I have become frustrated and annoyed at the increasingly effective Administration's tirade spin, painting the discussion about the many things that went wrong with the federal disaster response as "Finger Pointing" and "Blaming"
On CNN, the disdain and cynicism about politics and politicians is audible as reporters discuss the different plans being laid out for the needed investigations into the emergency response - or lack thereof.
I think that we need to reframe this important issue using Bush's own words found within their revered No Child Left Behind Legislation, Many people are familiar with these terms because of their children's school in recent years and the much publicized mantra about fingerpointing and "the blame game."
What are the words and frame that we need to use?
ASSESSMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY
STANDARDS
HIGHLY QUALIFIED
Let's review the Bush Administration's educational beliefs:
Children need to take numerous annual tests to ASSESS their knowledge and performance. If children are not assessed immediately (annually), then teachers and school officials will have no way to know if they have met prescribed STANDARDS for that particular year. Children need to meet clear, explicit objective educational standards (outside testing) rather than more subjective evaluation of classroom teachers.
This is the only way, the administration says, to have real ACCOUNTABILITY for the tax money that is spent on education. Only then can the necessary steps and interventions be implemented to correct the problems and provide the necessary changes to improve performance. Consequences for not performing well run from the non-promotion of students to the closing of schools and disbursement of staff.
The Bush Administration's legislation states that the effectiveness and quality of educational services are dependent upon the professionals delivering those services. Therefore, these professionals must be HIGHLY QUALIFIED based on agreed upon set of qualifications.
So, how can relate Bush's educational prescriptions to the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA?
It is important to have accountability for the extensive expenditures in the past 4 years for crisis management and homeland security. We must be able to assess in a timely fashion performance of FEMA and DHS. Only then can the necessary steps and interventions be implemented to correct the problems and provide the necessary changes to improve performance. This is especially important since we are in the middle of a rather active hurricane season. Delaying may cost even more lives in addition to those lost by any possible mismanagement/delays at this point.
Assessment decisions should not be based on inside evaluation of individuals with vested interest in the outcome (Bush and the Republican Party). Rather, the assessment needs to be done by an outside, independent agent.
The performance must be assessed against clear, explicit objective criteria (standards). The Department of Homeland Security, in fact, has created such a set of standards under the name of the National Emergency Response Plan (December 2004).
If FEMA and DHS's performance falls short of the standards set forth in its own blueprint, immediate corrective action should be taken.
A key component to any part of any human resource organization (school or national department) are people. Individuals need to be highly qualified to do their job. One of the ways we assess qualifications is education, training and experience.
Are the individuals involved in running FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency HIGHLY QUALIFIED to perform their jobs?
Do they have extensive experience that people in the field would consider appropriate for high-level management of an agency of the last resort?
Have they extensive professional training that demonstrates aptitude in skills, experience and application?
My understanding that the top three people at FEMA would be highly qualified to teach a kindergarten class, let alone head and direct a large national disaster relief organization.
Accountability, Assessment, standards, and qualifications
How can the Bush Administration object to applying these same criteria they feel so important in education to emergency management? We can't give DHS 10 or 12 years to improve their performance. They have had 4 years, and untold dollars that would pay a lot of teachers and buy a lot of classroom supplies and resources.
Where is the accountability and the professionalism that Bush seems so happy to insist upon in other public arenas?
We need to work hard challenging Republicans with their own words, so they CAN'T squiggle out of the hard questions. We need to get people nodding when we talk about what, why and how we want this investigated.