School Monopoly Culture Wars

January 22, 2014

psychic-octopus-culture-war

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Neal McCluskey of Cato has long been a champion of one of my nearest and dearest reasons for favoring school choice: it defuses the culture war. When families with diverse beliefs are all (effectively) forced to send their children to the same schools, it creates a lot of unnecessary conflict.

Today, Neal announces that Cato has released a pretty cool web feature – an interactive national map of public school conflicts over religion, sexual ethics, free speech, and other cultural issues. You can search by state, by large districts (Chicago has six ongoing conflicts, New York City seventeen, Milwaukee four) by type of conflict, or by keyword. I randomly typed in the keyword “balloon” and found the case of a teacher who wasn’t allowed to do a class project on treatment of homosexuality, and held a “funeral” for his project, at which he asked his students to write their feelings down on helium balloons.

Don’t click the link if you want to get work done this afternoon. Kudos to Cato!

4 Comments | civic values | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Who’s “We,” Fordham-Sabe?

January 20, 2014

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Before he had a sitcom, Bill Cosby used to have a series of Lone Ranger jokes in one of his old stand-up acts. In one part of the routine, the Ranger tells Tonto something like, “They outnumber us ten to one, so we’re going to ride down the hill full speed, we’re going to cut across right through their sights, then we’re going to engage them hand to hand. Any questions?”

“Just one, Kemo Sabe.”

“What’s that?”

“Who’s ‘we,’ Kemo Sabe?”

That’s also the right answer to Fordham’s insistence that choice students must take state tests because, as Jay summarizes it, “we’ve got to do something!” That’s an accurate summary of the presupposition coming out of Fordham – you aren’t in favor of reform unless you think that you are the one to dictate what a good education looks like.

Yes, “we” have to do something to invent better ways of educating students. But who’s “we”? Having government standards to measure the government’s school system can be good, even if Common Core is not. However, even when government standards are good, and even when they’re applied only to the government system, they are not the way to reinvent education, because government – by its very nature – is not well designed to 1) innovate effectively, 2) persuade people that the innovations are effective, or 3) build institutions where the institutional culture accepts the innovations as good.

What government does do well is to create the structures of social transaction within which effective innovators and entrepreneurs can operate. The key strategy for education reform should not be to devise the innovations we need but to create structures that enable innovators and entrepreneurs to do so. The more we get caught up in devising the innovations ourselves, the further we move away from creating the conditions necessary for those who really can devise the innovations to do so.

Choice programs today are very poorly designed to support entrepreneurs. They ought to provide universal choice, a generous allotment of funds (though less than what we spend on the behemoth of government schooling) and freedom to innovate with minimal interference. Entrepreneurs need three things to succeed: clients, capital and control. You need a customer base of people who want your service because it makes their lives better. You need those customers to be willing and able to pay you; that’s what sustains the organization that delivers the service. And you need to be free to provide the service according to your own entrepreneurial vision and the needs of your clients, not according to standards devised by politicians and bureaucrats.

See the study I did for Friedman on The Greenfield School Revolution and School Choice for much, much more, including data on the impact choice programs are having (or, more frequently, are not having) on the composition of the private school sector.

Leave a Comment » | National Standards, tax-credit scholarships, vouchers | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

“A Sturdy Portion of the Public Is Not”

January 16, 2014

octopus

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

George Will certainly knows how to turn a phrase:

The rise of opposition to the Common Core illustrates three healthy aspects of today’s politics. First, new communication skills and technologies enable energized minorities to force new topics onto the political agenda. Second, this uprising of local communities against state capitals, the nation’s capital and various muscular organizations demonstrates that although the public agenda is malleable, a sturdy portion of the public is not.

Third, political dishonesty has swift, radiating and condign consequences. Opposition to the Common Core is surging because Washington, hoping to mollify opponents, is saying, in effect: “If you like your local control of education, you can keep it. Period.” To which a burgeoning movement is responding: “No. Period.”

