To my favorite (and only) commenter:
These were your questions (I have numbered them as to clarify my answer):
"1. How do you make sure education of our children does not become twisted and poisoned by business the way many businesses have become today?
2. What protection measures will be placed so that education will stay competitive for the ones in school, and will not fall away when the company finds itself going under from other sources of competition?
3. If the government is going to be "inspecting" these businesses, who checks the government on where the money goes for these schools?
4. If it is to become affordable, how will it remain within reach of low income families if when you have business competition prices will ultimately increase? "
In response:
1. The idea that competition always and necessarily promotes better quality and more efficient production/service, is certainly not a new one. Adam Smith said it first, and brilliantly so in his prolific Wealth of Nations. To expand on this idea, think of the largest retailer, currently, in the world - Walmart. How did it become so successful? By revolutionizing the method of retail inventory, accepting nothing less than the lowest cost from its suppliers, and perfecting the art of store location with respect to local demographics, Walmart has quickly become THE store to be reckoned with. If we apply this same idea to EMOs, we can see that if parents were given a choice, were made to be consumers of their childrens' educations, the academic suppliers would have to become more efficient (e.g. reduce administrative costs), and provide a superior education to succeed.
2. If you think of the cell phone industry - say you use AT&T cell phone service. If you experience terrible customer service, poor cell reception, high rates and frequent dropped calls, what would you do? Change services. And if enough people find themselves in similar situations the company will almost certainly go under. And then what happens to the people still using the service? Well in most industries, one of two things would happen: 1) The failing company would hire an outside consulting firm to save it through restructuring; or 2) Another more successful company (say, Cingular) will buy the failing company and merge the services. If we apply these ideas to EMOs, the same would hold true. I must note here that the most unfortunate aspect of the idea of "corporate" schools is that if one company is successful that must mean, by definition, that another is not. But is that situation any worse for the students, as compared to the current system? I submit that it is not. What happens to children stuck in public schools that are failing (e.g. in Mississippi)? Is there any hope for a merger? a buyout? a consulting firm?
3. This question is at once both devastating and simple. The answer is so plain, so concrete, yet so often forgotten: You. Me. Everyone who votes. WE are responsible for being Big Brother's big brother. The legislative process is in place for OUR protection, not to safeguard the rights of corporations. If an EMO has violated its contract with a student/family (to provide a safe, effective and comprehensive education, for instance) then the family has options to right that wrong: namely, the court system. The EMO has violated a contract and is therefore responsible for whatever consequences may be stated in said contract. What options does a single black mother whose children are consistently being let down at school by their teachers, principals, school board, etc., have? Where does she turn?
4. Firstly let me say that by its very nature, competition drives prices DOWN, not UP. Again, look at Walmart - why are they so successful? Because everything is CHEAP. Another point to be made about Walmart is that, for the most part, it is exactly the same despite the surrounding demographics. The richest family in the richest neighborhood pays $1.29 for a jar of pickles, and so does the family that lives 5 blocks down in government housing. This idea is the same with education.
What I feel it is most important to realize is that privatization of all education is not a perfect answer, but one that is vastly better than what is now offered. We have given public education a chance, and a lengthy one at that, and it is clearly failing many of our children. Is there a system that could do worse? The answer is frighteningly simple.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
How much less can we do?
“There is enormous room for improvement in our educational system. Hardly any activity in the United States is more backward. We essentially teach children in the same way that we did 200 years ago: one teacher in front of a bunch of kids in a closed room…I believe that the only way to make [this] improvement is through privatization to the point at which a substantial fraction of educational services is rendered to individuals by private enterprises. Nothing else will destroy or even substantially weaken the power of the current educational establishment – a necessary condition for radical improvement in our educational system. And nothing else will provide public schools with the competition that will force them to improve in order to hold clientele.”
