Education and the economy

Countries do well when they reduce barriers to capital investment and trade. I would doubt that the amount spent on a state-run education system has anything positive to do with the economy - in fact public education is a drag on our economy. The US has succeeded since we are still the country with the least number of government interventions - though federal regulations are said to be so voluminous that they would fill my bookshelves.

Capital and entrepreneurial know-how flow to the most open society. That has been the history of the world for eons. No one questioned the quality of the Soviet education system - in fact John Dewey and others cheered it - yet their economy was a basket case.[1]

Causation based on correlation is just as apt to flow the opposite direction as assumed. You see high education spending in the US and other wealthy countries simply because these economies have traditionally been successful. Education spending is the result of successful economies, not the other way around. An example: The education expenditures in Bexley, Ohio, a Columbus suburb, are extremely high simply because the residents have been successful. Bexley residents are not successful due to the amount Bexley City Schools spends on education, since most Bexley residents are not products of their school system.

[1] Of course, a priori, the Soviet education system had to be a mess since it was a government-run monopoly. Regardless, that didn't stop the socialists over at Columbia Univerity's prestigious Teachers College from trumpeting the success of both the Soviet education system and economy.

Don't tread on me! Or, the War on Raw Milk.

Latest Mise.org post by Jim Fedako

How ironic. Just days after Ohio citizens voted to restrain trade and reduce property rights by passing state issues 2 and 5 (an increase in the minimum wage and a statewide ban on smoking), Jeff Eschmeyer of the Ohio Farmers Union contends in a letter to the Columbus Dispatch that farmers and consumers have a right to sell and buy raw milk. Mr. Eschmeyer is correct that Ohioans have the natural right to produce and consume milk in its raw form, but as recent laws and administrative rulings in Ohio have shown, having a natural right does not translate into a legal right.

In case you may feel that this is a local issue, BusinessWeek.com reports that California and Michigan have also engaged in this new war for interventionism; The War on Raw Milk.

Sadly, many smile as we continue to incrementally vote out the rights that founded this country. The power to vote out other's rights will someday be the power to lose your rights. Every time a new law or issue is passed, the supporters claim that the issue at hand will be the last step. As Eschmeyer and others are now realizing, there appears to be no end to the dreams of do-gooders who see it as their mission to force us all to live as they chose.

Whatever happened to the motto "Don't tread on me!" that defined our Revolution? Was there a second phrase to it that read, "But, I may tread on you?"

Don't tread on me

Dear Editor:

How ironic. Just days after Ohio citizens voted to constrain trade and reduce property rights by passing state issues 2 and 5, Jeff Eschmeyer of the Ohio Farmers Union ("Farmers have a right to sell and consumers have a right to buy raw milk," letter, Nov 11) contends that farmers and consumers have a right to sell and buy raw milk. Mr. Eschmeyer is correct that Ohioans have the natural right to produce and consume milk in its raw form, but as recent polls and laws have shown, having a natural right does not translate into a legal right.

Sadly, many smile as we continue to incrementally vote out the rights that founded this country. But, the power to vote out other's rights will someday be the power to lose your rights. Every time a new law or issue is passed, the supporters claim that the issue at hand will be the last step. As Eschmeyer and others are now realizing, there appears to be no end to the dreams of do-gooders who see it as their mission to force us all to live as they chose.

Whatever happened to the motto "Don't tread on me!" that defined our Revolution? Was there a second phrase to it that read, "But, I may tread on you?"

Jim Fedako

Economics did not begin with Adam Smith

Though some tend to believe that economics was formed out of the ether by Adam Smith, economic thought had been developing since the ancient Greeks. The reality is that Adam Smith's contributions to economics lead to an errant diversion as his ideas, along with those of David Ricardo, became the precursors of the fallacies of Karl Marx.

Murray Rothbard, the dean of the Austrian School of Economic, documented the ebb and flow of economic thought through the ages in an article recently republished at Mises.org.

In addition, Rothbard wrote two volumes of a planned three volume set on the Austrian perspective of economic thought before his untimely death. These books are available at the Mises.org store and are great reads for anyone interested in the history of economic thought.

What a difference a day makes

From: The Blog at Mises.org
By: Jim Fedako

Though they wallowed through the mud for weeks, your federal representatives now want to be treated with respect. Just a few days ago they were the bad-talking bullies of the airwaves, now they expect all that vile to be simply forgotten. From brawls to blue suits in just one day.

The House web site automatically adds the title "Honorable" to any electronic message you try to send to your favorite congressman or congresswoman. As if there was anything honorable left with regard to those positions, or politicians.

Global warming is full of hot air

Two recent articles are worth reading for anyone interested in the global warning debate.

The first article, authored by Professor George Reisman, is from the Mises Institute. This article refutes the lunacies reported in the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Science in the political arena is usually not science at all. Reisman shows this to be the case with the Stern report.

The second article , from LewRockwell.com, is written by Sergei Boukhonine. Sergie discusses the difference between predicting the future and acting on predictions.

I wish I knew who to attribute the following observation, but it is absolutely on the mark: Once the socialists realized that socialism resulted in general poverty, they joined the greens who had been advocating for poverty all along.

Of note to my fellow Christians: Be careful about signing on with the environmental movement, the Greens have never respected that God made man in His image. God set man apart from the animals of the world. The Greens actually hate man and dream of a world populated solely by the animals - witness the new and proposed displays at the Columbus Zoo.

The Bible makes two points clear: There will always be poor with us, until the end; And, the end will come. Christians sided with the Progressives over a hundred years ago and look at the mess that was created - welfare, assistance programs, broken families, etc., and poverty. Yes, poverty is still with us - note the biblical truism - yet we all suffer from the ills of social engineering. With that in mind, why should Christians join with the greens?

Voting Fraud - Letter to Editor

Dear Editor:

Let me get this straight: Because voting irregularities occurred in 2000, the state goes on a $200 million spending spree in order to purchase electronic voting machines only to have 1/3 of Franklin county voters chose handwritten absentee ballots; ballots which are subject to voter fraud and likely to be scanned improperly. Does anyone see the irony here?

Background to prior post: Congress giveth, congress taketh away

Market exchange is not based on both parties appraising the goods about to be exchanged at equal value; the parties instead exchange based on a two-way, unequal valuation of goods to be exchanged.

An example from my youth: During high school in the early 1980's, I had purchased a double-live album of the rock group Rush. Teenagers can be a fickle lot and I was no different. My music tastes changed and I morphed from a Rush fan into someone who felt that Fly By Night was beneath me. Not only did I no longer listen to the album, I wanted to get rid of it soon since I felt that the album was polluting my collection.

Along comes a fellow student who was fast becoming an ardent Rush fan. We agreed to an exchange: I would trade my $15 album for his $5. Fair enough. Right after the exchange, as I held the $5 and he held the album, the new Rush fan said something along the lines of, "I just ripped you off. I would have paid $10 for that album." I replied, "No, I just ripped you off since I was about to toss the album into the garbage anyway."

You see, we both had different valuations for the $5 and the album, that's why we traded. But, carefully note the verbal dialogue that occurred. To the outside observer, one of us may appear to have been "ripped off." Depending on the observer's point of reference, they may side with my claim or the claim of my fellow trader.

Or, and this is where things go wrong, one of us may have actually decided to have acted on one of those statements. Instead of accepting the exchange as agreed, I may have sought third-party rulings on the fairness of the trade. What sounded good ex ante - before the trade - now sounds like unfair negotiations ex post - after the trade. I should have received the $10 since it was a $15 album - I was truly "ripped off." Wasn't I?