Hey, that last part is pretty clever. I wonder where he got it. Hmmmm . . . must have been from Jason! 🙂

19 Comments | National Standards | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

It’s Not Just Government, It’s Schools, Too

January 15, 2014

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Responding to Fordham’s latest straddle, here on JPGB Matt has pointed out that we shouldn’t trust the job of judging school quality to government, and no one knows this better than Fordham (some of the time, anyway). At Cato, Andrew Coulson and Jason Bedrick point out that the existence of school choice programs inevitably crowds out non-choice-participating private schools, so if choice programs become engines of uniformity, we can kiss educational entrepreneurship and innovation goodbye. First Fordham demands state tests must bow to Common Core, then it demands private schools must bow to state tests, all the while insisting Common Core both is and is not a powerful tool for reshaping curriculum!

At the Friedman Foundation’s blog, Robert Enlow points out that Fordham is also playing both sides of the fence on whether the tests will have to be given only to choice students or to all students in the school:

Fordham even implicitly shows how its testing approach will eventually impact non-voucher private school students: “[i]f a private school’s voucher students perform in the two lowest categories of a state’s accountability system for two consecutive years, then that school should be declared ineligible to receive new voucher students until it moves to a higher tier of performance (emphasis added).”

If a private school accepting voucher students loses those students because of their low performance on state tests, how can it rejoin a school choice program without forcing all of its students to take, and perform well, on the state test?

Here’s another issue that I haven’t seen raised yet. Fordham backs up its position by pointing to the results of a survey of private schools that don’t participate in choice programs. State testing requirements came in seventh on the list of reasons why they don’t participate; demand for universal eligibility and higher choice payments were the top answers.

Once again, Fordham is operating out of a top-down, anti-entrepreneurial mindset. Existing private schools are not the voice of entrepreneurial innovation. They are the rump left behind by the crowding out of a real private school marketplace; they are niche providers who have found a way to make a cozy go of it in the nooks and crannies left behind by the state monopoly. They are protecting their turf against innovators just as much as the state monopoly.

Milton once used the analogy of hot dog vendors. If you put a “free” government hot dog vendor on every street corner, the real hot dog vendors will all vanish. The same has happened to private schools. If we extend the analogy, we could say that a few hot dog vendors might survive by catering to niche markets – maybe the government hot dog stands can’t sell kosher hot dogs because that would be entanglement with religion. But the niche vendors would not be representative of all that is possible in the field of hot dog vending.

And the private schools that don’t participate in choice programs are probably the least entrepreneurial. Notice, for example, that their top complaint is that choice isn’t universal. Why would that prevent them from participating in choice programs? Wouldn’t they want to reach out and serve the kids they can serve, even as they advocate for expansion of the programs to serve others? The private schools participating in choice programs are doing so; they may not be paragons of entrepreneurship, but they are at least entrepreneurial enough to want to help as many kids as they can. The demand for bigger choice payments is also not a sign of hungry innovation on their part (even if the choice payments are paltry in may places).

Basically the attitude revealed by the Fordham survey of non-choice-participating private schools is “we want choice, but only if it doesn’t require us to change.” Funny thing; the public monopoly blob gives us pretty much the same line.

5 Comments | National Standards, tax-credit scholarships, vouchers | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Q: Vouchers or Smaller Classes? A: Yes!

January 10, 2014

False dichotomies

As usual, Little Ramona just can’t stop herself from pulling the trigger before taking the gun out of the holster.

With tremendous glee, she points out that a Friedman Foundation survey finds that more people respond positively to “smaller classes” than to vouchers. But as Friedman had already posted on their blog, there’s nothing surprising about that – “smaller classes” is an outcome everyone wants. On its face, the question whether you want smaller classes doesn’t involve any hard questions about costs or tradeoffs, nor the deeper question of who controls the decisions that determine what tradeoffs we make – parents or politicians.

My colleagues at Friedman are gently attempting to bring Little Ramona up to speed on logic 101. Prospects are not good. Meanwhile, this just in – water still flows downhill, bears still befoul the woods, and the pope is still Catholic. (Well . . . he is on his good days).

