U.S. that such a stretch is accepted without question.  So, too, we allow physcians to go by the “Dr.” title in front of their names even though they have not earned a doctorate (unless they have the D.Sci. M. degree, which is the graduate degree in Medicine, for which the first degree—the MD—is a prerequisite).  I would even say that we (meaning Americans) are blind to how distortive our dominant value on wealth is, and how it has been exploited.  Essentially, I am pointing to a societal blind-spot rather than merely complaining over trophy ceremonies. Once the blind-spot becomes transparent, it is apt to be approached differently.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/sports/baseball/14steinbrenner.html?ref=sports

 "Professional" is a cherished word in modern American society. We are all professionals.  On Craigslist, people use the word to signify that they are not students. Technically, the term applied to highly trained professions in which the extent of training meant that only one's peers could be one's boss. A manager trained at a business school is hardly able to supervise a surgeon, for example.  Only other surgeons can evaluate how well a surgeon does in the operating room.  This differs from a janitor, for example, whose work could be assessed by a manager who has not been trained to clean. Our misuse of the term "professional" can be viewed as an inevitable expansion that plays on the value that we accord with vocation in particular and money in general. That is to say, we look up to executives, physicians and lawyers because they make a lot of money.  Accordingly, other professions want to be known as professionals.  The term thus comes to mean "mature," which can indeed apply to anyone.  Beyond the misuse of professional, the value we put on the moneyed professions (and wealth) has blinded us to the place of the first degrees in schools of medicine and law.  As the first degrees in academic schools, the MD and JD are undergraduate (before graduation in those fields) rather than graduate. That those two degrees are viewed as doctorates by many of their holders in the United States (not so in Europe) illustrates how self-serving the value of being a professional can be.  Essentially, it is the value on wealth that has usurped academic distinctions, resulting in false-entitlement. If those who have not earned doctorates would feel insulted rather than ashamed when called on their ignorance, the extent of arrogance in the value on professionalism and wealth could finally be seen.

It would surprise virtually every American (but only a few Europeans) to know that neither the JD nor the MD degree is a doctorate.   Each one is the first degree in its school, or discipline.  Yet we presume them to evince advanced knowledge, even allowing people with two undergraduate degrees to be "professors" (really instructors) in American law and medical schools. In the school of law, the sequence of degrees is: JD (same as the LLB), LLM (hint: M...Masters), and JSD (Doctorate in Juridical Science). The JSD degree includes advance study, a comprensive exam (an academic exam graded by faculty--not a industry-qualifying exam like the bar), and a defended dissertation. A doctoral degree must be the terminal degree of a field, contain a comprehensive exam, and include significant original research in a defended dissertation. The JD misses on all three points. The title of the first degree in law, the LLB (bachalors in letters of law) was replaced with "JD" largely for marketing purposes in 1901 in the founding of the U of Chicago law school (by three Harvard professors) because prospective students were complaining about having two "B" degrees after seven years of school.  People don't like to think they have gone to school for seven or eight years for two undergraduate degrees, but this is precisely what they have done. Nevertheless, the new law school in need of students complied with the "customer" complaint with a feat of mirrored marketing that was perhaps intentionally ambiguous.  To eviscerate the ambiguity in  Juris Doctor and a doctorate, one must look beyond the mere words.

In medicine, the MD is the first degree. Substantively, it contains survey courses and some seminars, just as in a BA or BS program in liberal arts or sciences. The D. Sci.M. is the doctorate in the field of medicine, and the M.D. is a prerequisite (so the latter cannot be the terminal degree of the field).  The fact that some schools give the D.Sci. M. degree as an honorary degree does not mean that it does not exist elsewhere as the real, terminal degree. Particular medical schools may give the degree as honorary where there are not enough prospective students interested in a doctorate in medicine. 

In divinity schools, the M.Div (before 1968, called the BD) is the undergraduate degree. It is followed by the STM (the masters) and the DD.   When the BD name was changed to the M.Div name, a perhaps-deliberate ambiguity was created wherein one apparent masters would be followed by another (M.Div. and STM).   It evinces a category mistake to have two masters degrees with one being substantively prerequisite to the second. Substantively, the M.Div. program consists of a year and a half of survey classes, followed by senior seminars (just as in the undergraduate law, liberal arts & science, and medical programs).  To regard a graduate with a M.Div., JD, or MD as having achieved advanced knowledge in the respective field is a fallacy perpetuated by the superfluous esteem we heap on the "professions" on account of their association with money (the religious vocation being revered for sacrificing the vaunted wealth).

