Issue 96 Vouchers June 11, 2013

            School vouchers are another answer to school choice.  It is a lump sum of money given to parents of children who qualify for the purpose of educating their child.  The money may be used to go toward a charter school, a private school or even a public school to offset the schools cost.  Because the cost is offset by the voucher, it allows for parents a wider variety of options when choosing a school creating school choice.

 Who's in charge?:   Who should implement a voucher program?  The States, like that of New York or Texas, that’s who.  They have a vested interest in the education of students for a good education means a better workforce which means both higher property values and it attracts bigger better businesses.  The Federal government is far too big and clunky, not to mention too far away to implement a proper program.  As such, the Federal government is only capable of a one size fits all program resulting in some people getting money when they don’t really need it or not getting enough.  States can implement a voucher program through the county governments to allow for a more customized approach. This program of course will have to be implemented by the States education board or similar body.

Make it fair:   Vouchers should be distributed based exclusively on income and the costs of the area in which the applicant lives.  This is achieved by means testing at the county level of government to ensure parents get the maximum amount they need as the county governments knows the costs for its citizens to live under its leadership.  The parents who would get the voucher will generally be citizens who meet the poverty line in the county they live in and thus keep voucher distribution fair.

Competition:   Schools that loose students due to parental choice will be forced to compete for students because they want that voucher money too.  Therefore they will try to make themselves more attractive to parents resulting in children getting a better education from public schools who reform to meet the new threat of losing students to other schools.

 Fears:   Vouchers have been criticized because it will cause public schools populations to decrease.  Thus, only the undesirables, the disabled who cannot be accommodated and the poor will be left in the public school.  Fewer students mean more attention by teachers towards the remaining students.  Going from 30 to 25 students in a classroom means a teacher has five less students to worry about.  Smaller class sizes means more attention to students who need it and results in they student getting a better education. 

 The second critic to vouchers is that the school will loose money.  Well yea, with one less student to teach means the money going towards educating that student becomes unnecessary.  So what tax payer would mind a budget cut which reduces the economic burden on parents and the community at large?  This is a tax relief that may even allow more students to be able to go to a private or a charter school.  This is not a bad thing unless you believe that lost money could have been better spent on the other students.  But the problem with that argument is that both private and charter schools both educate their students with less money, usually with equal or better results.  Money has not, nor will it ever be the solution to educations problems.  School choice is.

 Conclusion:  Vouchers look to fund students, not schools.  By funding students, you give the parents options to send their children to better schools.  At the same time, it forces schools who are failing to innovate to get those students back and thus get the money in the voucher.  This means school choice leads to better schools.

Issue 95 Make the Schools Compete June 10,2013

                                       

            Is it possible to make public schools compete against themselves?  Yes, it is very possible if done correctly.  I believe it can be done by eliminating school districts and ensuring your tax dollars go only to the school your child is attending.  Eliminating school districts can lead toward a more competitive public school system and can be done in the following method.  First, make it so that children within a certain radius around a particular school have priority so that if they cannot get into a school of their choice they will still be able to attend a school.  This is the safety net.  Those students who wish to go to a different school will have to apply in a similar fashion to if they applied to a charter or a private school.  Those who meet the requirements will then be chosen by lottery based on the number of available openings in the school.  This allows for parents to get their children out of bad public schools in their area to a school with a better learning environment and give peace of mind to parents that their child is in a better, and some times safer, situation. 

 This may affect travel to school:  A parent may be asking themselves, how do I get my child to a school that is further away?  It works the same way when a parent sends their child to a charter or private school out of their area; they arrange transportation or drop them off themselves.  It is up to the parent to decide if distance is a consideration in applying to a school further away.

Where did the school board go?:  Then there is the question of what will happen to school boards, and other administrative bodies that run the school districts.  Simply put, they will disappear.  They will no longer be required as the principle and the school staff will gain autonomy over how best to educate their students.  This allows for a more focused education program specific to those particular schools students.  If a parent thinks that the program the school created is garbage then they have direct contact with the principle to advocate for change without the bureaucratic globally gook or they can seek out a different school for their child to attend.  Notice with this option, parents can not only choose from private and charter schools, but from other public schools as well.  More choice for parents in investing in their child’s future is always a good thing.

            Of course oversight will still be required to prevent corruption.  Well Dr. Ben Chaves has the suggestion to create a single school board at the State level.  In the governance roll, the board can provide oversight to ensure there is no discrimination, no theft of funds and no abuses of power.  Best of all the board should be an elected body making them responsible to parents and you thus make them the police of the schools.

