Monday, December 21, 2009

Public Education: The problem is the system, not the people

I've written a lot about education lately – in the paper, in my blog, on Facebook. I'm afraid one might come away with the feeling that I am anti public schools. That is not the case, I assure you. However, I am very much anti the public school system. It is 100% the system I object to, not the hardworking teachers, nor the administrators, who work within it. The problem is, the public education system – which, by nature is basically a monopoly – is not conducive towards improving outcomes for children. Rather, like any monopoly, the system is geared more towards helping and rewarding those who run the system, rather than those whom the system serves. When you take a monopoly, and add in a heavy dose of unionization, you wind up with a system that fails to achieve optimal outcomes for the consumer (families and children).

Like any industry, the education establishment has good teachers and bad teachers. The good far outnumber the bad, but the problem is that it is so hard to get rid of the bad ones. That is simply an unacceptable and sad fact. (If in doubt, check here and here.) In the private sector, firing underperformers is relatively simple (although unions can complicate things for certain companies there too).

The fact remains, we have many good, decent, hardworking teachers. But they are teaching within a monopolistic system that harnesses none of the benefits that the free market can generate – indeed does generate – in almost every other industry. I will submit that if you take an honest, decent, hardworking businessman, and install him as CEO of a company, and then give that company a monopoly on the market, you will undoubtedly find that CEO's company turn out an inferior product. But put that same businessman in the same company in the same industry – but subjected to multitudes of competition – and you will find his company turns out a product that is much more valued by the end customer.

The above example is exactly what we have going on in public education right now – many good teachers and administrators, teaching in a system that isn't conducive to maximizing the customer's (families and students) value, and a near impossibility of weeding out bad actors. In addition, the system lacks the inherent incentive structure that can be found in every competitive industry that leads to continuous innovation and improvement. And we wonder why the National Association of Educational Progress test scores have remained stagnant for 40+ years?

So I will reiterate it again – I am not against public schools, public school teachers, or public school administrators. But I will fight day in and day out to end the system that they are forced to work in – the system that creates suboptimal outcomes for our children.

Competition. Choice. Freedom. It works in every other industry, and it can work in education too.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

The Left: Private monoplies bad, public monopolies good

Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the Daily Kos, one of the most popular left-wing blogs, recently wrote on his blog that if the Senate health care bill is gutted of a public option, but still includes an individual mandate, then it should be “killed.”

Moulitsas stated, “My take is that it’s unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a private insurer that enjoys sanctioned monopoly status.”

But wait - Isn't that exactly what we have going on right now with public education? Moulitsas' statement could easily be revised to "It's unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a public entity that enjoys sanctioned monopoly status."

Do we have compulsory education laws? Check.

Does the government force citizens to buy a specific product - in this case, public school education? Check.

Does the public education system effectively enjoy a sanctioned monopoly status? Check.

To be sure, some might quibble with that last statement. Certainly people can and do send their children to private schools, if they choose to pay twice for their child's education. But in effect, when the government confiscates your money, and tells you exactly where you must spend it, that effectively creates a monopoly situation.

This all reminds me of one of Tammy Baldwin's e-newsletters from last spring, where she was trumping up her bill which “would repeal the railroads' antiquated antitrust exemptions protecting freight railroads from competition."

Baldwin goes on to state that "This legislation is long overdue and absolutely necessary to begin to end the railroad monopolies that are driving consumer prices up and service down." (Italics mine).

Now, I have no problem w/ Rep. Baldwin's attempt to rein in any private sector monopolies. But I am completely at a loss as to why she and her Democratic colleagues continue to (correctly) assail private sector monopolies, all the while continuing to coddle and fund government run monopolies? If monopolies in the private sector lead to "driving consumer prices up and service down" shouldn't the same be true for public government sanctioned monopolies?

Indeed it is. It is just that the Left in this country continues to refuse to acknowledge it, all at the expense of our children.

The Daily Kos is right about one thing - it is unconscionable.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Obama: Watch what I say, not what I do

The Wall Street Journal noted today that "This week Congress will vote to raise the national debt ceiling by nearly $2 trillion, to a total of $14 trillion," going further on to state that the Democratic Congress and President Obama "have increased the budget by 50% and financed the spending with IOUs." And it's important to note that prior Republican leadership performed no better on deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility than the current Democratic leadership.

The article ends with a quote from then Senator Obama, during the 2006 debt-ceiling debate: "Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

I find myself in 100% agreement with Senator Obama on the national debt issue, and 100% in disagreement with President Obama on the same issue. Or, as John Kerry might put it, Obama was for fiscal responsibility before he was against it.

Friday, December 11, 2009

The Great Manufacturing Myth

Quick: What country has the greatest manufacturing output in the world? If you said China, you're certainly not alone. But you are dead wrong. The United States currently accounts for over $1.8 trillion of manufacturing output each year. China, the second ranked country, accounts for $1.1 trillion - almost 40% below U.S. output. Yet if you only listened to news programs and read the papers, you'd think almost all U.S. manufacturing had been moved offshore - mainly to China.