It makes no difference how many degrees a person has in other fields before commencing study in a professional school. In beginnning to study law, medicine or theology, one begins with survey courses. Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether one's particular school or even country offers the doctorate in the field.  Try telling people that your BA is a doctorate in English because no Ph.D. in the field is offered at your college or even in one's country.  Every field (just like life itself) has a first degree and a terminal degree.  A student does not obtain advanced knowledge in two or three years in a law, medical or divinity school, but only a first degree's worth in liberal arts and sciences.

Sadly, we as a people have esteemed the physcians and lawyers so much that we have vaunted them by unwittingly appreciating their degrees into the stratisphere.   One degree in a given field does not a doctor make.   Europeans have been correct in refusing to call an American physician, "Dr. Smith."   The fact that Mr. Smith would take offense just points to the arrogance that lies in ignorance.  The rest of us enable Mr. Smith to claim the doctoral title before his last name because we don't know any better.   We give physicians titled trophies that they do not deserve.  Moreover, the use of vocational titles (including Professor Jackson) risks a vocational reductionism wherein a person is rgarded (and comes to regard himself) as that which he or she does.   Is vocation really so important that it eclipses or overcomes a person's identity? 

 Maybe it is time that we say "enough is enough" on the green glitter and deflate those who have vaunted their own entitlements going along with being a  professional  to a value or level more fitting to what they have earned.   The extent of illusion that a society can create and maintain is astonishing, yet being in the illusion (think here of the Matrix) we do not see it.  It is time to see the green numbers on the wall.  No wonder even the hint of such sight is apt to incur the wrath of the agents who instinctively protect the illusion because they benefit inordinately from it.   It is time, ladies and gentleman, that we wake up, as the sun is already quite high in the sky and there is much to be done.

Joseph Natoli avers that "what we think comprises a 'good education' has already been affected by market values." He observes further, "Organizations come into being by solving problems. The problem solver is a corporate asset."  Whereas Natoli treats problem-solving and critical thinking as mutually-exclusive, I contend that critical thinking has been reduced in popular parlance problem-solving.  As in the coming of Thursday nights to be reckoned by college students are a weekend night, here too business schools have been the conduit wherein critical thinking has gained primacy over even the higher analytical and synthetic thinking activities (which are not limited to problems, and, in fact, can transcend them even in problem-solving). The schools have also been the conduit wherein the power-point presentation in business has come to the classroom, as if lecturing were merely presenting. To be sure, there is nothing out of place for problem-solving and presentations in the corporate world. All the power to them--or maybe not. Maybe this is the problem wherein corporate customs know no bound, and thus feel no self-restraint as they over-spill onto disparate domains as though spoiled children. My contention is that the easy slide onto college campuses of both critical thinking reduced to problem-solving and presentations reduced to bullet-points has conflated, in effect, vocation and education. Even worse is the baleful portent of education being reduced to training. It is bad enough when a business school becomes "commercialized" in this respect. Faculties of Liberal Arts and Science schools ought not to have appropriated so much from commercial education (and ultimately corporations) without paying sufficient attention to the negative impacts on pedegogy. Teaching by power-point, for example, may cut off higher forms of thinking; problem-solving may involve losing "why?" to "how?"

One might ask: where have the scholars in the schools of education been as corporate ways have made such inroads in academia?  Why haven't education faculties written more the funnelling effects on pedegogy of critical thinking as problem-solving and teaching as presentation?  In December, 2010, the National Council on Teacher Quality and U.S. News & World Report announced plans to grade more than a thousand schools of education. The deans of several of these schools objected that the teacher quality council’s methods for arriving at ratings were not transparent enough and were not supported by research. Course information, textbooks and admissions selectivity are, according to these officials, too superficial.  That may be so, but it could nevertheless be the case that the school officials were nervous about being graded because they had a sense that education schools had been asleep at the wheel as universities (and presumably high schools) have come unwittingly to embrace corporate practices at the expense of that which is sui generis, or unique, in education. 