 To whom does the money go?:   The second part of making a public school compete is parents only pay taxes to the school their child is attending.  What do I mean by this?  Well, let’s take two schools, Baldwin Senior High School and Freeport High School.  Under the current system if a student in the town of Baldwin is sent to Freeport High School due to proximity, the parent does not pay education taxes to Freeport’s schools as they are forced to pay education taxes to Baldwin schools because they live in Baldwin and not Freeport.  Obviously, under a system without school districts it would be essential for parents to be paying taxes exclusively to where their children go to school and also vote on that schools budget exclusively.  This provides fairness because students should not be a tax burden if they come from a different town as the town should not have to pay extra for an extra student.  Nor should a parent be forced to support a school that their child does not attend.  These parents because their tax dollars are going to a different school have the right to vote in that schools elections giving them the incentive to vote no to the new school budget to reduce their own tax burden while their child is taken care of in a different school. 

 More competition:  Let’s take competition a step further and say if your child is not attending a public school, you pay no school taxes and give up your right to vote in school elections for you are no longer affected when it comes to taxation and the welfare of your child.  Why should senior citizens pay taxes towards education if they don’t have a student enrolled in the school?  Why should parents struggling to pay for an education system when their children are now off to college?  If you have no children, why should you have to pay education taxes and vote in school elections?  Why should a parent sending their child to a private school have to pay for their child seduction twice?  Would in not make charter and private schools more affordable if a parent only had to pay for the education of their child and not a public school they choose not to have their child attend?  A parent should only have to pay for their child and theirs alone.

 Fears in this model:   Some are probably fearful that this will regulate the poor to be educated in public schools.  Well I am not going to say that it is not a possibility.  With those who can afford private and charter schools and those transferring to possibly other public schools, this leaves a select group left over.  Namely those students who could not go to a different school due to finances, behavior problems, a disability that could not be handled at a different school and parental choice.  Some may think concentrating these remaining students in a single place is a bad thing.  Well it is not as it turns public schools into specialists at educating the impoverished, those with behavior problems to enable them to function well in society, and having an environment catered to the needs of what students remain.  Looks wise, it seems terrible, but education wise it allows public schools to customize their programs to meet student’s needs with more dedicated resources.  Thus, these students will benefit from the specialized and catered environment they are given.  

 Minimizing concerns:  If there is a concern about cost then that can be minimized by a voucher system which also enhances school choice.  If only the tax portion is changed I believe that the voucher will cost significantly more and more which will result in more having to be issued.  If just the districts are change, then costs will drop as a large portion of the education bureaucracy will have been eliminated.  In that scenario vouchers will have less of a roll for it will make public schools cheaper regulating vouchers to only the needy and those who want to send their children to a charter or a private school.  If both come true, then schools will become cheaper, the tax burden will be reduced, and fairness and competition will be brought to the system.  Vouchers in that instance become a form of welfare for the poor exclusively.  Though I do not think anyone would be opposed to having donations to schools being written off as charity on their taxes.

Conclusion:   Together we can make public schools compete.  We can do this by making them beg you the parents to put your child in their school for they want your money.  This gives them incentives to create the best programs possible to attract you the parent into sending your child to be educated by them for the price you deem fit.  This is the reason district lines in my suggestion are erased so as to provide schools with the autonomy needed to create the best school programs and the best education possible.  Without school boards and the rest of the education bureaucracy, save the centralized board at the State level, innovation is free to flourish without bureaucratic red tape getting in the way.  Culminated together, parents and students get school choice and those who have no children or their children no longer use the public system will have tax relief and not corrupt the system with their vote during school elections.  With innovation allowed to enter the system, and maximum parental choice applied Americas education system will become the best in the world.

Issue 94 Reform, Reform, Reform! (Education) June 7, 2013

               Have you ever heard of a man by the name of Doctor Ben Chaves?  He runs a charter school in Oakland California, successfully taking a once failing school and turning it completely around creating the American Indian Model of education.  For the following ideas, I take them from Dr. Chaves.

Part 1:   The first idea (not really an idea for Dr. Chaves is already doing it) is self contained classes.  It mimics the arrangement in elementary schools with one teacher teaching all subjects to a group of students, but at the secondary level of education level.  This allows a teacher to spend more quality time with students to have a relationship and allows the teachers to recognize a student’s potential and intelligence.  There is no ability for a student to cut class for there is no class change between classes, save not coming to school and running out during bathroom trips.  Also, you increase the time spent in the classroom by not having to transition from class to class.