I probably could have found the sympathetic ear of a government official who felt the tug of omniscience; someone believing in their own capacity to understand true value, and someone believing that the state needs to protect those acting in non-coerced exchanges. My fellow trader would have been forced to hand over the additional $5 so that the fair exchange occurred. But, why is that any more fair than the exchange we initially agree upon? In fact, it isn't.

The actions of the sympathetic do not increase fairness, neither do they increase wealth. The actions instead decrease wealth as no one knows the end result of a valid exchange. The rule of contract and common law is replaced by the rule of civil law and bureaucracy. As a result, people become less likely to exchange as the rules of the game change with the political winds.

The point: When a Tiberi, or any other government official, interferes with a valid, non-coerced exchange, they may appear to be helping one individual, but they are actually harming a foundation of modern society; free exchange of goods and services. They tend not to believe that their action can result in harm because power is almost always cloaked by the veil of omniscience.

Congress giveth, congress taketh away

Letter writers to local newspapers have been congratulating Pat Tiberi, our congressman, on his willingness to intervene on their behalf. What the letter writers forget is that the power to intervene is really the power to use the hammer of government in order to force individuals and firms to act other than they would have normally choosen; to act outside of already signed contractual agreements. That usage of power is anathema to the principals of Liberty that founded this country.

I'm not talking about contract or civil laws being broken, I referring to a congressman using government to lean on individuals and companies that have broken no law. Simply because someone was unsatisfied with the results of a contract that they signed under no duress, they chose to get the local power broker to have the contract amended - if the offending individuals and firms know what's best for them, they agree to the change. The ability to exert such pressure must be quite an aphrodisiac for power seekers such as Tiberi.

The ability to influence, to put the pressure on someone, cuts both ways. This time it benefits you, the next time it hurts you. When a congressman implicitly uses the power of government to change contracts and events, he has moved from realm of the citizen-statesmen to that of the political dons who control Third World politics. He's the Soviet apparatchik trading his ability to threaten for a bottle of vodka, or a front page story and letter to the editor. Why use the court system when your congressman can get the job done, extra-contractual and extra-constitutional.

While serving on the Olentangy Board of Education, I had a gentleman who first sought the influence of his congressman when the district didn't put a school bus stop near his home. The sad fact is that this gentleman went to Tiberi because each congressional office has a constituent services employee whose job is to get individuals and firms act under the threat of big G. You can be assured that we are talking implicit threats - threats of investigation, loss of influence, federal contracts, etc., since anything else would be dirty pool.

If you keep the likes of Tiberi in congress, you simply keep increasing the extent of federal power. And this comes from a Republican Central Committee member.

Of course, his opponent is no better. But at least Shamansky will be a once-again freshman in congress and have little ability to influence anything these next two years. Then, throw him out and chose someone else. The faster the political turnstile rotates, the less evil that can be done in DC.

A great quote out of context

Latest Mises.org post from Jim Fedako

"It may sometimes be expedient for a man to heat the stove with his furniture. But if he does, he should know what the remoter effects will be. He should not delude himself by believing that he has discovered a wonderful new method of heating his premises." from Human Action, Ludwig von Mises

Benita Ferrero-Waldner, European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy, uses this quote from Mises in a speech delivered at the EU's All Party Parliamentary Group on Overseas Development Lunchtime Meeting Series in order to advocate for interventionism. Talk about taking a quote out of context!

Best of the net

Looking for the best from the net? Go to:

Mises.org for articles, books, audio, etc., from the Austrian School of Economics;

LewRockwell.com for the best in Libertarian thought;

FreeBooks.com for the free books on Christian thought from Gary North, et. al.;

PeytonWolcott.com for stories on education accountability.

Like a spider web, these sites link to other sites that can provide additional articles and knowledge. You'll soon find FEE.org, FFF.org, EdNew.org, the Education Consumers Clearinghouse, and many others. Have fun surfing...

Hypocrisy and Virtue

As an nonsmoker I rarely ever venture into areas where there's cigarette smoke, I simply don't enjoy the smell. But I could also say the same for many other smells, such as fried foods, etc.

I will agree that smoking is dangerous, but I also accept that many other activities also come with risks, small and great.

The hypocrisy: The chance of an eighteen year old smoker dying from smoking within a year is trivial compared with the chance of an eighteen year old athlete dying on the sports or practice fields within a year. Yet no one is trying to put a stop to those activities - yet, anyway.

Once the smoking ban has been secured, do not think for a moment that the anti-smoking campaigners will simply go home with this one victory. No, these do-gooders will soon look for the next activity to prohibit with the force of government. These folks are not in this for the good of all, they are simply in this to control society.

Revolutions of virtue follow the pattern of the French Revolution where a Reign of Terror follows the early victories. You see, in some eyes, virtue is to be forced on everyone - at least virtue as defined by those empowered by victory.

As CS Lewis noted decades ago, the virtuous never sleep since they always believe that the non-virtuous (as defined by the virtuous) need government interventions in order to live the good life, and it's the sole function of the virtuous to find any aspect of the lives of the non-virtuous that requires intervention. This is a heavy burden that sleep only fails.

Watch out for these people...

Your voice would be heard

Response to a listserve posting regarding the conclusions of the Tennessee Project STAR Report (1990). The report claimed that smaller class sizes lead to higher student achievement, yet the data from the study did not support that conclusion. In fact, many later studies, notably from Eric Hanushek, refuted the small class size/improved performance nexus, yet Project STAR is still cited as proof that smaller class sizes lead to improved student achievement.

This is similar to recent articles which reported that school voucher programs are unsuccessful. Akin to the blurb in a newspaper movie ad, where the words of reviewers are taken out of context, certain media reported pull-out quotes from the report that were opposite of the conclusions found in the report itself.

You are absolutely correct in your analysis. You saw the contradiction in the Project STAR report yet your voice went unheard. The reason is simple: Government control of a tax-supported monopoly in education is never the solution. The best one can hope for is that the elected politician, and, more importantly, the bureaucrats, will function as the altruistic guides of the education system. Though, even this situation simply replaces the whims and fancies of the consumer with the whims and fancies of government officials. And, the officials can never define the inputs and outcomes desired by the consumer; the system flies blind. What always happens is that money and influence capture the system so that even the altruistic official is lost in the political battles, let alone the realities of government-run enterprises.

You read the Project STAR report and noted the contradiction, yet no one responded in the manner you expected. I would say that the system responded as it always does; money and influence turned a deaf ear on your correct conclusions.

In a system of choice, you would find the operator who runs the school system that matches your desired inputs and outcomes. There would be no worry about the influence of unions or others with conflicted interests. Your voice would be heard.

State Issues 4 and 5

Background

"When anti-smoking activists hit the streets last year with a petition to ban smoking in nearly every Ohio business, bar and restaurant owners quickly drummed up a response.

The result is a pair of ballot measures that appear similar at first glance but contain key differences.

State Issue 5, the Smoke Free Ohio measure backed by the American Cancer Society, would outlaw smoking in virtually all public businesses.

State Issue 4, dubbed Smoke Less Ohio and backed by bar and restaurant owners with funding from the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., would allow smoking in bars and parts of restaurants.

Another difference might seem technical but could determine which measure becomes law.

State Issue 5 is an initiated statute, carrying the same weight as any law passed by the General Assembly. State Issue 4 would be written into the Ohio Constitution, making it much more difficult to amend or repeal.

If voters pass both measures, only State Issue 4 would take effect since a constitutional amendment trumps a statute."

from The Columbus Dispatch


Letter written in response to letter published by ThisWeekNews.