Brian Kelly, the editor of U.S. News, said the push-back from education schools was evidence of “an industry that doesn’t want to be examined. These teacher-education programs are hugely important and not very well scrutinized. This is coming at a time when you have this tremendous national push for improvements in teacher quality: Who’s teaching the teachers?”  Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education, said that many, if not most, teacher-training programs are mediocre. “It is time to start holding teacher-preparation programs more accountable for the impact of their graduates on student learning." According to The New York Times, "Education schools have faced criticism frequently over the years. They are faulted by a recent wave of education advocates as emphasizing education theory over hands-on classroom training, and as graduating teachers with weak academic skills." Rather than theory, however, faculties of education schools may have been absorbed in various ideological movements at the expense of being oriented to knowledge, with K-12 teachers buying into the fads at the expense of even the basic subject-matter of their courses.

For example, process-learning was at one time the rage in some high schools. In this movement, teachers threw out their course textbooks in the mistaken assumption that the process of being educated itself proffers such content. However, focusing on learning how to read, for example, does not include a systematic coverage of a given course's subject-matter; instead, the latter is relegated in a hit or miss manner. I once heard a high school civics teacher at a suburban school brag that he had put the U.S. Government textbooks in the school basement and was instead showing movies on immigrants in the U.S. How from this "alternative teaching" approach were his students to learn about federalism and the separation of powers, as well as about the U.S. Senate, House, Supreme Court and Presidency?

Although the misguided "alternative" movements have typically been inflicted on K-12 education, the education scholars' various sidetracks have not only sidetracked the scholars themselves from developing improved teaching techniques oriented to learning a given content of knowledge; the causes that have been at the expense of education (i.e., serving other agendas) have also distracted the zealots from even being able to detect what was occurring on their own campuses, let alone putting their pedegogical expertise at the service of their colleagues, university-wide. It is almost as though college professors got bored with their respective bodies of knowledge and wandered off to pay with new toys from business. Antethetically, I contend that even in business schools the focus should be on knowedge--explaining the phenomenon of business through its various disciplines rather than becoming virtual corporations.  In other words, even business schools can be academic. The best ones are. They have not substituted what they are with what they are studying. Therefore, resisting the encroachments of corporate culture on to academia, I recommend that university faculties and academic administrators recommit themselves to the university's unique, or sui generis, situs and essence.

There is much to do on college-level pedegogy without wandering off onto other pastures.  Exams, for example, should be devised and used based on tests for their validity (is an 80% on a given test really a "good" understanding of the knowledge of the course so far?) and reliability (consistency from test to test). I suspect that test-making and grading are far from systematic, perhaps including such spurious assumptions that only a certain proportion of a class can get A's, or that A's go down to 85% because there is a gap from there to 81%. What is it about the particular test and the body of knowlege covered that makes getting a 90% a measure of excellent knowledge?  Typically, graders simply parrot the custom wherein 90-100 is an A, 80-89 is a B, etc. However, what if a test is made more difficult, or less so?  How should the percentage intervals be adjusted? In short, getting back to basics means thinking about and operationalizing what "excellent," "good," and "satisfactory" mean in the context of learning knowledge.  Compounding the problem of what a grade means is the obfuscation of grades as measurements of knowledge learned and grades as compensation for work done. I suspect the transmutation of a grade into compensation is yet another instance of corporate culture finding its way into academia via business schools. The conduit here are business school administrators and faculty who confuse themselves with what they are studying (i.e., corporations). To give a group an A for having put a lot of work into a presentation, or for being dressed well, is essentially to pay the group for its effort, rather than to measure the extent of knowledge learned. Even assessing a skill is closer to rewarding practice than measuring knowledge learned; knowledge is not skill, and vice versa. 

With a sort of cultural imperialism in full swing at business schools, the faculties of other schools cannot afford to be sidetracked or led astray without seriously undermining their own distinctive raison d'etre. Just as what is good for GM is not necessarily good for America, what commercialized business schools believe is in their interest qua corporations producing skills is not necessarily good for a university as a whole (or even for the business schools). That school of education faculties have stood by, occupied elsewhere, while business school practices and understandings have been allowed to perculate through other schools does indeed implicate the pegegogical experts.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/education/09teachers.html?scp=1&sq=grading%20schools%20of%20education&st=cse
http://www.truth-out.org/our-market-regime-and-public-education67474

At the end of March, 2010, Warren Buffet spoke to business students at Columbia University.  A student asked him whether being ethical in business come from the home or a business ethics course.  Warren quickly answered that it is learned in the home.  Jeffrey Skilling of Enron was not simply applying knowledge when he acted unethically in hiding the company’s debt in “unrelated” partnerships; rather, what he knew he applied according to what he valued.  Values are not learned in the way that, say, 5=5=10 is learned; there is a feeling component—an ought—that goes along with one’s sense of what he or she values.  In other words, a person values X because she feels that X is important—not because she knows more about X (although this could be incidentally the case).

A business ethics course ought to be designed such that the students understand ethical principles and how they apply to ethical issues in business as well as to the business system itself.   Although understanding more about ethical principles in ethical decision-making, for example, can help one in being ethical, the understanding itself is not to make one ethical.  The focus, in other words, ought to be on the learning of knowledge rather than on somehow turning people into ethical human beings as if they were robots to be programmed or customers to be convinced.

Some might agree that ethics courses do not make people ethical (and ought not be designed as such), but disagree with the emphasis being on understanding and knowledge. Such “commercial business school”  advocates stress the “how to do” over explanation.  But this is to confuse training with educating.  Following bullet-points on how to make ethical decisions, for example, does not involve synthetic or analytical thought; at most, critical thinking is needed.  I submit that understanding ethical principles and their relevance to business is of value not only educationally (in terms of learning knowledge), but also in terms of business practice.  That is, knowing more about something—studying it in order to explain it—informs one’s approach to it in practice.

For example, explaining the structural conflict of interest in the rating agencies getting a cut on the securities sold that the rate can enable students to understand what a structural conflict of interest is and thus how it can be recognized.  This understanding can come into play in the business world if the former student finds herself in such a conflict or in a position to remove one (e.g., a regulator).  That the rating agencies’ conflict of interest was not addressed by Senator Dodd’s proposed financial reform bill in March, 2010 suggests the practical peril in not understanding what a structural conflict is.  Even if Senator Dodd didn’t want to solve the problem, had enough people understood it sufficiently to recognize it and wanted to remove it, the senator would have faced more pressure to include a fix. 

Perhaps if more business ethics lecturers and professors become less oriented to trying to turn their students into ethical managers, more ethical problems would be recognized and solved.  This is not to imply that every applied ethical issue can be solved, but even here understanding the competing ethical principles that are in play can make such issues less daunting, even in terms of being understood.  In other words, understanding and explanation, rather than how to, are key to education (as opposed to training), even where knowledge involves practical realms of life.  It is far too easy to become short-sighted, either in being obsessed with making others ethical or in reducing knowledge to how-t0 bullet-points on Power Point.  It is much harder to focus on the knowledge instead of shying away from it.  In the wake of Enron and the financial crisis of 2008, the world is calling out for better understanding of such things—not recipes and ideology.

Sadly, most business ethicists in business schools have scant education in ethics per se; most of their education is in management and corporate social responsibility (matching corporations with societal norms—which are not ethical principles).  Such business ethicists have little regard for the basic discipline of philosophy, of which ethics is a field (and business ethics a subfield).  It is of course important that a business ethicist understand the phenomenon of business, but it is also vital that he or she know ethical principles beyond simply “rights, duty and utility.”  In the midst of such a superficial knowledge, it is no surprise that ideology (i.e.,  imposing one’s own values) and how-to’s would take over.   The ethical dimension does not pertain exclusively to the content of such courses; the qualifications of the professors and lecturers as well as their typical agendas ought to be understood from the vantage point of a knowledge of ethics (as well as pedagogy).  This might be a case of the emperors wearing no clothes, even as the modern moralizers swear by their sterling vestments.  Unfortunately, the public does not get a look at the men and women behind the curtain.  If Enron and the financial crisis of 2008 are at all of concern to us in terms of future like occurances, it might be in our interest (as well as being an ethical obligation) to recognize and rectify the nudity going on behind the curtain. Ideally, a clamor would rise up for a better understanding of the ethical principles that are in play (or missing); we would demand such knowledge from those hired to teach it.  Yet there is the matter of the illusion of expertise being projected by the club and the general perception that this is as good as it gets.  But this is crazy, even if it is typically taken for normal.  Things are not always as they seem, and they can be improved even if it is not in their present protectors’ self-interest.