An additional point: while Little Ramona leaps to the conclusion that affirming small classes somehow implies a repudiation of vouchers, in fact the only realistic way to shrink classes would be a well-designed universal school choice plan that supports entrepreneurs with new school models. Small classes cost tons of money that we don’t have right now; school choice is by far the best-proven way to improve the cost-efficiency of education; a universal choice plan aimed at supporting educational entrepreneurs should be expected not only to deliver better academic results but to do so by destroying the huge inefficiencies created by Little Ramona’s newfound friends in the unions, thus freeing up resources to give parents what they want . . . like smaller classes.

4 Comments | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Can Mike Petrilli Get a “Hell Yeah”?

November 15, 2013

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Mike is now auditioning to be the Stone Cold Steve Austin of education reform; since the Mr. T slot is already taken by George Clowes, I suppose that’s not a bad move. I’ll leave it to others to explain to Mike that there are other positions besides favoring no change and favoring centrally controlled change (backfill on that here and here, for starters). What I want to stress is that I am the sole author of “if you like your curriculum, you can keep your curriculum,” and Jason Bedrick can have it when he pries it from my cold, dead fingers.

2 Comments | National Standards | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

“You shall not deny the Blogger.”

November 8, 2013

Strongbad using technology

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

T.S. Eliot and I would like to welcome a new blog, launched by my colleagues at the Friedman Foundation. They’ve decided to start out with something relatively simple and uncontroversial: the foundation’s stance on Common Core. Robert “The Barbarian” Enlow lays it out:

School choice is a far more effective way to improve educational outcomes than centralized standards imposed from above. A main concern with Common Core is that it could restrict entrepreneurship in education, so that parents will have fewer and less diverse choices. By contrast, universal school choice can provide a more vibrant system of schooling so that parents will have numerous and more varied high-quality options.

Check the blog next Wednesday for Friedman’s new report on how private schools use standardized tests in response to parental demand: “More Than Scores: An Analysis of Why and How Parents Choose Private Schools.” As Robert comments:

Do we need to ensure our children are competitive in a global economy? Definitely. Do we need to test our children to help parents understand their proficiency and growth? Most parents think so, and that’s why virtually all private schools use privately developed, voluntary standardized tests.

And keep your eyes on the blog for regular updates on the latest data, developments and derring-do. Embarrassing childhood photos are a free bonus.

Leave a Comment » | blogging, National Standards, tax-credit scholarships, vouchers | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Common Core’s Finland Du Jour, or, Who Asked the Bishops?

October 21, 2013

image

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

As long as we’re talking about the “Finalnd Du Jour” problem, Eric (or possibly Erik?) Hanushek has a good little piece in U.S. News arguing against Common Core, pointing out (among other arguments) that it’s being widely defended using FDJ thinking: “Proponents of national standards point to Massachusetts: strong standards and top results. But California, a second state noted for its high learning standards, balances Massachusetts: strong standards and bottom results.” Hanushek’s piece emphasizes how little a difference standards usually make to education: “Just setting a different goal – even if backed by intensive professional development, new textbooks, etc. – has not historically had much influence as we look across state outcomes.”

Meanwhile, in Crisis magazine, Anne Hendershott notes the widespread upending of curricula in Catholic schools being undertaken in the name of CC and asks, when did Catholic superintendents get the authority to make these far-reaching changes without consulting the bishops? So far there’s no reason to think CC will be any more effective at improving education than the Obamacare exchanges are at getting people enrolled in subsidized heath plans, but it would appear CC has been very effective in undermining religious liberty. Or what else do you call it when church-affiliated schools are more responsive to federal diktats than to their own clergy?

1 Comment | National Standards | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

For the Al: Kickstarter

October 15, 2013

TESLA_frame

(Guest Post by Greg Forster)

Access to capital is essential for entrepreneurs. It doesn’t matter how good an idea you have, you can’t get it off the ground if people don’t fund it. Of course that means you have to convince investors, but persuasion is not the only variable. Legal, regulatory and financial systems have to exist that make it possible for people to invest.

On that front, things have been moving in the wrong direction for a while now. It’s harder and harder for an entrepreneur with a good idea to raise funding, because the systems are more and more choked up by regulations, exposure to frivolous litigation, and other barriers to entry.