Milton Friedman
Because it is not enough that our children can say their ABCs or even that they know the correct placement of the semicolon, a permanent revolution in our educational system is desperately needed. In past presidential administrations higher standards, tougher testing processes, and budget increases have been implemented to combat the repeating failures of the current public schools. But these efforts – however well-intentioned – are too lean in their scope. With the Bush administration’s “No Child Left Behind” policy regarding education and opportunity which specifically focuses on the nation’s children and renders stricter enforcement of current regulations as well as tougher standards, it seems that we are taking steps in the right direction but it is not enough. All of these tactics have been tried over and over, year after year, across party lines and always with the same result: instead of seeing more children pass tougher tests, we see tougher tests implemented that only result in across-the-board increases in failure rates. Furthermore, the budget allowance increases allotted have, for the most part, been floundered in astronomically rising administrative costs. In addition, the moneys that actually have reached the classroom are disproportionately distributed. And success, it seems, follows money.
The only solution that would provide a comprehensive enough overhaul is that of privatization. There is a stigma that has come to be associated with “private” schools; it stems from a history of elitist, faith-based school that are racially disproportionate and admission to which is unobtainable by 95% of the general population. These schools, while generally providing a better education than their public counterparts, do not accurately represent the private school systems proposed herein.
The process of privatization is achieved by merging the all-inclusive aspect of government with the cost-effective, goal-orientated tactics of big business. Simply, the management of schools is passed over to private companies that handle all administrative functions as well as the distribution of funds.
The funding would essentially remain the same with the majority of all moneys coming from the government and originating from taxes delegated for education. The pre-set standards currently in place would remain and the only role of the government would be that of a kind of inspector to ensure that requirements were being met. In theory, it would operate much the same as a restaurant with regular health code inspections.
This, however, is the desired end result. The most feasible way to realize these goals is to first propose an appropriate and effective voucher system which would allow parents to choose the education they deem best for their children. This theory originated out the neoconservative movement of the 1950s led by Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist. His proposal stipulated that the government would give money in the form of a voucher to families opting not to send their children to public school to help defer the costs of private education. While there are many points of opposition to this theory the most widely voiced submits that the vouchers given would not be enough to fully pay for the majority of private schools’ tuition, thereby further widening the socioeconomic stratification already present. Though many attempts have been made to enact an educational voucher system, they have all been, for the most part, unsuccessful do to extensive disapproval by various teachers’ unions and the American Federation of Teachers which holds significant political power.
The only other viable next step to privatization, and one that has been put to test in school districts in several states, is the implementation of charter school systems. Charter schools are the most widely accepted form of privatization because they accept all students without entrance exams or tuition costs. Charter schools, in theory, are run by private, either for-profit or not-for-profit educational management organizations (EMOs) that aim to reduce administrative costs of currently publicly run schools in order to generate revenue. However, the largest for-profit EMO Edison Schools Inc., has yet to actually turn a profit. The first large scale trial of the charter system began in November of 2001 in Philadelphia when Edison Schools Inc. took over the management of two-thirds of the district’s 264 schools. Though the results of this trial are, to date, largely inconclusive and opponents criticize Edison’s methods and testing procedures.
The emergence of EMOs has raised several valid questions. One such question, and perhaps the most widely asked, is whether taxpayers’ dollars should be used to generate a profit for private shareholders. This is easily put to rest if thought out carefully: If a for-profit EMO is able to generate revenues’ using taxpayers’ money, then clearly they have executed their objective – they have increased efficiency enough to lower costs thereby creating a profit for themselves.
Regardless of the apprehensiveness of the opponents of any for-profit company dipping their fingers into education, the fact remains that through competition the companies would be required to lower costs and maximize efficiency or be put out of business. This competition would necessarily benefit the consumers who in this case are the students and their families.
Milton Friedman
Because it is not enough that our children can say their ABCs or even that they know the correct placement of the semicolon, a permanent revolution in our educational system is desperately needed. In past presidential administrations higher standards, tougher testing processes, and budget increases have been implemented to combat the repeating failures of the current public schools. But these efforts – however well-intentioned – are too lean in their scope. With the Bush administration’s “No Child Left Behind” policy regarding education and opportunity which specifically focuses on the nation’s children and renders stricter enforcement of current regulations as well as tougher standards, it seems that we are taking steps in the right direction but it is not enough. All of these tactics have been tried over and over, year after year, across party lines and always with the same result: instead of seeing more children pass tougher tests, we see tougher tests implemented that only result in across-the-board increases in failure rates. Furthermore, the budget allowance increases allotted have, for the most part, been floundered in astronomically rising administrative costs. In addition, the moneys that actually have reached the classroom are disproportionately distributed. And success, it seems, follows money.
