The public has been brainwashed into thinking that voting for more money in a fucked up education system will somehow, magically, unfuck it.
School boards and administrators are politicians and operate in much the same way as the ones in the state assembly and in DC. They're wined & dined by organizations desperate to suck on the enormous teat of the taxpayers. Teachers are organized into packs whose mission is to benefit teachers, and in no way concern themselves with higher learning or figuring out a better way to impart wisdom for our future.
How can that model ever be anything but massively dysfunctional and corrupt?
I'm tired of hearing the big education thinkers using terms like "at grade level" when there's absolutely no evidence showing kids learn better while in lock-step with peers of the differing intellect. A child learns based on his or her own cognitive abilities and the learning resources available and it's intuitive that no two kids are alike. Therefore assigning a rigid grade level to a child is completely arbitrary.
The starve-or-struggle grade-level system insures no kid will learn on pace with his or her cognitive ability. One child will always complete a module early and find himself board, while another will always struggle to keep pace with the class and eventually give up. It makes no sense to try to force their instruction into the arbitrary constructs we have built and selected for them.
On the other hand, systems like Khan Academy [www.khanacademy.org] can facilitate learning at one's own pace. That's a conversation this country should have sooner rather than later.
Part of the problem is thinking in terms of centralized instruction (and food prep and authority) as opposed to more evenly and accessible distributed systems throughout the community. Distributed models in all domains inherently have less bureaucracy and tyranny, and therefore offer more individual accountability resulting in less waste and corruption. This is a topic that deserves note here, but far more discussion in public forums.
A major factor is that teachers are unavoidably flawed. They're notoriously inconsistent from day to day, year to year and among classrooms across the nation. That means there are no consistent quality standards to ensure all kids have access to the country's best possible instruction -- but they definitely deserve it.
As a community and as a state and as a nation we should be able to objectively and openly produce the best of the best instructional materials and presentations and lectures and put them to work for the students.
And another not-so-impermanent thing: information is free. Why are we wasting so much money on that which is free? In any other domain we'd be appalled by how much information is locked behind paywalls which are put in place for the sole purpose of revenue generation on the backs of the people.
It's hard to define what education is today. It's part political, part institution, part incarceration, part indoctrination and part corporation. Kids learn better how to be reliant on and subservient to the totalitarian class instead of discovering how to be free-minded explorers.
One day not that long ago we had an educational system that was at its core a means to provide kids with a schoolhouse and the best information available, and that resulted in world class thinkers and doers of the industrial age. They were not institutions and their purpose was not to generate revenue or political power, but simply to help kids develop into contributing, productive members of the community and go out in the world as free people and invent and build new things and enrich the lives of our neighbors.
Today, instead of giving the children the smartest mind in town, a world class education could mean giving them the smartest minds in the world from which to develop their new found wisdom and places in our collective society, to invent and build new things to improve the lives of our neighbors.
So before you vote one more time to throw more money at an educational system in hopes that will finally unfuck it, put to the schoolmasters how they intend to leverage a modern infrastructure and a bounty of information into a world class education for all children.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Raising the Minimum Wage is a good start
The quick serve franchise model in this country is one of the problems. They are the bottom feeders in our society; parasites by any definition. They produce nothing, but permeate our thoroughfares to suckle the teats of neighborhoods. The brand names tend to squeeze regional operators to leverage profits from the fruits of their uber-low-wage workforce. There is so little profit margin for operators that it’s not feasible to own just one McDonald's restaurant, nor is it in their revenue interests to pay a living wage. Not to mention the fact that they sell notoriously unhealthy meals.
States and communities should begin putting their collective legislative feet down and facilitating some local requirements on absentee parasite corporations that tend to hurt communities as opposed to acting as responsible corporate citizens. There could be local ownership requirements in addition to an objective measurement of economic and commercial impact; the ratio of what a restaurant brings to a community versus what it removes. The ratio of revenue versus wages & taxes, for example.
But that's not the most fundamental issue in this society.
Let’s be clear. The so-called Republicans who purport to identify with conservatism are advancing policies that help corporate interests amass or export the wealth of this country, leaving the rest of us with fewer greenbacks – of diminishing value – after ever-expanding payroll deductions and expenses are withheld.
The idea that low wages are caused by unemployment, as Heritage Foundation’s Chief Economist Steve Moore recently claimed, is the wrong assessment. Unemployment might give corporations a better negotiating position, leading to lower salaries, but it hurts them in the end when domestic markets can’t afford to buy whatever it is they’re selling. This is of course partly helped by the flood of currency being created out of thin air in hopes some of it will land in consumers’ pockets (but oddly never does as promised).
Moore's right about one thing: we need dialogue on job growth policies. But the only rational, effective job growth policy is to adjust wages with inflation, not only because it respects the workforce – without which there is no business – but because it's ultimately better for the economy because it puts more buying dollars in the marketplace.
The reason people won’t or can’t pay the extra buck for a sandwich at a minimum-wage eatery, whose pay suddenly becomes $10.10 an hour, is because the office workers haven’t received a cost-of-living or merit increase for the last six years. It's the office workers who are getting pinched, but when they complain about how expensive the food is at the lunch counter or grocery store, they should rightly direct their anger at their employers for stagnating wages instead of parroting the lies being fed to them by corporate-run media outlets who want you to think that equitable wages leads to job loss.