Part 2:  Dr. Chaves also employs a looping system, where a teacher will follow their students at teach them at the next grade level as well (P.E. has a separate teacher though).  An example of this would be students being taught by the same teacher from grade 6 through 8.  The purpose is to create a stable and secure learning environment and even a kind of family like relationship.

            Under Dr. Chaves’ model, students only rotate out for P.E. allowing teachers to prepare for the next lesson or other work.  School runs from 8:30 am to 3:00 pm except on Fridays when school lets out at 12:40 pm which removes lunch and P.E. from the schedule that day.  The early release is designed to allow for special appointments and what ever personal matters to be addressed. 

Part 3:   A student would receive one hour of detention after school if they are late to school, miss school work, break school rules and misbehave in general.  If two detentions are given in a single week, the student will receive Saturday school from 8:30 to 1:00 pm.  Also, under the American Indian Model, a school has only one secretary, one administrator, 3 sixth grade teachers, 3 seventh grade teachers, 2 eighth grade teachers, 1 P.E. teacher, and one resource teacher who works’ about 75% of the time.  Obviously the number of teachers will vary based on the number of students, but you get the concept that it eliminates most of the bureaucratic structure as teachers fill in the rolls of guidance councilor and other roles.  At the same time other positions are no longer required due to the nature of the system.  A school uniform is also used in Dr. Chaves’ model.  The most controversial aspect of the model is that Chaves pays his students for perfect attendance with sixth grades getting $50, seventh graders $75 and eighth graders $100 with exceptions due to funerals, hospital or being sick.

Part 4:   Dr. Chaves has some simple suggestions to improve education.  One is to not fund or start programs, or hire people if at any time the money supporting that program may disappear.  He is specifically talking about government grants to schools.  The second suggestion is to make education competitive to attract the best teachers, a.k.a. pay more (contracts under the American Indian Model are yearly).  Third, never hire a person based on race or ethnicity (some believe they will be role models because they share the same skin color) for this is racist.  People who are smart, hard working, and reliable who want their students to achieve are good role models (Dr. Chaves is Native American by the way).  Fourth, instill a golden rule, “If you act like a winner, you’ll be treated like a winner.  If you act like a fool, you’ll be treated like a fool” (142 Chaves).  Example, if a kid says I want to play for the New York Nicks you tell them you want to own and run the team.  Instill the mindset of a winner.  Fifth, deter crime and bad behavior by encouraging students to stop and look at who is watching.  It embarrasses them from bad behavior.

 Part 5:  Dr. Chaves’ final suggestion would be the creation of a single public school board modeled on the one that oversees the University of California’s school system.  It consists of a single board of twenty-six regents that would oversee the organization and governance of all public schools across the State.  Dr. Chaves believes that a single governing board for k-12 public schools “there would be less nepotism and local politics bogging down the school system” (21 Chaves).  He also suggests that elections to this school board should occur at the same time as a Presidential and Gubernatorial election to ensure large turnouts.

Conclusion:    I like Dr. Chaves’ suggestions and practices.  They seek to rid the system of unnecessary bureaucracy, streamline the system and create a stable environment for learning.  If you want to learn more, read Dr. Ben Chaves’ book Crazy like a Fox.  It is time to make education competitive again.

Issue 93 Halt Immigration?! June 6,2013

With the recent attacks on Boston a new call has gone out to better monitor people coming in and going out of the United States. While the issue of screening immigrants for the possibility that they are terrorists falls to both our intelligence agencies and the U.S. State department, we are lacking an effective means of tracking people already in the United States. Sure we know who is coming in, but we in the U.S. have no method of monitoring those who leave. As such there are about 2,000 people alone from middle eastern countries whom we lost track of. Am I saying that these people are likely to be terrorists? No I am not, but the fact is the Boston terrorists, as well as many other terrorists who have attacked the U.S. as well as other countries have entered legally. As disturbing as that sounds, it is more disturbing that the U.S. loses track of these guest immigrants who must leave when their time is up. As such, a suggestion from the more liberal arm of American politics (Bob Beckel, a Democratic strategist who has served as advisor the Presidents and presidential candidates alike), halt immigration from countries where the potential threats are coming from until we can locate those we have lost track from those countries.