Military veterans who seek civilian employment will not have to repeat training in areas where they are already experienced, under legislation introduced this week by Rep. Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island and Sen. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor.

Senate Bill 5307/House Bill 1417 and SB 5308/HB 1418 would evaluate the training men and women have received and apply it to educational and licensing requirements in the private sector.

These bills give credit where it’s due. Many military personnel have undergone highly specialized training and education in certain areas, so we should honor that for licensing requirements. Duplicating efforts doesn’t benefit anyone, Rolfes said.

The bills provide similar benefits for different groups of professions:

• SB 5308/HB 1418 develops a process to evaluate training for educational credit or professional licensing requirements for cosmetologists, barbers, manicurists, engineers, land surveyors and security guards.
• SB 5307/HB 1417 does the same for health professions, including osteopathic physicians’ assistants, physicians’ assistants, radiologic technologists, nursing assistants, respiratory care practitioners, health case assistants and surgical technologists.

The Puget Sound Chapter, NDTA, coordinated a training event allowing members and guests an opportunity to see roll-on/roll-off ships in person and hear from her crew what they do to support the surge of military support when needed. When not in use the ships are part of the Ready Reserve Fleet managed by the Maritime Administration.

Below is a picture taken at the stern ramp of the CAPE ISLAND currently berthed with her sister ship the CAPE INTREPID at the Sperry Ocean Dock, off Ruston Way.

New schools for our military-dependent children!

That's the welcome news from Cong. Norm Dicks, who said, “one of the most urgent concerns for our deployed troops is for their families and kids to be properly cared for, and one area where we have seen great deficiency is the condition of our on-base schools.”

The details, covered in The News Tribune, speak to replacing six schools through consolidation and new construction.  This Congressional initiative follows on remarks by Secretary of Defense Gates, who expressed serious concern during a visit to Fort Riley, KS in May.

These complementary efforts by Congress and the Administration follow on homework by Clover Park School District, operator of the on-base schools and the Chamber.  Chamber Pres. David Graybill collaborated in the production of an educational video that demonstrated the needs and the value for our children.

Led by Chamber Board member Jeff Brown, BCRA, the Chamber made this issue a principal objective during its Washington-to-Washington, D.C. trip in 2009, with conversations with the Pentagon, Office of Economic Adjustment and Congressional offices.  Cong. Smith's offices note that there has been a real turn-around in this issue within the last eight months.

That Chamber initiative was continued during the 2010 Washington-to-Washington, D.C. trip during meetings with Dr. Craig Collge, Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management and members of Congress.  Again at that time, Cong. Dicks indicated a strong commitment to addressing this problem.

Next steps will include full adoption of the authorization and approriation bills for the Defense budgets.

This summer, more than 600 museums in all 50 states are offering free admission to active duty military personnel and their families from Memorial Day, May 31, 2010, through Labor Day, September 6, 2010 to show their appreciation for those who are serving this nation. In Washington, they are:  

• If you are active duty military personnel and/or an immediate family member - spouse or child - to gain free access, please show either a Geneva Conventions CAC ID or a DD Form 1173 ID card at the museum admissions desk.  
• Immediate family members under the age of 10 must be accompanied by an appropriate ID holder.
• Some special or limited-time museum exhibits may not be included in this free admission program, so check with the museum directly.

Over the next few months, the Greater Puget Sound area will be welcoming home thousands of Soldiers returning from deployments, joining the Washington National Guard and Army Reserve Soldiers who have returned in the past year.

For some of these Soldiers and Families it is a first deployment, while for others it is yet another multiple time in Service to our country abroad. Deployments are a challenging time for both Soldiers and Families. And upon return, navigating through changes and recognizing potential impacts upon the well-being of an individual and Family can sometimes be difficult to address.

Over 1.6 million men and women have served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom to date. Almost half of those Service Members are married, and almost half have dependent children--the majority 5 years old and younger.

Army OneSource announces a community outreach program, supported by the U.S. Army, to raise awareness of the unique challenges of Military life on our Service Members and their Families, and to address the growing demand for behavioral health and well-being services.

