Re: [Phys-L] US schools

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

We can learn a lot from the dissimilarities *and similarities*
between the education system and the business world.

On 07/16/2012 06:32 AM, Dr Holly Priestley wrote:
> In regards to the idea of "better" schools -- you leave one thing out.... in
> manufacturing the company has control over the "product" and is able to
> select the best to make the product.  However, schools work with living
> human beings and parents don't send the school their best or keep the best
> home for later submission.  Schools have to take what is brought them --
> from the most brilliant to those that are not as blessed. 

As the saying goes, the grass is always greener on the other
side of the fence ... but I can assure you that manufacturing 
businesses do *not* have things any easier than typical charter 
schools do.

For example:  Suppose you are under contract to deliver widgets
to General Motors, or to deliver soft-drink syrup to McDonald's.
The buyer wants the stuff fully up to specifications, and exactly
on time.  Now suppose that due to a flood or whatever, you are
unable to obtain the components and ingredients you need.  If 
you fail to make the delivery, there will be severe sanctions.
You could easily go bankrupt.  Real-world businesses worry about 
this all the time.  The contract forces you to worry about it, 
because as bad as your losses might be, the buyer's losses are 
even greater, if you fail to make the delivery.

Also note that businesses (even manufacturing businesses) *do*
"work with living human beings."  As much as you would like to 
have "the most brilliant" workers, it is not always possible 
to hire them or retain them.

=====================

Here is another important way in which typical *and atypical*
business conditions can help us understand current trends in
the educational system:  Note that in the first part of this
message, I restricted attention to typical /charter/ schools.

Now imagine a situation where company A is allowed to pick and
choose which segments of the market it will serve, while company
B is /required/ to serve the other segments at the same price.
This is a recipe for disaster.  Company B will go bankrupt for
sure.

Things like this happen with some regularity.  Imagine for 
example a new unregulated utility competing with a regulated
utility.

This is the epitome of /unfair/ competition.  Nobody in their
right mind would allow themselves to be put in such a situation
... but sometimes they are forced into it by unfair new regulation,
or (!) by unfair new deregulation, which has exactly the same
potential for mischief.

Let's be clear:  The crucial unfairness arises when certain 
charter schools are allowed to pick and choose what segments of 
the population they will serve, while the district is required
to serve the leftover segments.

  Note:  It is crucial to separate out the exceptional case of 
  charter schools that are chartered by the district.  In that
  case there is no incentive for the district to unfairly 
  compete with itself.

  Also:  Don't tell me typical charter schools are required to
  serve all comers.  There are innumerable ways they can get
  around such requirements, and there is overwhelming statistical
  evidence that they do so.  (Again there is an obvious exception
  for chartered-by-the-district schools.)

============================


On 07/10/2012 02:49 PM, Ze'ev Wurman wrote:

> Education as a welfare for the society *at large* is mostly a 20th
> century construct in this country.

a) Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant.  
 -- Spacetime is a 20th-century construct; that doesn't  mean it is 
  a bad idea.  
 -- Similarly, antibiotics such as penicillin etc. are a 20th-century 
  construct; that doesn't mean they are a bad idea.
 -- And so forth.

b) It's not true anyway.  Horace Mann (1796 – 1859) would have 
 been amused to learn that public education was a "20th-century 
 construct."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Mann

c) Calling it "welfare" is nothing but name-calling.  It is not an 
 acceptable substitute for actual evidence or reasoning.