The only solution that would provide a comprehensive enough overhaul is that of privatization. There is a stigma that has come to be associated with “private” schools; it stems from a history of elitist, faith-based school that are racially disproportionate and admission to which is unobtainable by 95% of the general population. These schools, while generally providing a better education than their public counterparts, do not accurately represent the private school systems proposed herein.
The process of privatization is achieved by merging the all-inclusive aspect of government with the cost-effective, goal-orientated tactics of big business. Simply, the management of schools is passed over to private companies that handle all administrative functions as well as the distribution of funds.
The funding would essentially remain the same with the majority of all moneys coming from the government and originating from taxes delegated for education. The pre-set standards currently in place would remain and the only role of the government would be that of a kind of inspector to ensure that requirements were being met. In theory, it would operate much the same as a restaurant with regular health code inspections.
This, however, is the desired end result. The most feasible way to realize these goals is to first propose an appropriate and effective voucher system which would allow parents to choose the education they deem best for their children. This theory originated out the neoconservative movement of the 1950s led by Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist. His proposal stipulated that the government would give money in the form of a voucher to families opting not to send their children to public school to help defer the costs of private education. While there are many points of opposition to this theory the most widely voiced submits that the vouchers given would not be enough to fully pay for the majority of private schools’ tuition, thereby further widening the socioeconomic stratification already present. Though many attempts have been made to enact an educational voucher system, they have all been, for the most part, unsuccessful do to extensive disapproval by various teachers’ unions and the American Federation of Teachers which holds significant political power.
The only other viable next step to privatization, and one that has been put to test in school districts in several states, is the implementation of charter school systems. Charter schools are the most widely accepted form of privatization because they accept all students without entrance exams or tuition costs. Charter schools, in theory, are run by private, either for-profit or not-for-profit educational management organizations (EMOs) that aim to reduce administrative costs of currently publicly run schools in order to generate revenue. However, the largest for-profit EMO Edison Schools Inc., has yet to actually turn a profit. The first large scale trial of the charter system began in November of 2001 in Philadelphia when Edison Schools Inc. took over the management of two-thirds of the district’s 264 schools. Though the results of this trial are, to date, largely inconclusive and opponents criticize Edison’s methods and testing procedures.
The emergence of EMOs has raised several valid questions. One such question, and perhaps the most widely asked, is whether taxpayers’ dollars should be used to generate a profit for private shareholders. This is easily put to rest if thought out carefully: If a for-profit EMO is able to generate revenues’ using taxpayers’ money, then clearly they have executed their objective – they have increased efficiency enough to lower costs thereby creating a profit for themselves.
Regardless of the apprehensiveness of the opponents of any for-profit company dipping their fingers into education, the fact remains that through competition the companies would be required to lower costs and maximize efficiency or be put out of business. This competition would necessarily benefit the consumers who in this case are the students and their families.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Until the Sun Disappears
We have desecrated even this twilight - we have emptied the moon of
its light so that we might blind ourselves.
When the hero stood at the door we shrouded his face, pulled his heart from
his chest and sank bullets in his head until the saving ideas were drowned by screams.
We raped the land and poured blood on the trees because we thought that
would make them strong - we have killed the tallest, the best, the most beautiful hearts of men.
WE have strangled the hope from the streets, from the voices of children, with green paper
shoved down their throats. When they vomit it smells like oil.
We pack them in, identity and eyes, until they appear to be one contiguous color - one big
brown face. We have forgotten the soil of their eyes, fertilized with their blood, lies beneath
the plastic world we have created.
Industry grew from the broken steel like the phoenix of our dreams - we provided
Icarus with wings of rubber tested at 2000 degrees. We knew the sun burned hotter.
WE flung him into the sky anyway. When his charred body dropped like a stone
we covered our eyes and called it a firework.
We will die at the hands of the man and woman and child next to us.
WE have condemned the world to a life as bloody as ours.
its light so that we might blind ourselves.
When the hero stood at the door we shrouded his face, pulled his heart from
his chest and sank bullets in his head until the saving ideas were drowned by screams.
We raped the land and poured blood on the trees because we thought that
would make them strong - we have killed the tallest, the best, the most beautiful hearts of men.