In today’s unique combat situation--where there is no front line and constant vigilance must be maintained on the ground, where individuals are serving as many as four deployments that are longer in duration than in the past, and where Service Members and Families are asked to give more because of our all-volunteer Military--we’re learning that “The wounds of war are not limited to the battlefield.”

Army OneSource has launched a formal campaign to encourage civilian health, behavioral health and well-being providers to complete an online course in the series titled, “Treating the Invisible Wounds of War.”

This series of courses was designed to help primary care physicians, case workers, mental health providers and other professionals - who may see a veteran or family member on an unrelated issue - develop a better understanding of the culture in which Service Members and Veterans, as well as their families, live and work. The courses also provide best practices for identifying, assessing, and treating behavioral health problems that result from the trauma of war.

In addition to better supporting Service Members, those who complete the course will:

• receive a poster to display in their offices inviting Service Members and their Families to talk to a health professional about any troubling symptoms,
• receive a Certificate of Completion suitable for framing, and
• be eligible for Continuing Education credit.

G.I. Jobs announced the launch of its new Web site. The site, loaded with interactive tools and search functionality, helps military veterans find the schools that best meet their educational needs.

The 1,000 schools on the new Web site are those selected to G.I. Jobs “Military Friendly Schools” list in August. They represent the top 15 percent most “military friendly” of the nation’s 7,000 schools.

Here are Washington State’s (and Pierce County’s) rated Military Friendly (Higher-Ed) Schools:
Argosy University Seattle
Bellevue College
Cascadia Community College
Central Washington University
City University of Seattle
Clover Park Technical College
Eastern Washington University
Edmonds Community College
Green River Community College
Heritage University
Lake Washington Technical College
North Seattle Community College
Northwest Aviation College
Olympic College
Pacific Lutheran University
Pierce College at Fort Steilacoom
Pierce College Military Program
Saint Martin's University
Skagit Valley College
South Puget Sound Community College
Spokane Falls Community College
Tacoma Community College
The Art Institute of Seattle
Washington State University
Washington State University, Graduate School
Whatcom Community College

The Military Friendly Schools list is determined through research by the G.I. Jobs Military Friendly Schools team. This research includes government agencies and private entities which administer education benefits and a comprehensive survey administered by G.I. Jobs. A Military Friendly Schools Academic Advisory Panel, consisting of five higher education administrators, helps determine survey questions and weightings.

Research findings are compiled and weighted according to the following categories to determine a final score:

• 45% for Effort 1, defined as certifications, programs and policies, which measures a school’s non-financial efforts to recruit and retain military and veteran students. This category includes things like VA-approval to accept the GI Bill, SOC membership, academic credit for CLEP and ACE, flexible learning programs and much more.

• 35% for Effort 2, defined as financial commitment, which measures a school’s financial efforts to recruit and retain military and veteran students. This category includes things like Yellow Ribbon program membership, tuition benefits and % of overall recruitment budget allocated to recruiting military students.

• 15% for a school’s results, or success, in recruiting military and veteran students. This category includes the number and % of military and veteran students enrolled.

• 5% allocated to other categories including a school’s academic accreditations.

As always with ratings or rankings, the reader should be aware that his/her priorities are not necessarily the same as those of the sponsor.

G.I. Jobs annually rates the nation’s “Military Friendly Employers,” “Military Friendly Franchises” and “Military Spouse Friendly Employers.”

Sesame Street Workshop is producing a new primetime television special, When Families Grieve featuring Katie Couric and the Sesame Street Muppets. This PBS special will air on April 14th at 8:00 PM EST.

This hour-long special will present families’ personal stories about coping with the death of a parent, as well as strategies that have helped these families move forward.  Televised in conjunction with the Month of the Military Child & Month of the Young Child, it will be part of a multimedia, bi-lingual (English and Spanish) outreach kit for national distribution immediately following the April airdate.

There will be two resource kits available for distribution, one kit will be military specific and the other kit will be for the general public. Military OneSource (MOS) will only distribute the military kit. The resource kit will include the DVD from the taping of the PBS special, a caregiver guide and a story book. The resource kit will be available through MOS beginning 14 April. The resource kit for the general public will be available for distribution through other sources.

When Families Grieve is a continuation of Sesame Workshop’s award-winning Talk, Listen, Connect initiative that first launched in July 2006 providing resources and emotional support to military families with young children coping with the challenging transitions in their lives, such as deployments and when a parent comes home changed due to combat-related injury.

