By way of Edspresso, I see that Pittsburgh is dealing with the same issue that St. Louis did not long ago: Its public school district won’t sell a building to a charter school.
I’m optimistic that this will turn out well for Pittsburgh charters. Districts can dig in their heels and try to hold on to real estate, but when enough people prefer charters, political pressure will force districts to give up the empty buildings.
When online schools in Oregon used technology to compete with traditional districts, legislators responded that the virtual schools shouldn’t accept new students until the state can study the matter further. Yet when an Oregon district uses the Internet for crisis management, it’s celebrated as innovative. No one calls for the district to suspend the program and subject it to scrutiny.
In Missouri, the virtual school teaching academic subjects to a couple thousand students is cut from the budget because it’s seen as an unnecessary cost, but the state plans to distribute more than 24,000 vouchers for an online program that teaches people to use Microsoft Excel. The governor explains why:
“I’m proud that the state of Missouri is teaming up with Microsoft to provide cutting-edge, in-demand training that will help our citizens compete in the 21st-century economy,” Gov. Nixon said. “The world has gone digital, and it’s vital that Missourians have the knowledge and skills to land and keep the jobs of tomorrow. For folks seeking a new job, or looking to brush up their skills, Elevate America will be a tremendous resource.”
The Wall Street Journal reports on a bakery that experiences a large increase in demand for pies around Thanksgiving.
Although there is nothing she can do to prevent the occasional customer from scalping her treats in the parking lot — a $12 pie can go for more than $20 — she hopes her extra counter help will keep the line moving briskly.
Imagine how different laws might be if bakers sold their wares in large stadiums, and if entertainers performed on a first-come first-served basis in corner shops.
One of the things I like best about production in a free economy is that consumers don’t have to think about it. If each of us had to pay attention to the details of how all our things are made — where the materials come from, what knowledge is needed to change or combine materials, how they’re transported to us — we wouldn’t have a moment to devote to our own lives. It would take all day to examine the intricate processes behind even the most ordinary household items. A caveman, on the other hand, had to know where his things came from, because he had to procure them all himself. The fact that we don’t think much about the production of the material goods we use is a sign of economic progress.
A Rhodes Scholarship recipient who plans to study food policy disagrees:
“I think the biggest problem with the U.S. food policy is that we don’t think about it,” Barmeier said. “We don’t have a single food policy strategy. We don’t think about how the food system from the farm to the table is all related […]”
It’s no coincidence that he also wants a single policy to direct food production. The alternative to the price system — in which all the relevant information for consumers is captured in a product’s price — is central planning.
We can’t all think deeply about food policy and coordinate our thoughts, so we’d have to designate one person to do the thinking for us. This economic system is vulnerable to the foibles and mistakes of the central planner. And it’s disastrous for individuals, because the planner’s errors are amplified throughout the economy and cause shortages and waiting lists. If an individual, not thinking particularly hard about where food comes from, goes to the store and buys too few pecans for a pie, he can always go back to the store for more. No one else loses out. But if a thoughtful planner underestimates how much food people in general need, everyone goes hungry.
When this student takes a break from writing Farm to School proposals (yes, he’s really done that) I hope he’ll read “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” or maybe “I, Pencil,” for a different perspective.
Tyler Cowen is blogging about a study that found No Child Left Behind to have improved student math scores but not reading scores. Cowen comments:
Math skills are more the result of drill, whereas you have to learn how to love to read and much of that happens within the family, not at school. Math is therefore easier to “teach by central planning,” so to speak.
I do think that children can learn to love reading in school, but I agree with Cowen that skills like reading are not amenable to state control. Math at the K–12 level entails learning a limited number of facts and procedures, in a set order. Although there are different ways to write out the algorithms and explain the concepts, nobody goes very far in trigonometry or calculus without first learning arithmetic and algebra. The government can say, “Teach x, y, and z in math class,” and then give a test to see whether schools complied.
Students’ reading ability does not develop in a linear fashion like math skills. People learn to read by reading widely and building up reading experience over time. There’s no obvious, direct route to a high level of reading comprehension, so it’s harder to legislate improvements in reading skills.
Do U.S. high school students score poorly on math and science tests because of too many commercials and not enough encouragement from Big Bird? If so, a new federal campaign will remedy that. It’s a hodgepodge of initiatives, ranging from science-themed video games in public libraries to commercial-free science television shows. Scientists will volunteer to help teachers, and “Sesame Street” is getting in on the action.
One thing is clear:
“It has nothing to do with the day-to-day teaching,” said Dr. Schneider, who was the commissioner of education statistics at the Department of Education from 2005 to 2008.