It’s fundamental that poverty creates no demand, and that’s the real harm to our economy; when people aren't paid equitably for the fruits of their labor, they buy cheaper and fewer products and services. It’s intuitive that when wages contract, consumer demand contracts.
Corporations don’t add jobs when they’re handed a few tax breaks and other subsidies. They add jobs when demand increases; when the customers are there. If a corporation gets a gift from the tax payer, it makes more sense that the CEO buys a Learjet than to add jobs if demand can’t support the additional workforce.
You cannot have a conversation about the housing bubble and its economic impacts without also talking about depressed wages and lost jobs and the suffering on Main Street and in our neighborhoods. In the game of musical chairs that is our financial markets, it’s not hard to see who got the cushy chairs when the music stopped; they’re the same ones to whom the political class are beholden, and therefore shielded from any accountability.
But we’re getting used to CEOs taking the first slice of the pie for themselves. They’re people, too, right?
Corporations are comprised of individuals, so the notion that they, as entities, are entitled to be recognized as people is completely beyond the pale of fairness. When corporations are granted the same rights as individuals, we find that corporations exercise extra rights – super rights, if you will – through enormously greater power and influence … more than any other collective of people.
Corporations already have a huge advantage when it comes to influencing government via their in-house captive audience, those individuals who comprise the corporation, who are at least somewhat subservient to their employer. To add to that the extraordinary status as “person” is mind boggling.
States and communities should begin putting their collective legislative feet down and facilitating some local requirements on absentee parasite corporations that tend to hurt communities as opposed to acting as responsible corporate citizens. There could be local ownership requirements in addition to an objective measurement of economic and commercial impact; the ratio of what a restaurant brings to a community versus what it removes. The ratio of revenue versus wages & taxes, for example.
But that's not the most fundamental issue in this society.
Let’s be clear. The so-called Republicans who purport to identify with conservatism are advancing policies that help corporate interests amass or export the wealth of this country, leaving the rest of us with fewer greenbacks – of diminishing value – after ever-expanding payroll deductions and expenses are withheld.
The idea that low wages are caused by unemployment, as Heritage Foundation’s Chief Economist Steve Moore recently claimed, is the wrong assessment. Unemployment might give corporations a better negotiating position, leading to lower salaries, but it hurts them in the end when domestic markets can’t afford to buy whatever it is they’re selling. This is of course partly helped by the flood of currency being created out of thin air in hopes some of it will land in consumers’ pockets (but oddly never does as promised).
Moore's right about one thing: we need dialogue on job growth policies. But the only rational, effective job growth policy is to adjust wages with inflation, not only because it respects the workforce – without which there is no business – but because it's ultimately better for the economy because it puts more buying dollars in the marketplace.
The reason people won’t or can’t pay the extra buck for a sandwich at a minimum-wage eatery, whose pay suddenly becomes $10.10 an hour, is because the office workers haven’t received a cost-of-living or merit increase for the last six years. It's the office workers who are getting pinched, but when they complain about how expensive the food is at the lunch counter or grocery store, they should rightly direct their anger at their employers for stagnating wages instead of parroting the lies being fed to them by corporate-run media outlets who want you to think that equitable wages leads to job loss.
It’s fundamental that poverty creates no demand, and that’s the real harm to our economy; when people aren't paid equitably for the fruits of their labor, they buy cheaper and fewer products and services. It’s intuitive that when wages contract, consumer demand contracts.
Corporations don’t add jobs when they’re handed a few tax breaks and other subsidies. They add jobs when demand increases; when the customers are there. If a corporation gets a gift from the tax payer, it makes more sense that the CEO buys a Learjet than to add jobs if demand can’t support the additional workforce.
You cannot have a conversation about the housing bubble and its economic impacts without also talking about depressed wages and lost jobs and the suffering on Main Street and in our neighborhoods. In the game of musical chairs that is our financial markets, it’s not hard to see who got the cushy chairs when the music stopped; they’re the same ones to whom the political class are beholden, and therefore shielded from any accountability.
But we’re getting used to CEOs taking the first slice of the pie for themselves. They’re people, too, right?
Corporations are comprised of individuals, so the notion that they, as entities, are entitled to be recognized as people is completely beyond the pale of fairness. When corporations are granted the same rights as individuals, we find that corporations exercise extra rights – super rights, if you will – through enormously greater power and influence … more than any other collective of people.
Corporations already have a huge advantage when it comes to influencing government via their in-house captive audience, those individuals who comprise the corporation, who are at least somewhat subservient to their employer. To add to that the extraordinary status as “person” is mind boggling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
How datacenters are eating American prosperity
Server farms are "eating" American prosperity by extracting finite local resources—like land, water, and grid capacity—while off...
-
Atheists state that it may not be said that there is no god, but that it may be said that there is no reason to think there is one. It is an...
-
When you run a business and wait on customers who have chosen you over a sea of competitors, you owe it to them to objectively judge how wel...