Editor:

In his letter regarding statewide Issues 4 and 5, Leonard Fisher, chair of the Delaware County Tobacco-Free Coalition, tries to make the point that individual rights are not involved in these ballot issues. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Currently, I exercise my right to smoke-free environments on a daily basis by using my dollars to vote for restaurants that provide me with a smoke-free meal. Those who chose to smoke can vote with their dollars for restaurants that allow smoking or designated smoking areas. These personal decision are the application of individual rights in a free society. And, let's not forget, that property owners used to have the right to decide the manner in which their property is used. Life, Liberty, and Property are essential qualities of freedom.

The backers of local smoking ordinances, and now state-wide issues, have no concern for those three qualities of freedom. They want to supplant individual liberty with their own government-enforced values. It's sad to see someone in Delaware County advocate for the state to intervene in the personal decisions of every Ohioan - especially when that individual can already act on his preference for smoke-free environments.

Years ago, CS Lewis noted that the seemingly well-intentioned individual can create more harm than good. Using local ordinances and statewide issues to exchange freedom for state control of personal decisions brings to mind a cautionary statement from a Founding Father: Benjamin Franklin, after being asked what form of government resulted from the Constitution Convention, replied, "A republic if you can keep it." Let's vote No for both Issue 4 and Issue 5 and keep the republic.

Jim Fedako

The good professor

"I’m not hacked off anymore," she said. "I want them to at least understand what they’re rejecting. If they choose to ignore it, that’s their prerogative." OSU Biology Professor Susan Fisher. (from the Columbus Dispatch)

This is absolutely the correct way to teach any topic in science, whether the topic is the theory of evolution (above) or something such as quantum mechanics. Typically, instructors who teach the theory of evolution seek to indoctrinate more than they seek to educate. When a teacher attempts to change or undermine one's faith, instruction is no longer education, it's indoctrination. So it's good to hear that some professors understand their role as educators, and not indoctrinators.

Science is a process that includes the continual reevaluation of past experiments, theories, and conclusions. Scientists should never establish something as an absolute fact and seek to have everyone one else accept that fact as truth, based purely on faith in science in general and the scientist in particular. Science should accept challenges and attacks, as such efforts either strengthen a given theory or reveal a better explanation - a new theory arises.

Let us never forget that one can teach a scientific theory to someone who will never accept that theory as true. In fact, the instructor may even question a theory yet still teach it to students. In addition, the scientist may not believe in the science he is using. The best example of this is Quantum Mechanics, a fundamental branch of modern, theoretical physics. Much of quantum mechanics is pure theory that is not even accepted by all physicists, yet these doubtful scientists still function as physicists - and no one challenges their science or degree.

So, if the physicist can question a pillar of their science yet remain a physicist, what is stopping the biologist who accepts Genesis Creationism from functioning as a biologist? Absolutely nothing. Then, why do Evolutionists require faithful adherence to the theories arising from Darwinism? I don't know, though I suspect that it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with challenging the Christian faith.

Root Cause of the Failure of Contemporary Education - by George Reisman

George Reisman of Pepperdine University sees the results of the education system every day:

With little exaggeration, the whole of contemporary education can be described as a process of encumbering the student’s mind with as little knowledge as possible.

Continue reading at LewRockwell.com

What are your public school educators reading?

Why, Educational Leadership from the Association of Curriculum and Development of course. ASCD is highly respected by public educators, in fact your local schools most likely have implemented a number of programs that ASCD promotes.

OK, but what are they reading? Note the quote below from the following article written by Richard Hanzelka, ASCD president:

"Regardless of international differences, we should all take heed of China's concern for the development of a whole child who is capable of being part of a harmonious society."

In an article reminiscent of John Dewey's excited report written after seeing his ideas incorporated in the schools of Soviet Russia, ASCD trumpets China's embrace of the "whole child."

For those new to such terminology, the "whole child" is the Progressive utopian child that is self-actualized yet devoid of knowledge. Educators appeal to the concept of the "whole child" since it frees public schools from having to teach the three R's. Parents, when you hear "whole child" mentioned think of the article below - the goal of this type of educations - and you will understand why college remediation rates are so high.

And people wonder why the education profession gets branded a socialist cartel, especially when the educationist want us to pursue the harmonious society that is Communist China.

Note: Your tax dollars pay for this rot. You simply cannot cannot make up stuff this bizarre.

from the latest ASCD daily email:

Harmonious Learning for the Whole Child: Education Perspectives from China

Message from the President


Richard Hanzelka

As educators in the United States struggle to expand their view of learning to embrace the whole child and not just achievement test scores, it is encouraging to know that other nations are engaged in similar processes. China, a country I have been fortunate enough to visit twice in the last two years, is also challenging itself to build a system that addresses the whole child.

This summer I traveled to China to participate in the first China-U.S. Education Leadership Conference. What I learned and experienced expanded and clarified the impressions I formed during the ASCD Board of Directors trip to China in November 2005.

continue reading ...

A Fair Wage

An always timely article published by EdNews.org:

by Jim Fedako

You hear it from them all the time; teachers just want a fair wage. Oh, well who doesn't? This line of thought begs two questions: How are wage rates established in a free market? And, are market wage rates fair?

read more ...

$6 billion gone ... Fooled by Randomness

A hotshot trader loses over $6 billion in a matter of a week. How can that happen? To understand how such loses can occur to both a successful trader and hedge fund, read Fooled by Randomness by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. This insightful book details how randomness is disguised as seemingly ordered events, leading to incorrect conclusions and decisions, as well as horrific loses.

Brian Hunter, the hedge fund's 32-year-old chief energy trader, was recently hailed as a rising star. What many thought was an innate ability to understand the market was simply a lucky run at the gambling table. The point is that we tend not to look for randomness in events, especially the statistical descriptions of those events.

By assuming that statistics, the tool of the positivist and empiricist, reveals absolute truths, we end up traveling down a path that leads to trouble.

Oh, there certainly is a place for statistics in describing past events, but predicting the future based on a statistical analysis can easily result in the $6 billion loss. As the sage words from the TV show Hill Street Blues reminds us, "Hey, let's be careful out there."

Wal-Mart and history

Engaged in the Wal-Mart debate are two sides: those who shop at Wal-Mart due to its selection and low price; and those who want to use the punitive arm of government to put Wal-Mart out of business.

Those of us who support Wal-Mart are a fickle lot. The minute a better option appears we will quickly cross the street to the new store without even a mournful glance at our previously favored best buy. You see, Wal-Mart's time will come. Someday it will be supplanted by a store that out performs it on price, selection, or both. The supporters represent the free market.

Those who fight Wal-Mart want to see the end of everyday low prices. Since the opponents recognize that the consumer desires Wal-Mart, they appeal to government to close the doors on all those packed supercenters. These folks represent statist interventionism.

The problem with having government intervene is that no better option exists once Wal-Mart is locked by decree. Sure the doors can be closed, but where does the consumer go to purchase goods at the price and quality desired? The followers of the free market have no qualms watching Wal-Mart's assured demise once a new competitor appears that can offer a more satisfactory option. When our choices close the doors on the Bentonville Behemoth, it will because the better option is available. The closing of Wal-Mart will simply be a signal that the consumer is now better off.

If government acts according to statist interventionism, it destroys consumer choice, investor capital, and jobs; leaving no better option, just waste, inefficiencies, and unmet wants. But isn't that the typical result of all government interventions?

Homeland Security in the Chicken Coop

The big arrest outside the September 21, 2006 gubernatorial debate. I'm glad the police are keeping our street clear of opposition candidates.

From the Peirce campaign web site: "Here’s a quick little music video of the Peirce supporters in chicken suits mocking the Ken & Ted ‘Fraid Chickens at Wednesday’s Gubernatorial Debate."





At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin. From a speech delivered by the Hon. Ron Paul of Texas, current member of Congress.

This video would be funny if it wasn't so sad watching our Liberty fade away. Thank goodness for internet, the last remaining avenue of free speech.