None of the new programs would transform science class. Few would affect schools at all, instead giving children opportunities to learn about science through after school activities. Their success would depend on whether anyone wants to participate in these particular initiatives, and whether the science video games teach as much as they’re supposed to. And there’s a disconnect between the programs and the campaign’s stated goals: high schoolers are too old to care about many of the “hooks” (like Big Bird), yet the campaign seeks to improve high school science scores.
Here are some policies that would have a greater effect on science in school:
The trial for the man charged with terrorism because of a conversation he had with a telemarketer was originally scheduled to take place this month, but it’s been postponed until Jan. 4 (search case no. 0922-CR03091-01).
Getting angry on the phone is only one of many behaviors that can prompt suspicion of terrorism. According to the public service announcement embedded in this post by Jim Harper, anyone who asks for directions or writes in a little notepad is a possible terrorist.
I hope the justice system will turn its attention to real threats and dangers, and go easier on the people who lose their cool over phone solicitations. Put them on the Do Not Call list; don’t put them in jail.
This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon.
Determining when business cycles start and end is a tricky call. Recently released GDP data indicated that the economy expanded during the second quarter of this year at a healthy 3.5-percent rate. This is quite a turnaround from the 6.4-percent decline in GDP during the first quarter. And, as expected, optimism in our economy is being restored, even if gingerly. Before all the champagne bottles get uncorked, let’s raise a few cautionary flags.
First, how much of last quarter’s expansion was fueled by one-time gimmicks? GDP is driven by sales. The cash-for-clunkers program, for example, rearranged the timing of car purchases. Purchases that may have occurred over six months were accelerated into the program’s window of opportunity. Without that government-backed program, GDP growth would have been slower than reported.
Second, the government’s subsidization of new home purchases also provided a boost to the recent GDP figure. The housing market appears to have righted itself. But, going forward, the question is whether it has legs. Will there be sustained recovery in housing?
Third, the success of the federal government’s stimulus package is getting partisan scrutiny. Those in the administration and their supporters aver that the government’s open checkbook approach has saved or even created hundreds of thousands of jobs. An analysis conducted by the New York Times, however, suggests that such claims are wide of the mark.
That analysis also indicates that the jobs “saved” are predominantly in the public, not private, sector. As I have written before, this is predictable: Government jobs tend to be more secure than those in the private sector. Why not use stimulus money to protect your own and expand the pro-government electoral base?
These items are not meant to say that government intervention did nothing. Quite the contrary. But it does raise an important question: When the government’s dole ends, will the economy be able to stand on its own two feet?
There are some who argue that it won’t. The Federal Reserve’s policymaking arm, the FOMC, announced earlier this month that it intends to keep short-term interest rates close to zero. This clearly reveals their outlook.
Paul Krugman, the liberal economist and columnist, continually complains that the original $787 billion stimulus package (not counting the bailouts) was insufficient. His solution is the same as many in Congress: Spend more taxpayer money, enlarge government programs and create more dependency on the government’s largess.
What evidence will be brought to bear on the question of whether this expansion is viable? Any slip in the growth of GDP will be taken as a sign to increase government intervention. This is a false premise. Economic recoveries are uneven and unpredictable. Following the bottom of the 1981–82 recession, the economy roared back, growing at nearly an 8-percent rate over the next year. In contrast, in the year following the 1990–91 recession, economic growth limped along with growth rates of less than 2 percent.
Recessions are unique in character, and this one is no different. Real economic growth may be choppy, consumer spending will rise in fits and starts, and the unemployment rate will bump up before it recedes. We must resist the temptation to use such uncertain economic signals to justify increased refutation of the economic system upon which our economic growth has been built.
Further centralizing economic decision-making with the government will have adverse, long-run effects on our productivity and well being. The economic expansion that lasted for most of the 1982–2000 era was not based on increased governmental intervention. Just the opposite. And, if one needs reminding of how well bureaucracies operate, think Fannie and Freddie, FEMA, Sarbanes-Oxley, the SEC and Bernie Madoff, and the state of our educational system, just to name a few.
Rik W. Hafer is distinguished research professor and chair of the Department of Economics and Finance at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and a scholar at the Show-Me Institute.
A small Oregon school district has found a way to gain new students. It’s converted to a charter specializing in natural resources. In the upper grades, the curriculum includes public service experience:
High school students are working with the Forest Service to help clean up campgrounds and do other activities that give them a glimpse of what working for the federal agency might be like.
I hope these kids don’t get in trouble with any unions, like the Boy Scout in Pennsylvania who cleared a walkway in a park. In that case, a union protested that only government employees were allowed to work in the parks — no volunteers. (The union president resigned soon afterward.)