WE have strangled the hope from the streets, from the voices of children, with green paper
shoved down their throats. When they vomit it smells like oil.
We pack them in, identity and eyes, until they appear to be one contiguous color - one big
brown face. We have forgotten the soil of their eyes, fertilized with their blood, lies beneath
the plastic world we have created.
Industry grew from the broken steel like the phoenix of our dreams - we provided
Icarus with wings of rubber tested at 2000 degrees. We knew the sun burned hotter.
WE flung him into the sky anyway. When his charred body dropped like a stone
we covered our eyes and called it a firework.
We will die at the hands of the man and woman and child next to us.
WE have condemned the world to a life as bloody as ours.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
My Life on the Elevens
If the world is the same as it always was -
and everything has already happened:
If everything that has happened at least once has happened on an eleven:
Then eleven is the anniversary of the beginning of time
and
If the world was split there would be eleven seams - that is five cuts
and one half cut
and
If I lived in a house with eleven rooms that were each
eleven by eleven and it also had
eleven hallways that were each
eleven by one
the sq. feet
of my house would be
one-four-five-two
not including the thickness of the walls
because they are without time -
so none of the events of the world have happened on them
which makes them equal to
zero
and
If every clock has one
eleven and two hands then every
one day those
two hands will touch that one
eleven twenty-six times
in total.
This is my time.
and everything has already happened:
If everything that has happened at least once has happened on an eleven:
Then eleven is the anniversary of the beginning of time
and
If the world was split there would be eleven seams - that is five cuts
and one half cut
and
If I lived in a house with eleven rooms that were each
eleven by eleven and it also had
eleven hallways that were each
eleven by one
the sq. feet
of my house would be
one-four-five-two
not including the thickness of the walls
because they are without time -
so none of the events of the world have happened on them
which makes them equal to
zero
and
If every clock has one
eleven and two hands then every
one day those
two hands will touch that one
eleven twenty-six times
in total.
This is my time.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Who has the monopoly on truth?
Lately I have been curious about the increasing ambiguity of truth. It seems that the more we discover, probe and theorize, the less we are willing to quantify and make objective statements.
Sure there are those questions which have never (and can seemingly never be) answered: Is there a god - big or little g?
There are questions which seem teasingly within our intellectual grasp: Is organized religion, ultimately, harmful to humanity in our increasingly global community?
And, then those which seem fairly certain, if not absolute: What is the best form of government? Does the possiblity of life on other planets exist?
What I seek to do is find connections between these categories. Like buidling blocks of truth, using what we know to uncover what we think we know, or what we simply don't know, is the most obvious (useful) method. However this technique has been curiously absent from the encompassing world of religion.
Certainly, I am only one of many who have had this thought - how can seemingly logical, rational throngs of people who label themselves believers continue to convince themselves of the existence of a personal god? What are the rational ramifications - how much must they ignore in order to sustain this belief? Are personal faith and rationalism mutually exclusive?
Feedback always welcome.
Sure there are those questions which have never (and can seemingly never be) answered: Is there a god - big or little g?
There are questions which seem teasingly within our intellectual grasp: Is organized religion, ultimately, harmful to humanity in our increasingly global community?
And, then those which seem fairly certain, if not absolute: What is the best form of government? Does the possiblity of life on other planets exist?
What I seek to do is find connections between these categories. Like buidling blocks of truth, using what we know to uncover what we think we know, or what we simply don't know, is the most obvious (useful) method. However this technique has been curiously absent from the encompassing world of religion.
Certainly, I am only one of many who have had this thought - how can seemingly logical, rational throngs of people who label themselves believers continue to convince themselves of the existence of a personal god? What are the rational ramifications - how much must they ignore in order to sustain this belief? Are personal faith and rationalism mutually exclusive?
Feedback always welcome.
The Things I Should Like To Say
"When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." Nietzsche
Though, admittedly, there will be no readers to this floating forum - there are ideas I wish to send out into the abyss. This will most likely include politics, religion, and the odd bit of poetry.
Please enjoy, my teeming masses.
Though, admittedly, there will be no readers to this floating forum - there are ideas I wish to send out into the abyss. This will most likely include politics, religion, and the odd bit of poetry.
Please enjoy, my teeming masses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)