Value-Added Analysis

You are going to here a lot about value-added analysis as an indicator of academic performance in the coming year as the state begins rolling out value-added as a new accountability indicator. Be careful.

Value-added is purported to show whether or not a child has achieved a year's worth of academic growth during the past school year. The year-for-a-year will become the new standard by which student achievement, as well as district, school, and teacher performance, is judged.

There are problems with this standard. It is important to understand that value-added only shows whether or not a student has remained in the same place on the bell curve from year to year. [1] In addition, value-added only compares the current level of student achievement against past levels of grouped, similar-situated student achievement.

If we agree that the education system needs to improve, basing the standard on a string of historic test scores will not drive improvements. To satisfy that standard, the school system only needs to continue producing the same product as has been historically produced. In other words, Detroit in the 80's and 90's could have satisfied a value-added standard by simply producing the same cars that it had produced in the 60's and 70's. Value-added would not have set the standard at the level of newer model Japanese cars.

A concept of total achievement is a much more valid standard. Instead of evaluating student progress against historical aggregates, total achievement looks at student performance against a measure set by students and their parents. The student who desires to attend college needs to graduate with skills that open college doors. Having met year-for-a-year growth, then subsequently receiving letters of non-acceptance, or letters of qualified acceptance (where acceptance is based on taking remedial college course-work), would constitute a failure of the system. The year-for-a-year does not guarantee a quality outcome – only an average outcome based on the historic academic achievement of similarly-situated students.

So, for example, if your child struggles for a few years, value-added will place you child in a path with other students who struggled. In this situation, a lower-level of achievement becomes the acceptable standard; acceptable to the school system, but not to the parent.

Keep in mind that a year-for-a-year is not what is appears to be. I have yet to see a source that details a year's academic growth as a normative standard and not a relative ones; a normative standard described by a rubric that defines in exact terms what a year's growth looks like.

In other words, a year's worth of growth is defined as x where x has no relationship to other similarly-situated students' historical pattern of test results; a rubric that answers the question, "What is the expected level of achievement, in absolute terms, of a given child at the end of fourth grade." Without such definitions, value-added is an empty concept when it is used as a standard of individual student achievement.

A look at total achievement: The fact that ACT is stating that the greater majority of students taking the ACT are not ready for college-level work shows that absolute levels of achievement are not being met - according on ACT's informed standards.

Basing a year's worth of growth on historic levels of achievement will never solve the education problem. In addition, telling parents that, "We did our job by advancing your child at the same pace as similarly-situated students (a year for a year), so your child's inability to get into college is not our problem," has a hollow ring. In this instance, the total achievement goal set by parents and child was to be college-ready upon graduation - a higher standard than a simple year's worth of growth.

I suspect most parents want more with regard to their child's education than a simple progression equal to the historic test patterns of similarly-situated children.

That's what value-added isn’t; now for what value-added is. Value-added is a statistical means to evaluate programs and teacher effectiveness; a tool that takes into account all attributes of a child so that no one can claim that a program or teacher's class achieved low-level of results due to the students being the product of poor demographics, or that simply meeting state proficiency levels is sufficient for high socio-economics districts.

Value-added is not the ends, it is the means to improve the system. Programs or teachers that cannot keep pace with average growth should, respectively, be discontinued or shown the door.

The solution must be growth patterns that continually exceed historic averages across the board. Anything less is an insult to children, and their parents.

Notes:

[1] This is a very simple description of a complex system, though it is accurate in a simplistic way.

Quotes

"It may sometimes be expedient for a man to heat the stove with his furniture. But if he does, he should know what the remoter effects will be. He should not delude himself by believing that he has discovered a wonderful new method of heating his premises." Human Action, Ludwig von Mises.


"If it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by the governor and council, the commissioners of the literary fund, or any other general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816)

Response to the push for federal education standards

Be cautious about advocating for federal control over any issue. The feds are simply an aggregation of state officials and bureaucrats - no better, though more power-hungry. Sometimes we forget that the drive to game the system is found at all levels of government.

Having the feds involved creates a positive impression simply because we have been taught to believe in the omniscience of the greater governmental power. That's why issues move up the chain of control, since those who are unhappy with their local situation appeal to the next level of government for redress.

A true market doesn't need governmental control as all can be satisfied with their own choices. Of course, some are only satisfied when we all are required to select the supposed correct public good.

The movement of standards from the local level to the federal level will not reduce the politics involved in the process. Typically, federal issues are more political due to the increased amount of money at stake with any decision.

Advocating for federal standards, and their certain to follow accountability and control, seems antithetical to school choice. Once the feds push standards down to the local level, all schools will have to adhere to them, whether they are good for a given child or not. School choice will become the same as the choice between a Whopper or Big Mac. Not much of a choice at all for those who prefer a Taco Bell Bean Burrito.

Blowing the whistle on silly laws

Effective tomorrow, Ohio Revised Code § 4511.56. Signal devices on bicycle will contain the following language:

C) A bicycle may be equipped with a device capable of giving an audible signal, except that a bicycle shall not be equipped with nor shall any person use upon a bicycle any siren or whistle.

Yes, the state is finally putting a stop to such activities! Blowing a whistle while riding a bike, indeed!

Similar to Thomas Woods's comment about the volumes of federal laws and regulations; thank goodness we have ORC 4511.56. One can only imagine the chaos that would ensue should this law be repealed.

So, who says our state representatives don't earn their pay?

Knowledge, action, and the feds

Latest Mises.org Blog post by Jim Fedako
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005629.asp


As has been reported on this blog, Israel Kirzner wrote a short article where he distinguishes between information-knowledge and action-knowledge. The distinction between the two is that action-knowledge refers to "knowledge that actually spurs and shapes action" while information-knowledge is simply facts and figures that exist in memory. The point is that information alone has no economic value unless it takes the form of action-knowledge, thereby causing acting man to direct and redirect scarce resources to satisfy the most-pressing needs.

As reported by The Christian Science Monitor, Congress is working on a bill which will provide for a searchable internet database that details how government is spending our federal tax dollars. I'm certain that all of this data will be of interest to a lot of people, but additional heaps of data will not spur or shape any political change. The Soviet Union, another planned economy, was flooded in data yet continually wasted scarce resources chasing utopian dreams.

We already have sufficient data to know for certain that the feds are spending way too much of our tax dollars. We don't need more data; we need someone to stand before Congress like Davey Crockett and remind our representatives that our money is not theirs to give. We need action, and its requisite action-knowledge, instead of servers full of more depressing data.

Is All-Day Kindergarten An Economic Fix?

Latest Mises.org article:

Is All-Day Kindergarten An Economic Fix?
By Jim Fedako
Posted on 9/14/2006

Is your state's economy in the doldrums? Does it need a kick start to get it humming again? The immediate and boring solution is reduced government regulations and tax cuts. But according to a new civic ethos, the long-term and innovative solution is mandatory, all-day kindergarten.

That's rights, all-day kindergarten is the perfect solution for the politician looking for headlines and votes. What a great way to stand out from the crowd of other power-seekers. All-day kindergarten is for the children, and it will improve the state's economy — though improvements will not be seen for a quarter century at best.

You see, it takes anywhere from 3 to 5 years to fully implement a government solution, so the first class to benefit from all-day kindergarten is still 3 to 5 years in the future. Then it takes another 17 years for a child to move through the primary, secondary, and tertiary school programs in order to receive a Bachelor of Arts degree. Finally, the new graduate has to find a job and become acclimated to a new career — add another 5 years. So, there you have it, benefits to all-day kindergarten do not begin accruing for at least 25 years.