The basics of our modern economic system, including the unfettered movement of labor to opportunities, is also that division of labor (into specialists), gains us greater efficiencies.

Not so with the division of labor into infinitely disparate pieces as a report earlier this year identified multitudinous state agencies (see list at end) responsible for professional licenses or certificates. This might not be all that important were it not that about 2,400 of our state's citizens have just returned from foreign (Iraq) deployment as Guardsmen serving the goals of our nation. That lengthy time may have presented them with numerous obstacles to overcome when they are mustered out (of active service). The least of them should be in picking up their jobs or professions.

Yes, there is federal legislation giving them and requiring employers to accommodate their return to their jobs. But many occupations now are tied to professional licenses and certificates.

Sen. Derek Kilmer placed a budget proviso in the state's 2008 budget requiring the state's Department of Licensing (DOL) and Department of Health (DOH) - responsible for the bulk of professional licensing programs - to determine processes for relicensing or re-certificating Guardsmen or Reservists who have served on active duty but are now returning to civilian life.

Both departments found some procedures in place for their respective departments to do so. However, in the report the DOH suggested they could do a better job of informing returning vets of their recertification process. The DOL suggested they do a sufficient job based on responses from returning vets.

There are other states our state could look to for providing support or best practices in an automatic extension of professional licenses:
–Approximately 13 states recognized as providing support: AZ, DE, GA, HI, KY, KS, MN, MS, MT, NJ, NY, UT, WI
–Best practice states (statutes) : AZ (32-4301), DE (215) (Formerly Senate Bill No. 206), GA (43-1-31), HI (HB295 HD1), KS (34.48), MN (197.65), MS (33-1-39), MT (37-1-138), WI (321.60)

Please note that WA is not in either of these lists.

In addition to the DOH and DOL, these Washington State agencies issue licenses or certificates for professions or occupational certifications:

1. Board of Accountancy
2. Office of the Insurance Commissioner
3. Department of Social and Health Services
4. Liquor Control Board
5. Labor and Industries
6. Department of Early Learning
7. Department of Agriculture
8. Department of Financial Institutions
9. Department of Ecology
10. Fish and Wildlife
11. Washington State Patrol
12. Secretary of State
13. and acknowledged but unnamed others

Governor Gregoire took a positive step when she lead her administration and the state's higher educational institutions and workforce boards to support veterans on campuses.

The Memorandum of Understanding, Partners for Veteran Supportive Campuses, defines a new partnership on behalf of the Governor, departments in her administration, the Washington National Guard, the state's colleges and universities, the Higher Education Coordinating Board and the State Board for Technical and Community Colleges and the Workforce Training and Education Board.

The partners agree:

• increase awareness of veteran's programs on and off campuses
• provide staff with a core set of veteran cultural competencies
• encourage campuses to implement best practices and policies designed to foster vets
• encourage vets to use the GI bill
• help vets succeed in higher ed and training
• ensure staff and vets have access to Washington Dept. of Veterans Affairs and its local and federal partners

The Chamber has specifically called upon the state to adopt policy and procedures to allow service members separating from duty to receive credit for applicable skill sets and education acquired while in service.

Two points in the MOU are:

1. continue work with the Legislature, workforce and higher ed communities to...transfer, credit for prior experience...
2. shortening the time for veterans to receive a credential or degree through: a) expanding credit for prior learning and b) developing articulation and transfer agreements...

The University of Washington will honor eight Medal of Honor recipients who are also UW alumni with a new, prominent memorial to be dedicated this Veterans Day, Nov. 11.

The Military Times EDGE magazine today reports that Pierce College ranks as No. 13 among colleges and universities chosen by service members using military tuition assistance.

Pierce College was identified as providing service members 14,659 courses reimbursed by military tuition assistance. Active-duty service members may receive $250 per credit hour up to $4,500 per year using federal tuition assistance.

Three online-only universities entered the top ten. Among those universities and colleges offering traditional classroom learning, Pierce College ranked #10 in the nation. On average, reports Military Times EDGE, distance learning is over 50% more than classroom based courses: $605.06 vs. $401.89.

This information was gleaned from an earlier this year presentation by Carolyn Baker, the DoD's chief of continuing education.