The Good: The good part about all this is that we find these people who have fallen into the cracks of America's population. We have no idea what has happened to them and thus the State department can't help them if say they are being extorted or if some other harm has befallen them. But the most likely scenario is that they forgot to renew their visas to stay. Hopefully we will not find anyone who has been radicalized or is trying to radicalize others. This search to locate these people is not meant to be a witch hunt but a way to secure our borders (peace of mind) and insure that these 2,000 plus people are OK.

The Bad: The one bad part about this is that it is discriminatory. America's State department will be targeting people from specific countries that are categorically Muslim. Thoughts and ideas dating back to internment camps during World War II for the Japanese and Germans come to mind. But the goal is not to intern any of these individuals. The goal is to locate them, and if needed to send them back home. Sure some may be allowed to renew their visas as well, but this is entirely designed to see what happened to these individuals. To make it look less discriminatory, other groups either may be included or they can hop from one group to the next to track people whom they lost track of. This will primarily be showmanship to divert any accusations of racism.

Conclusion: It is sensible to halt immigration from countries for a period of time so as to get a better handle on who is here in the U.S. and who have simply gone home. Remember this idea is meant to be a temporary measure for approximately 2 years at which time people from those countries will then be allowed to visit once again. In those 2 years, hopefully, they will have found all the missing people that they lost track of. In addition, in that time a new tracking system that uses biometrics technology will be installed. Plus the system will track people who are both coming into the U.S. and will also monitor who leaves as well. So at all times we know if and when you have come in and left. Other measures will be added to track employment and education to better follow if you are meeting visa requirements to stay in the U.S. So basically "Big Brother" will be watching, but this may well aid in showing that you are a person of good standing if say you eventually want to become a U.S. citizen. Also, it may well show the skeptics and "true" racists that they have nothing to fear from the larger Muslim community and that the Muslim community out numbers the terrorists (hopefully giving them greater courage in discouraging and counteracting the radical Jihadists hiding amongst them). So I really do not mind this kind of solution to a problem, my only change would to totally halt all immigration and just focus on finding everyone who we have lost track of. Let’s face it; undocumented people are in effect breaking the law. So let’s find them, all of them, and judge their situations each as individuals so that we do the right thing.

Issue 92 Drones June 5, 2013

No I'm not talking about military drones. I'm, talking about civilian owned remote operated robots. These machines are the same variety that the military uses, but are allowed to be bought for civilian use.

Benefits: Some benefits to owning a robot that can fly is that it can literally go anywhere you need it to go. Farmers are interested so that they can monitor their fields from home and thus save time and money as traditional aircraft are expensive to use and maintain. These same drones can also be used to spread pesticides and other materials over fields. Fire fighters fighting wildfires can use drones equipped with thermal cameras to locate areas where the fires may still be smoldering. Reporters can get that bird’s eye view they always dreamed of at reduced costs. Fast food may even get faster as drones can be used to deliver your order directly to your home (no need for tips). The applications are endless so long as you can find a use for a flying robot. But none of this is really new as hobbyists have had model planes for years and they are now being used for enjoyment outside of recreation. What I have described however is only the advantages of aerial based platforms. Drones come in land and sea versions too. Who knows, we might even start to get them for space too (hobbyists keep on the lookout). A drone has a lot of advantages, but there is one sticking point.

Problem: There are two key issues. The first is issues with privacy. A drone can literally see over anyone’s fence or into a window (air based drones can at the very least). So it comes to question where do our privacy end and the public space where drones are allowed to operate begin. This is a legal question that groups like the ACLU are trying to answer to ensure that nobody losses their privacy rights to anyone. The other issue is terrorism and espionage. We do not live in a very safe world and drones can be turned into small flying bombs to rain hell literally from above. Same of course goes for sea and land based drones. Espionage is fairly obvious as drones used by the military are used for surveillance and just adding a camera to a model aircraft turns it into a spy platform. So expect some restricted airspace.

Conclusion: Technology has advanced very far. But as that technology has progressed, our privacy has shrunk by leaps and bounds. Drones, especially air based ones have numerous advantages and help cut costs for a lot of people with respect to certain industries and government institutions. Will laws stop people from abusing these devices? No, as people will always abuse technology. However, drones will soon find there niche in our society and of course by then we will have anti drone devices (celebrities) to shoot them down when they decide to look into your window, or we can just sue them. What ever works right?

Issue 91 Money: How it used to work June 4, 2013

The old system was backed by an actual value of gold and or silver. In other words, money was worth its weight in gold if not more so. But with the coming of national banks the system died. Here is how it used to work in the U.S.