And, more importantly, the first time anyone can empirically assess the benefits relative to the costs is more like 28 years from now — assuming three years for data to be gathered and analyzed. Of course, that is if there are any benefits to accrue. In the meantime, the bills keep coming and coming.

Twenty-eight years from now? By then, who cares? The politician who crafted the law is retired in Florida, and the years of additional interventions have muddied the educational waters so that all-day kindergarten will be the least of our worries. If the public education system is still plodding along, there will be other ideas to implement and the educationists and unions will still sing praises to the man who gave the state mandatory, all-day indoctrination of five-year olds.

Success will follow implementation, because the success will be the implementation. The praises and awards will be given to the man who was brave enough to push such a beneficial program forward against hostile and vile opposition; a program that not only benefited the kids, but also got the economy back on track.

Advance the clock a couple of years after the proposal of this long-term solution: The governor who ran on the platform of all-day kindergarten pushed and prodded his legislature to fund the program a year ago. Through the rustbelt haze, a solitary economic report shows that the state is on the rebound. The media is summoned and governor proudly states that his plan for an improved educational climate in the state has lead to an economic resurgence. All-day kindergarten has saved the day.

You ask, "How could the economy benefit in such a relatively short time from a program whose results will not be known for decades?" The governor's Keynesian court will set this matter straight. See, it wasn't the increased academic performance to be reaped years hence that saved the state today; it was the pumping of additional funds into the state's rustbelt economy. Yes, the state — I mean the governor — has guided the state to brighter horizons.

Think about it, we are talking about a double benefit here. An improved economy now, plus the utopian society born a little more than two decades from now as the first all-day-kindergarten class graduates college and introduces the world to the Progressive heaven on earth. What a way to retire fulfilled on the beaches of a sunny coast? The marble bust of this visionary governor will rest in the center of the state capital rotunda, a Lenin-inspired monument visited by future children as they learn about the great state and its role in all facets of life.

All-day kindergarten, what a silly solution. And what fools we must be to even consider its merit. If the economy is lagging and education is the reason, the finger needs to be pointed at the changes in education that grew out of the 1960s and the work-to-rule unionization of teachers — the public education system itself. If education is the solution, the improved product will not begin hitting the streets for years — and it will never be the result of government programs, as only the market can solve the education malaise.

Carl Menger noted in his groundbreaking work, Principles of Economics, that time is central to understanding economics. Goods of a lower order cannot be produced today unless goods of higher order are already available. One cannot simply abstract time out of plans and expect immediate and realistic results. Time must be considered before proposing solutions or pursuing ends.

In addition, higher order goods derive their goods-character — their value — from corresponding goods of a lower order. The time factor comes into play whenever consumer desire for first order goods changes, resulting in changes to the value of corresponding higher order goods. Time is key. The motions set into play today may lead to the satisfaction of tomorrow's needs. But, then again, they may not.

The all-day Kindergarten solution is the means to satisfy some hypothetical end 25 years in the future. There is a high probability that today's education solution will not meet tomorrow's employment needs, especially when the solution is in the form of a government program and not the plans of a profit-seeking entrepreneur.

The educational and political systems do not recognize time when proposing solutions. How else can you explain the support for a program that may produce benefits decades from now; a program that is being proposed as a solution to an immediate problem? Of course there is the desire to hold power that drives humans to make fallacious statements, but I sometimes believe that many politicians and bureaucrats actually believe in their programs. The only reason for such invalid beliefs must that these individuals don't include time in their models and plans.

Programs created today that are supposed to have a future benefit are risky in the free market. Look back at entrepreneurial predictions that were proposed three decades ago and see how many hit the mark. Who predicted the internet age other than Al Gore? Despite the risks, government is always inclined to take on the long-term project that may never satisfy a need. The reason is simple, the kudos are delivered at the groundbreaking ceremony, along with the photo ops and headlines. The failures are forgotten or pinned on the other political party.

Voters go along with these ideas since they were never taught the concept of time, and how time affects economics matters. The current mainstream paradigm, the one taught in public schools and most universities, simply abstracts out the influence of time. Only the Austrian School recognizes time since the Austrians understanding of the allocation of scarce resources is not tied to static models of equilibrium; models where time has neither place nor merit.

So we are stuck with dueling gubernatorial candidates debating whose plan for all-day Kindergarten will save a rustbelt economy. Neither candidate takes into consideration the added tax dollars that must be picked from taxpayer pockets in order to fund the program. They never debit their account for all the lost economic activities that would have occurred had those dollars been allowed to be freely invested in order to satisfy real consumer wants. They only credit their account for the implementation of a program that might produce results far off in the future.

Let's settle the scores; the politicians and bureaucrats win since they claim success based on programs implemented, the children lose due to additional years in state institutions, the teachers and their unions win as more money is pumped into the sinking barge, and the taxpayer — William Graham Sumner's forgotten man — continues to pay the bill year after year.

In economics, the best solution is always boring one — simply reduce regulations and cut taxes. Everything proposed by government is a fool's errand.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Fedako, a former professional cyclist who lives in Lewis Center, OH, is a member of the Olentangy Local School District and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist. Send him mail. Comment on the blog.

Letter to the editor

Israel M. Kirzner is an economist from the Austrian School. In his article, Action-Knowledge and Information-Knowledge, he distinguishes between the two types of knowledge. Congressman Tiberi appears to grasp only the simpler information-knowledge as he doesn't seem to be able to utilize his information-knowledge as action-knowledge.

Dear Editor:

Some knowledge is only valuable if someone will act on it. In his letter, "Bill shines brighter light on federal spending," U.S. Rep. Tiberi expresses his support for another federal initiative, the creation of a Google-like search engine that will allow internet users the ability to see exactly where Washington is spending our money. Tiberi says that the search engine will give taxpayers the ability to determine if too much, or too little, money is being spent on federal programs. Well, I don't need another search engine to figure out that too much money is currently being spent. So, the question to Tiberi is: When are you going to act and do something about it? Only then will the additional knowledge be of any value to overburdened taxpayers.

Jim Fedako

The exception that proves the rule

Hear's an interesting graphic.

click on graphic to enlarge

The correlation is supposed to be between wealth and performance, but Olentangy is the obvious exception to this rule. Second on wealth, yet 79th on performance. Something is very wrong with these results.

Or, should we spin the results, claim reverse causation, and pride ourselves with earning a lot despite the district's scores? That's it ... there's nothing like a positive spin ...

Blackwellian economics

How we are fooled sometimes. PT Barnum spoke the truth when he talked about the fool born every minute, and this appears to be my minute.

You see, I ran for a seat on the Central Committee of the Delaware County Republican Party because I thought that Ken Blackwell was a true small-government candidate. I supported his campaign financially because I believed what he said, although I apparently missed what he truly meant in his speeches and campaign literature.

Read the healthcare plan below and guess whether it's from Blackwell or some lesser socialist. Hint: It's Blackwell's plan.

In addition, Blackwell has transportation and energy plans that sound like they are a blend of Corporatism and Mussolini Fascism (I'm dealing strictly with the economics definition of this term, not its more sinister political one).

Watch out! Anytime you combine business sectors and government bureaucracies nothing good can result. I had always believed the conservative wing of the Republican Party understood this, now I realize that I am wrong once again.

The Blackwell campaign shows why FA Hayek, Nobel Laureate in Economics, stated that he could never call himself a conservative. The philosophy of the Right has blended with the Left, and now they're both statist fighting over whose central plan works best.

Spending reductions? Tax cuts? Please, you can't reduce spending and cut taxes when you truly believe that government provides the solutions.

It's Blackwell's inability to understand economics - the science of human action with regard to scarcity - that leads me to support Bill Peirce, Libertarian candidate for governor.