In the spirit of one of my all-time favorite Al nominees, Herbert Dow, my nominee has found a clever way to exploit a loophole in the system and drive millions of dollars’ worth of entrepreneurial activity through it. In this particular case, the loophole is simple yet ingenious: “investment” is just about totally free if you don’t get equity in return. In four years, Kickstarter has moved $828 million from five million investors to 50,000 entrepreneurial projects.

All you have to do is call it “art.” Sure, there’s lots of legitimate art on KS – you can fund a dance performance, a film project, even a painting. But you can also fund the manufacture of ordinary products, as long as they’re just a tiny bit innovative or aesthetically pleasing. KS is drowning in desk accessories, bike accessories, clothing, you name it. There are tons of video games being made on KS, including some of the biggest creators in the business. Hobby board games are having a huge renaissance on KS – people are funding an amazing variety of new titles. Princess Bride fans should check out this officially licensed Princess Bride party game based on Indigo Montoya’s famous “you killed my father – prepare to die!” line. It’s basically an extremely clever adaptation of Apples to Apples.

But why would you want to invest in something if you don’t get equity? All kinds of reasons, actually. People aren’t motivated only by money. They have all kinds of reasons to want to see a product brought to market. I invested in Zack Braff’s new movie because I think it will be a force for cultural renewal. Other people invest in their friends’ projects or in art that they want to see produced because they enjoy it.

That having been said, most KS projects provide tangible rewards for backers. You can’t get your money back, but you can get an ROI in the form of a product. A lot of the stuff on KS is clearly just an alternative way of selling products – you pay in so much to help them manufacture widgets, and you get a widget as a reward. And if it’s not the kind of project that produces a tangible product, you can still get branded items or other swag that you might easily value at more than the cost of your investment (I’m getting a T-shirt from the Braff movie).

Take a look at UnderRepped Tees, which is using KS to fund the design and manufacture of t-shirts depicting “the forgotten people behind great ideas.” Somebody hire them to make a shirt of Al Copeland! Better yet, we could start a KS of our own and get all the JPGB readers who like The Al to kick in a few bucks to make them. Kick in enough, you get a shirt.

There are two things I really like about KS. One is that it cuts out a lot of useless middlemen who get in the way of entrepreneurs. The gatekeepers to mainstream investment can keep out anything that threatens the status quo too much. This has a particularly bad effect on cultural products like movies – the investors want to know they’ll get their money back, so every movie is now a carbon copy of every other movie. With KS, creators with unique visions can retain total control and get funded, if they can persuade people like me that it’s worth their investment.

The other thing I like about KS is that it runs on trust. In theory you can sue the people you invest in if they don’t deliver, but in practice that’s very difficult. Good! That means people have to decide whom they trust – they have the freedom to trust each other. People can prove they’re trustworthy, which they can only do if there’s no safety net. And reputations will matter.

Why give an entrepreneur The Al when we can give it to people who empower entrepreneurs?

8 Comments | Al Copeland Humanitarian Award | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Common Core Made J.D. Tuccille’s Son Cry

October 3, 2013

image

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Do. Not. Miss. This awesome article over at Reason on how Common Core is already destroying options for parents.

My son’s charter school focuses on rigorous academics. Even so, as third grade kicked in this year, so did a lot of tears during homework time. Tony’s teacher explained to us that the kids are having a rough time, especially with math, because they didn’t just jump up to third-grade lessons and expectations as usual, but are now expected to meet Common Core standards. We may have picked a charter, but it’s publicly funded, and so the new standards apply.

Don’t agree with the CC PLDDs about what kids should learn and when? TFB.

“Pre-algebra?” my wife, a pediatrician who deals with children and tracks their physical and mental growth every single day, asked. “I’m not sure third-graders are developmentally ready for this. Their brains may not be able to handle it yet.”

But ready or not, my son is held to those tear-inducing standards—the identical standards that bind his friends at the International Baccalaureate school, and the Montessori charters in town, and the district schools, and the Waldorf charter down the road. Forget educational emphases, or philosophical differences over the pace at which different children should learn. The benchmarks will be met, or else.

Private schools are under the gun to conform as well, because the college entrance exams are strutting around bragging that they’re mega-super-CC-aligned and are going to become even more so.

CC is doing for school choice what Henry Ford did for automobile color choice.

5 Comments | charter schools, National Standards | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »