BloggeRhythms

Newt Gingrich seems to be more prolific in his endeavors to support Trump than he was during his own career in politics. Yesterday, he drafted another article @FoxNews.com, this one on the subject of education in the nation. 

The primary point is that a significant part of Trump’s plans for job growth and development call for skills and capabilities requiring education. It also involves the undoing of what Gingrich calls “the Obama administration’s disastrous regulations that get in the way of job creation.” 

Gingrich specifically addresses what he calls “career education,”  distinctly separate from four-year Bachelor of Arts and Science programs. They take only one or two years to complete, and rather than providing a broad-based education, are specifically tailored to prepare students for specific jobs. 

Gingrich claims: “The demand for these programs is growing. Since 2003, per the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of certificate degrees awarded has increased by 40.9 percent and the number of associates degrees awarded has increased by 50.8 percent. This is a much faster rate of increase than the growth in Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees of 33 percent.” 

Using health care as a prime example, “according to a recent analysis of Department of Education data by Career Education Colleges and Universities, 78 percent of vocational/practical nurses and nursing assistants, 74 percent of medical assistants, 43 percent of ultrasound technicians, and 39 percent of surgical technologists are educated at private sector colleges and universities.” 

Other fields, including computer networking, electrical and electronic engineering, heating and ventilation installation and airplane and auto repair “also disproportionately rely on private sector career schools to provide workers with the skills necessary to fill critical jobs.” 

Then Gingrich gets to his major point, writing: “Disgracefully, despite the vital nature of private sector career education to the American economy, the Obama administration has launched an ideologically motivated assault on private sector schools.” 

“Over the past four years, the Department of Education forced almost 900 private sector campuses into closure, throwing tens of thousands of students out on the street – many of them low-income adults, single parents and African-Americans and Latinos.” 

Beyond that,  and much like other last ditch efforts to instill as much damage as possible before leaving office, in just the past thirty days “the Obama Department of Education has revoked the accreditation status of ACICS – a national accreditor which certifies many private sector career schools in America, and deliberately done to immediately put almost over 700 schools in serious jeopardy.”

In all, Gingrich’s analysis certainly makes its point regarding the need for alternative educational resources to provide and support technical skills and capabilities required of hiree's in a soon to be rapidly growing economy. However, what he left out was the obvious probable cause of the Obama administration’s destructive actions against the private sector schools: the NEA and the AFT, the national parent body of New York's UFT.

Together these unions represent more than 3 million school employees, equaling 80 percent of the nation's 3 million public school teachers. According to dated material that may be stale: “The two unions and their state and local affiliates take in $1.3 billion each year from dues and employ 6,000 full-time staff members.”

Additionally, as reported by opensecrets.org. the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, teachers unions contributed a total of about $19.2 million in the 2012 elections. NEA contributed more than $14.7 million in 2012, the fourth biggest donor out of all organizations tracked by CRP, while AFT gave $4.4 million in 2012 that “went to Democrats or liberal groups.”

Which means that while education may be the topic under consideration, when it comes to Obama and those around him, there’s one thing you can always rely on. If you really want to find out why they support any cause, simply follow the money and you’ll never be wrong.   

As far as Gingrich’s article’s concerned, readers offered opposing opinions amongst themselves.

stebujiiji wrote: “I worked for a for profit school which at the time was owned by Goldman Sachs.  Education was secondary to keeping the gravy train running.  And do you know who paid for that gravy train???  We did.  Taxpayer funded National Direct Student Loans put unprepared people into debt.  If they did graduate, the entry level positions open to them were minimal.  Gingrich's contention is a bunch of hogwash.  Spent ten years of my life working for a school like this.  When I was finished, I wanted to take a good, long shower.  I felt really, really dirty.”

racinrick responded: “What recent history?  These schools teach auto, truck, forklift, airplane mechanics and techs.  Chefs and hotel management also.  Vet assistants, nurse aides, pharmacy techs, on and on.  I know of two quality schools that closed and will be missed.”

From the reply’s, and obviously having no other input, it would appear that stebujiji may very well have bought into an investment banker’s “get rich quick” scam, although he stayed for 10 full years. Rather long for someone so disheartened by a job.

On the other hand, racinrick’s illustration of the types of jobs intended to be prepared for make far more sense. The category’s also indicate why teachers unions would be opposed to that form of education. Because what’s required are skilled instructors, not union organized babysitters with tenure.     

On another subject, in a video @foxnews.com yesterday, Trump said he won’t give up Twitter after his wearing in.

This one’s mentioned for personal reasons whereas, although well before Twitter came along, I’m quite familiar with direct chief executive involvement with subordinates. 

On the plus side, things can certainly move far faster when a decision-maker communicates directly with employees at any and all levels. That type of interface also minimizes the need for clarification or misunderstandings, whereas directives and explanations come right from the “top.”     

However, at the same time, the two-way personal access between the chief-executive and others simultaneously strips that executives direct reports from whatever decision-making authority they might possess. That’s because, in any given situation, until the “boss” is heard from personally, others authority may be questionable on any particular subject.  

Furthermore, for busy executives, which Trump will certainly be, things sent quickly as a text may not be interpreted by all as intended. Which means that clarification and “undoing” unintentional errors can be abundantly time-consuming tasks.

It’s also never a good idea to build to build a historical trail of evidence, that although originally intended in good practice and good faith, can come back over time to haunt the sender in some other context.

Thus, all in all, while Tweeting might sound like a good idea now, the incoming POTUS really ought to use his myriad other resources instead.    

Bringing us to an update on both Clinton’s, which hasn’t been done here in quite a while. This one’s short, sweet and pleasurable to write.

“On Tuesday’s Breitbart News Daily, SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam asked Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer, author of the best-selling Clinton Cash, if the controversial Clinton Foundation’s days are numbered.

“The money has dried up,” Schweizer replied. “Donations are vastly, vastly evaporating. They are almost essentially gone.”

Which pretty much says it all.

That's it for today folks. 

Adios