The Blackwell Plan

My Plan relies on five keys to success:

Government Reform: The Blackwell Plan will create a five member appointed Commission to coordinate healthcare policy and expenditures and supervise the numerous state agencies involved in the healthcare industry as well as Ohio's Medicaid Program.

Covering the Uninsured: The Blackwell Plan will create a new program called the "Buckeye Health Connection" which will work to provide health insurance to uninsured Ohioans by matching uninsured individuals with private health insurance coverage and facilitate (not replace) those relationships.

Medicaid Reform: The Blackwell Plan will work to address remaining issues reported by the Ohio Commission to Reform Medicaid; namely the creation of a separate Medicaid agency, the modernization of Medicaid's information systems, the establishment of a consumer-directed health care model for Medicaid clients, adequate funding for a complete audit of the Medicaid program, a more consumer-focused approach to clients in our long-term care programs which would enable them to have more control over the care they receive, and lastly ensuring that manipulation of eligibility for Medicaid not be used as a method of exercising fiscal control over the program.

Pharmacy Management: The Blackwell Plan will propose a statewide drug purchasing pool for all programs administered or financed by state government and will recommend pursuing affiliation with one or more of the existing state consortiums to include states already actively managing their pharmacy expenditures.

Insurance Reform: The Blackwell Plan will immediately increase the age a young adult can remain on a family insurance policy to 29, begin to strengthen health purchasing pools by allowing new forms of consumer-directed health care products, including health savings accounts.

Carl Menger, an economist and genius

According to Mises.org, Carl Menger (1840-1921) "was the true and sole founder of the Austrian school of economics proper." After reading Menger's work, Principles of Economics, Ludwig von Mises decided to become an economist.

Menger is known as one of the three economists (along with Jevons and Walras) who contemporaneously discovered the notion of marginal utility, thus defining many of the concepts that eluded Classical School of Economics (Adam Smith, David Ricardo, etc.) for a century. Menger's ideas founded the Austrian School of Economics - the school of economics that was founded in Austria but is now centered in the US.

The book is a great read and is available to download or purchase from Mises.org.

A listserve response on curriculum, standards, and tests

Deb hits the issue on the mark. Unless the political climate of the past hundred years or so reverses overnight, we will see little or no real change resulting from a government-run, top-down system. Whether its aegis is with the feds or the states, top-down, government-run systems do not work; though we at least have a chance at the statehouses.

Take NCLB, or its Ohio predecessor, as the example. My district, one of the wealthiest in Ohio, has been improving on state-mandated tests since they were inaugurated almost a decade ago. Not just improving in the number of students scoring proficient, but also in the number scoring accelerated or advanced proficient. The state report card scores imply that we are improving, but improving based on what?

Typically, 35% of our graduates still require remedial coursework at state universities, and the ACT College Readiness Report shows that only 36% of our recent graduates were prepared for college-level classes in the four subjects analyzed.

So, my district is now ranked excellent by the state, yet the colleges and universities are saying that our product is poor. How can that be reconciled?

Let's assume that the feds push through a national curriculum. What will we have? We will have a system similar to that already in place. My district aligns itself to the state curriculum, as well as those offered by entities such as the National Council of Teacher of Mathematics. Per Ohio law, the local board approves its curriculum.

During the approval process, I always ask questions such as, "What is the standard or rubric to evaluate a studen'ts understanding of the content item, 'Student will be able to explain the causes of the Civil War?'" You see, the response to such a content item could be either a simple paragraph or a research task that could easily become someone's life work. The response from the administration is always the anemic, "Our teachers know what it means to attain that standard." If they really know, why can't they convey it to the board member who religiously asks that very same question?

But, you say, the standards are set be the state and are evaluated by the tests. As a member of the Ohio Department of Education's Grade 4 Writing Content Advisory Committee, I have been involved in the creation of state test items. I know firsthand that the tests do not reveal what they claim to show. These committees are stacked by teachers and administrators who reduce state-level tests of curriculum standards to a farce.

The tests are a farce so the supposed improvement is also a farce; just ask the colleges and universities if they are seeing the improvements implied by district scores of state tests.

Anyone who thinks that the feds can and will form a committee that defines a curriculum, standards, and test items, free of educationist bias hasn't paid attention to who actually runs state committees and bureaucracies. The unions and the other pro Progressive Education organizations - such as your own state's school boards association - are always given the biggest stake in any supposed stakeholders meeting.

Legislatures will stand up to these groups the day Ohio ends de facto teacher right-to-work laws. That said, our legislature has been willing to move forward on charters and vouchers since these are outside the public education system - untouched by the committees and bureaucracies, at least initially. Anything that comes out of education committee/bureaucracy system has educationist fingerprints all over it.

Don't expect the feds to have any more will to drive those evils out of the system. If anything, the educationist will be able to gain more power since the goings-on that occur in DC, far from the sights of most of us, stay in DC.

Deb, Your are indeed correct.

Jim Fedako
Member, Olentangy Board of Education
blog: antipositivist.blogspot.com

All-day Kindergarten: a fool's errand

Is your state's economy in the doldrums? Does it need a kick-start to get it humming again? The immediate and boring solution is reduced government regulations and tax cuts. The long term and innovative solution is mandatory, all-day Kindergarten. [1]

That’s rights, proposing all-day Kindergarten as the solution to a sluggish economy is perfect for the politician seeking headlines and votes. What a great way to stand out from the crowd of other power-seekers. All-day Kindergarten is for the children, and it will improve the state’s economy – though any possible improvement will not be seen for at least a quarter century.

You see, since it takes anywhere from 3 to 5 years to fully implement a government solution, the first class of students to benefit from all-day Kindergarten is still 3 to 5 years in the future. Then it takes another 17 years of education for a child to receive a Bachelor of Arts degree. Finally, the new graduate has to find a job and become acclimated to a new career – add another 5 years. So there you have it, the benefits from all-day Kindergarten do not begin accruing for at least 25 years. Of course, that is if there are any benefits to accrue.

In addition, and more importantly, the first time anyone can empirically access the benefits relative to the costs is something like 28 years from now – assuming three years for data to be gathered and analyzed. In the meantime, the bills keep coming and coming.

28 years from now? By then, who will care? The politician who crafted the law is retired in Florida and the years of additional interventions have muddied the already murky educational waters to the extent that all-day Kindergarten will be the least of our worries. If the public education system is still plodding along after all those years, there will be other ideas to implement; new solutions to propose.

Success will follow implementation, because the success will be the implementation. The praises and awards will be given to the man who was brave enough to push forward such a beneficial program in the face of hostile opposition; a program that not only benefited the kids, but also got the economy back on track.

Advance the clock a couple of years after the proposal of this long-term solution: The governor who ran on the platform of all-day Kindergarten pushed and prodded his legislature to fund the program a year ago. Through the rustbelt haze, a solitary economic report crosses the governor's desk proclaiming that the state is on the rebound. The media is summoned and governor proudly states that his plan for an improved education climate has lead to an economic resurgence. All-day Kindergarten has saved the day.

You ask, “How could the economy benefit in such a relatively short time from a program whose results will not be known for decades?” The governor’s Keynesian court will set this matter straight. See, it was not the increased academic performance to be reaped years hence that saved the state today, it was the pumping of additional funds into the state’s rustbelt economy. Yes, the state – I mean the governor – has guided the state to brighter horizons.

Think about it, we are talking about a double benefit here. An improved economy now, plus the utopian society born a little more than two decades in the future as the first all-day Kindergarten class graduates from college and introduces the world to the Progressive heaven on earth. What a way to retire fulfilled on the beaches of a sunny coast? The marble bust of this visionary governor will rest in the center of the state capital rotunda, a Lenin-inspired monument visited by future children as they learn about the great state and its role in all facets of life.