To be sure, China's manufacturing output has increased over 700% since 1990, and shows no signs of slowing down. But U.S. manufacturing output has increased over 75% over that same time period (in current dollars). I think the myth that the majority of U.S. manufacturing has been outsourced to China revolves around the fact that a lot of consumer products actually have been outsourced to China. And frankly, it is the consumer products we buy day in and day out that are most visible to us. You can easily see that "Made in China" label on the back or your hairbrush, or your child's toy, or your new coffee mug. But most consumers don't typically notice the origin of some of the more complex, high-tech, non-consumer products.

In a global economy, free trade will cause jobs to move around from country to country depending on each country's comparative advantages. And quite frankly, that is not a bad thing. But rest assured the manufacturing base in the United States is not only alive and thriving - it is growing.

Payback to Big Labor

In a payback to Big Labor, a bill sponsored by my Democratic opponent is signed into law by Governor Doyle the other day:

http://www.channel3000.com/news/21924605/detail.html

Parents no longer need to worry that their children won't be indoctrinated with "the history of organized labor and collective bargaining" directly by one of organized labor's biggest factions itself. Oh happy day!

Even school boards and administrators disagreed with this move, describing it as a State effort to "micromanage" school curriculum. But what the heck - it's always OK to play politics with our children's education in order to pay back our biggest donors, right?

School Choice continues to the best way to allow parents to have greater say in their children's education, so they don't have to worry about state legislators dictating their child's curriculum.

Monday, December 7, 2009

The Case Against Publicly Financed Universal 4K

Today's Wisconsin State Journal ran a front page article on the possibility of a public school 4K program starting up in Dane County. 76% of other Wisconsin school districts already have such programs in place. But are 4K programs worth the millions of dollars they cost each year? And even if so, is it fair to force public financing for them?

Take me for example. My youngest daughter will be four next year, and she will continue to attend her current preschool, which my wife and I pay for. Why should my neighbor be forced to pay for my child's preschooling, when I am perfectly willing and able to pay for it myself right now? Under a universal 4K program, financial responsibility for preschool would in most cases transfer from financially sound, willing and able parents, to taxpayers. That is just plain wrong.

California's recent "Preschool for All" initiative hoped to achieve a 70% enrollment rate. However, 66% of California's four year olds were already attending preschool. So in order to help get an additional 4% enrollment, the California taxpayer should pick up the tab for every four year old in the state?

But where the 4K argument really starts to lose traction is when you consider that there is no solid evidence suggesting that universal preschool programs lead to long-term improved educational outcomes for children. Sure, gains can be seen in Kindergarten. But preschool effects largely fade away by the fourth grade. Oklahoma students tested above the national average prior to implementation of it's unversal preschool program in 1998. Ten years later, Oklahoma's fourth graders are testing below the national average in reading and math.

To be sure, preschool can have positive effects for children - mainly in the area of socialization. However, socialization can be achieved in myriad ways, and in no way warrants taxpayer financing.

If you're still in doubt, and think universal 4K is the solution to our education ills, ask yourself this: When is the last time you heard someone say, "You know what would solve our education problems? One additional year of unionized public schooling." Given the track record of our public schools over the past forty years, it is completely reasonable to be skeptical that million dollar per year universal 4K programs in Wisconsin will lead to any measurable long-term educational gains for our children. And while preschool can have non-educational positive effects for children, is funding that the taxpayers' responsibility.... or the parents'?

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Time to Rein in Massage Therapists?

My opponent - the incumbent - for District 76 is now proposing that we require massage therapists get licensure, rather than simple certification, for their profession.

http://www.fox21online.com/news/plan-would-require-license-wisconsin-massage-therapists

According to the article, Berceau's bill "would require certain training standards for massage therapists and body workers, in addition there'd be a state examining board." Excellent - another "board" for taxpayers to pay for and fund. All in the name of protecting you from your massage therapist.

This is really where the difference between my own view of government, and those of many of our current legistlators (including my opponent), becomes crystal clear. I am for a small, limited government. Most of our current legislators favor a large, bureaucratic, intruding government. I don't believe government needs to protect you from your massage therapist. They do.

Our State Assembly does not need to be wasting valuable time, resources, and hard-earned taxpayer dollars debating and passing such nonsense. The next thing you know we'll be requiring state registration for interior designers! Oops, that's right - we already do.

A physical therapist is quoted in the article warning that "someone can read a book on massage, open a business and provide a massage and consumers don’t know the difference." GASP!!! Well, if the massage stinks they will. And then they will take their future business elsewhere. That's how the free market works. I'm just not seeing a legitimate State interest in making sure I don't suffer the consequences of a bad massage.

But there are some big fans of licensure, surely. Typically they are the people already trained and/or licensed in a field. You see, licensure creates barriers to entry. And barriers to entry restrict supply. And restricted supply leads to higher wages and earnings for the licensed suppliers. ReasonTV has a great video on this.

The article states, "Massage therapists like Ostendorf see another benefit, burnishing their image and weeding out bad actors." But the market can and does already perform these same functions. It's just another example of the ever expanding nature of government. As Thomas Jefferson famously wrote, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."