State Banks: Originally each State in the U.S. had these chartered banks. They were private banks authorized by the individual States. These State banks were allowed to print their own money ("notes") and they had to guarantee the value by a gold/silver ("specie") reserve. Each of these banks would hold about 6 to 10 percent reserve to prevent a bank run if there was to be a panic and also allow them to trade there currency for its equivalent value in gold and silver (remember at this period in history, America's money was made form gold and silver). To ensure further survival and trust each of these banks decided how much they would exchange for the reserve each day (similar to the transaction limits banks have on our accounts each day).

How they new what had value: Each of the bank notes had value and the market dictated how much trust the people had in each bank. If the note was trading at more than 1% below value it was considered untrustworthy and people would not use that bank note. To ensure that people new the value of each note there was a single source of information "Dillistin's Bank Note Reporter." It reported the prices of all known money. Basically this system allowed banks and their notes to compete against each other. A bank note in this system was based on trust along with the banks ability to trade their notes back for its equivalent value in gold or silver.

How it died: When the national banks came to power, it taxed all other currencies by 10% creating unfair competition. Thus, it was cheaper to use the national currency and thus the other banks stopped printing their notes. Let it be known however, that this was not the end of the gold/silver standard. That occurred when countries began abusing the system by having loans paid back in another nation’s currency. Then the nation that was paid back would trade that currency for its equivalent value in gold and silver from the country they wanted to hurt. The result was the draining of a countries gold and silver reserves and impoverishing that government and hurting there ability to pay back their own loans.

Conclusion: The system was based on trust. Money competed against each other and this allowed choice in the market place. Some may be thinking that this system should never have worked, but money was easily exchanged between the banks in the same way you can trade in American dollars for Euro's if you are going overseas. I will not say that we should go back to this system. While it does have its own appeal I believe that the system in this modern era will have to be re-invented, in this case through online currency systems. Basically, we will have to wait and see what becomes of the money that we hoard in our accounts as governments allow it to become worthless with inflation.

Issue 90 Bad Patent law June 3, 2013

Through patent laws we are allowed to make a profit from our ideas before everyone else. However, if patent law is done poorly it can stagnant the flow of new ideas and products. So let’s dissect this problem.

How it used to work: Originally in the United States patents on inventions and discoveries were limited to 14 years. Copy rights were also limited to 14 years with one additional renewal for an additional 14 year monopoly on your ideas. Patent examiners also examined all patent applications to insure that all applicants’ ideas and inventions were actual ideas and inventions. This system allowed for people to profit off their ideas and then once the patent expired would allow the market to use those ideas as they please. Once expired, it was hoped that people would then take these ideas and improve upon them, thus sparking further innovation.

Todays: Today’s patent/copyright laws are longer. Authors now have exclusive rights to there works for their entire life time plus an additional 70 years. Corporations and their works (no actual author) have a 120 year monopoly. Patents only have a 20 year monopoly, but corporations can have such limits extended by lobbying congress for a "special extension". There is also what is known as "nuisance patents" that do not represent any actual new discovery but instead are used as bargaining chips between corporations.

Conclusion: What is needed is a return to the original system. Corporations are not people, but a group of people. As such, they should not be allowed to file a patent. The goal of patents was that of a temporary monopoly for people to profit. Then, once the patent expired, the world was to be allowed free reign to use that idea to spark additional ideas and inventions. Copyrights are only good so long as a book is popular. Most books don’t stay popular for very long and as such to limit the use of that books ideas or even characters for over a hundred years is pointless for most will forget the book even existed. There are exceptions, but those relate to specific works and genres. Then there is the "nuisance patents" which are not actual inventions. The patent office must be much more selective on what ideas pass muster. Why should we go back to being more restrictive you ask? Simple, as these patents are now about cosmetics. When Apple first brought to market the I Phone it was a smash hit. So competitors tried to make their own version. Problem, Apple had established a patent on the overall ascetics of the I Phone and sued. Luckily the judges realized that the products were not the same, both in design and use. As such Apple's lawsuit was overturned. Other similar incidents have occurred as well with other inventions such as with the Android operating system, and even the black berry phones. The suits are based on looks and not functional use or even how it works. This has led some judges to openly express their opinion that patents should not be given out for things like computer programming or the overall look of an item. Well it makes sense to me. So let’s actually go back to when ideas were readily available and there was less law suits. Let’s bring quality back to the patent and copyright system.

Source: Patent Abuse: How Intellectual Property Laws Got Out of Control from June 2013 issue of Popular Mechanics