All-day Kindergarten, what a silly solution? And, what fools we must be to even consider its merit. If the economy is lagging and education is the reason, the finger needs to be pointed at the changes in education that grew out of the Sixties and the work-to-rule unionization of teachers, along with all the other ills of a government-run education system. If education is the solution, the improved product will not begin hitting the streets for years – and it will never be the result of government programs as only the market can generate a solution to education's malaise.

Carl Menger notes in his groundbreaking work, Principles of Economics, that time is central to understanding economics. Goods of a lower order cannot be produced today unless goods of higher order are already available. One cannot simply abstract time out of plans and expect immediate and realistic results. Time must be considered before proposing solutions or pursuing ends.

In addition, higher order goods derive their goods-character – their value – from corresponding goods of a lower order. The time factor comes into play whenever consumer desire for first order goods changes, resulting in changes to the value of corresponding higher order goods. Time is key. The motions set into play today may lead to the satisfaction of tomorrow's needs. But, then again, they may not.

The all-day Kindergarten solution is the means to satisfy some hypothetical end 25 years in the future. There is a high probability that today's education solution will not meet tomorrow's employment needs, especially when the solution is in the form of a government program and not the plans of a profit-seeking entrepreneur.

The educational and political systems do not recognize time when proposing solutions. How else can you explain the support for a program that may produce benefits decades from now; a program that is being proposed as a solution to an immediate problem? Of course there is the desire to hold power that drives humans to make fallacious statements, but I sometimes believe that many politicians and bureaucrats actually believe in their programs.

Programs created today that are supposed to have a future benefit are risky in the free market. Look back at entrepreneurial predictions that were proposed three decades ago and see how many hit the mark. Who predicted the internet age other than Al Gore? Despite the risks, government is always inclined to take on the long-term project that may never satisfy a need. The reason is simple, the kudos are delivered at the groundbreaking ceremony, along with the photo ops and headlines. The failures are forgotten or pinned on the other political party.

Voters go along with these ideas since they were never taught the concept of time, and how time affects economics matters. The current mainstream paradigm, the one taught in public schools and most universities, simply abstracts out the influence of time. Only the Austrian School recognizes time since the Austrians understanding of the allocation of scarce resources is not tied to static models of equilibrium; models where time has neither place nor merit.

So we are stuck with dueling gubernatorial candidates debating whose plan for all-day Kindergarten will save a rustbelt economy. Neither candidate takes into consideration the added tax dollars that must be picked from taxpayer pockets in order to fund the program. They never debit their account for all the lost economic activities that would have occurred had those dollars been allowed to be freely invested in order to satisfy real consumer wants. They only credit their account for the implementation of a program that might produce results far off in the future.

Let’s settle the score; the politicians and bureaucrats win since they claim success based on programs implemented, the children lose due to additional years in state institutions, the teachers and their unions win as more money is pumped into the sinking barge, and the taxpayer – William Graham Sumner’s forgotten man – continues to pay the bill year after year.

In economics, the best solution is always boring one; simply reduce regulations and cut taxes. Everything proposed by government is a fool's errand.


[1] Of course the same can be said about suggestions for preschool programs, especially government-run preschool programs.

Football, economically speaking

Coming soon. In an economic sense, is high school football a public good or a private good?

Life Without Government Equals Chaos. Hardly!

We tend to assume that without an interventionist government – a government that extends beyond the enumerated powers in the Constitution - life would resolve into chaos. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In the nineteenth century, French economist Frédéric Bastiat remarked on the wonder of that phenomenon by exclaiming, "Paris gets fed!" The same can be said of New York, Tokyo, Mexico City, etc. It's doesn't take the intervention of a governmental planning board to ensure adequate food for all of us. Entrepreneurs seeking profit make certain that eggs and milk are readily available for tomorrow's breakfast.

Consider the alternative: In the late 1970's and early 1980's I spent three weeks in the then-socialist countries of Yugoslavia and East Germany. If it wasn't for the illegal food market there would have been nothing to eat other than cookies, Vodka, and stale bread. Keep in mind that the brightest minds planned these economies. Not much to be said for central planning.

But we tend to forget these real-world examples of government planning. Maybe we assume that our bureaucrats are more omniscient and brighter than those of Yugoslavia and East Germany. Ludwig von Mises of the Austrian School of Economics proved over 80 years ago that all attempts at central planning lead to chaos. He was correct then, and he is still correct today.

Yet we still believe in governmental solutions. As I have previously written, if government is omniscient, I am omniscient. And even I don’t believe that to be true. Parents allow school officials, such as me, to make important decisions for their children because there exists the belief that school officials somehow are unbiased and altruistic, and better at guiding children than their own parents. While it is certainly true that most school employees like working with students, they can’t possible have a child’s best interests in mind. That is the realm of parents only.

School officials have jobs, careers and families of their own. They also have biases and beliefs that greatly differ from individual parents. There is nothing wrong with differing views, but parents should not simply hand over their children to the schools and assume the best. We bristle at the idea of our friends, neighbors and family members guiding our parental decisions, yet we readily give school officials, who are nothing more than friends, neighbors and family members, the power to make those very same decisions. The robe of omniscience does not come with school employment or board election. In fact, there is nothing unique and special about school employment.

Remember, it's the entrepreneur who will truck the eggs and milk today so that you can eat tomorrow.

Jim Fedako

"But, who's going to run this thing?"

For many, the assumption is that only government can run a school system. But why is government the assumed solution to the problems that it alone creates?

Most of us don't want government running any operation since we know intuitively, and have seen empirically, that government operations fail to produce efficient results. Simply look at the former Soviet republics or review the operations of any state agency. Yet, many continue to advocate for government in education. Why?

The following is a reponse to a listserve post from a gentleman posing questions regarding who would run the schools if they were privatized. His line of questions are more statements of his belief in a government solution than a true attempt to gain additional knowledge.

John,

Your questions are similar to those posed almost two decades ago by citizens of the former Soviet Bloc as they faced new lives of freedom. When you ask these types off questions, you are not thinking "out of the box." Your questions are central-planning-centric in that you ask questions that are laced with doubts; doubts that lead to the response that the solution can only be realized through government planning. Your weakness is your refusal to believe in the free market that makes the wonders of this world possible, including this listserve.

When the internet exploded a decade ago, were we asking, "But, who is going to run this thing?" Sure, some asked that question simply because they sought government control over all forms of information, others because they feared change. The rest of us marveled at the ingenuity of the entrepreneurs who continue to improve the delivery of information and entertainment. No planning required

When you no longer ask your questions, you will find your answer.

note: Tom was correct in his use of the term "moron." I sit as a moron on a school board since I have no knowledge as to the real solution that will improve education for our future students. That knowledge is not available to me as a member of a government bureaucracy, though it is available to entrepreneurs who seek it. In addition, I cannot calculate whether the decisions I make will satisfy the desires of the consumers. It is the calculation question that destroys centrally-planned endeavors. Books by FA Hayek will explain the knowledge issue while books by Mises will explain the calculation issue. These books can lead to "out of the box" thinking if you are willing to let go of your current biases.

Jim Fedako
Member, Olentangy Board of Education
blog: antipositivist.blogspot.com
Skype: antipositivist

Peirce has my vote

Bill Peirce and I share views on a lot of issues. Though I recognize that Peirce as governor will not solve all of the state's problems in one jump, having him in office will spring Ohio in the right direction.

From Bill Peirce:

I approach all public policies with the vision of a truly free world of the sort that v. Mises described as the ultimate goal. My specific platform will not get us there in one jump, because the existing mass of federal, state, and local regulations is so complex and the people have been so conditioned by statism that they have to learn to be free. I will use every opportunity to cut spending, cut taxes, and decrease government intrusions into personal and business decisions.

Bill Peirce
Libertarian Candidate for Governor

www.peirceforohio.com

Fooled again!

How we are fooled sometimes. PT Barnum spoke the truth when he talked about a fool born every minute, and this appears to be my minute.

You see, I ran for a seat on the Central Committee of the Delaware County Republican Party because I thought that Ken Blackwell was a true small-government candidate. I supported his campaign financially because I believed what he said, although I apparently missed what he truly meant in his speeches and campaign literature.

Read the healthcare plan below and guess whether it's from Blackwell or some lesser socialist. Hint: It's Blackwell's plan.

In addition, Blackwell has transportation and energy plans that sound like they are a blend of Corporatism and Mussolini Fascism. Anytime you combine business sectors and government bureaucracies nothing good can result. I had always believed the conservative wing of the Republican Party understood this, now I realize that I am wrong once again.

The Blackwell campaign shows why FA Hayek, Nobel Laureate in Economics, stated that he could never call himself a conservative. The philosophy of the Right has blended with the Left, and now they're both statist fighting over whose central plan works best.

Spending reductions? Tax cuts? Please, you can't reduce spending and cut taxes when you truly believe that government provides the solutions.

Oh, and by the way, I'm in the market for a new gubernatorial candidate. Let me know if you find one on the horizon.



My Plan relies on five keys to success:

Government Reform: The Blackwell Plan will create a five member appointed Commission to coordinate healthcare policy and expenditures and supervise the numerous state agencies involved in the healthcare industry as well as Ohio's Medicaid Program.

Covering the Uninsured: The Blackwell Plan will create a new program called the "Buckeye Health Connection" which will work to provide health insurance to uninsured Ohioans by matching uninsured individuals with private health insurance coverage and facilitate (not replace) those relationships.

Medicaid Reform: The Blackwell Plan will work to address remaining issues reported by the Ohio Commission to Reform Medicaid; namely the creation of a separate Medicaid agency, the modernization of Medicaid's information systems, the establishment of a consumer-directed health care model for Medicaid clients, adequate funding for a complete audit of the Medicaid program, a more consumer-focused approach to clients in our long-term care programs which would enable them to have more control over the care they receive, and lastly ensuring that manipulation of eligibility for Medicaid not be used as a method of exercising fiscal control over the program.

Pharmacy Management: The Blackwell Plan will propose a statewide drug purchasing pool for all programs administered or financed by state government and will recommend pursuing affiliation with one or more of the existing state consortiums to include states already actively managing their pharmacy expenditures.

Insurance Reform: The Blackwell Plan will immediately increase the age a young adult can remain on a family insurance policy to 29, begin to strengthen health purchasing pools by allowing new forms of consumer-directed health care products, including health savings accounts.

Economics and the Public Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States, 1914-1946

Economics and the Public Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States, 1914-1946, Benjamin M. Anderson, available at Mises.org, is a wonderful exposition on government interventionism during that 30-year period. The book captures the litany of policies, laws, regulations, etc., that proved to be folly; an evil folly at that.

As I read about the financial machinations committed by various governments, I couldn't help wonder if those holding political power even recognized that the average American simply wanted to trade goods and services for money in order to purchase desired items. Let's face it, people want to trade, and they will trade despite governmental attempts to stop them - witness the black market in the former Soviet Union.

The farmer raises eggs but needs shoes while the cobbler makes shoes but needs bread, so they can only trade goods and services in an indirect manner; they need money. Or, stated correctly; they need money that will hold its value.

Federal Reserve inflation causes the farmer to fear letting his eggs go for the paper dollar. The reason being that he has no way of knowing the value that the dollar will hold tomorrow when he heads to the market to purchase the shoes he desires. This is most obvious during periods of high inflation and loose money, such as The Great Depression.[1] Had the US simply held to the gold standard and stopped inflating, people would have quickly adjusted to the situation and begun trading once again. The decade-long financial downturn would have ended much earlier, as previous depressions reveal.

Get government out of the financial markets and allow us to trade as we desire. The result will certainly be an improving economy and a brighter future.

I highly recommend Economics and the Public Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States, 1914-1946.


[1] We are currently in a period of high inflation that is beginning to manifest itself in the real estate market, similar to the technology stock market in the 1990's.

The wage gap the feds will never try to solve

Latest Mises.org post by Jim Fedako

"Here’s an easy way to double your salary: Go to work for the U.S. government." That's right, government employees receive an average compensation twice that of the average private-sector employee. Don't hold your breath for the commission to investigate this wage gap.

No need to fear, he only looks like Che (a slight resemblance)

Mises.org sells a number of t-shirts that have photos and slogans from the founders of the Austrian School of Economics. One prominent founder is Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, an astute economist and a cool mug-shot. Boehm-Bawerk wrote classic treatises on economics that influenced Ludwig von Mises. I personally recommend Basic Principal of Economic Value.

Oh, yeh ... intellectually speaking, he is as far away from Che as is possible.

For additional reading, try Interventions are always losers.

Regulations, expense, and lost freedom

This Mises.org article explains the results of government interventionism at all levels.

A Wonderful World of Parrillas
by N. Joseph Potts
[Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006]
[Subscribe at email services, tell others, or Digg this story.]


This is a story about a barbecue. In the South Florida back yard of a friend who had invited me over for dinner, I saw a most unusual barbecue, but what I learned about it from its owner informed me about a lot more than barbecues.

It hinted at the incredible power of freedom — the freedom of people to trade with each other, over distances and across borders. A freedom that has always throughout my life and the life of everyone else alive today been throttled, bled, and interfered with by government, for government. If it hadn't been, this would be no story at all. It would be everyday routine.

continue reading ...

Free books to download

Go to Gary North's web site to read excellent books on the Bible and Christian thought. Not only are the books interesting, challenging, and timely, they really are free.

Or, go to Mises.org for a host of free books on Austrian Economics and the free market. You can read, or download and read, all the classics, including Human Action and Man, Economy, and State. Enjoy them all.

Is the district really excellent?

Ohio's state-mandated tests purport to show student abilities relative to state academic standards, the test scores are hence a true measure of student achievement and knowledge. In addition, as an aggregate score, the tests are supposed to show the educational outcomes - product - of Ohio's school districts. At least that's the spin.

As a member of ODE's Grade 4 Writing Content Advisory Committee, I have been involved in the creation of state test items. I know firsthand that the tests do not reveal what they claim to show. When a district gets a high report card score and designation, it doesn't follow that high achievement really occurred. But don't take my word for it; go to the gatekeepers and third-party evaluators for a second opinion.

Olentangy is a state-designated excellent school district, but what does that really mean? According to the latest High Transition Report from the Ohio Board of Regents, 37% of Olentangy graduates attending one of Ohio's public colleges or universities required remedial course work. In addition, ACT - the organization that produces the ACT assessment - provides districts with a College Readiness Report [1] that shows only 36% of Olentangy graduates were prepared for college in all four subjects analyzed (English composition, algebra, social science, and biology).

Both the reports should be reason for pause when celebrating the district's state designation of excellence, especially in light of the district's mission statement and failed AYP status. These report should also be reason to pressure the board and administration for better performance. Tax dollars and student futures are on the line.

Footnote
[1] ACT does not make this report available on its web site, but you can request a copy of the original from the district.

Not meeting AYP. Significant?

Absolutely. When a district has adopted the mission to facilitate maximum learning for every child, every group of students had better perform at least above the state minimum academic standards. Keep in mind that districts are not held to the 75% pass rate for AYP calculations; the state-created, federally-mandated, AYP standards are actually much lower[1]. And, at least for Olentangy, the district's performance with regard to certain subgroups has been lacking for years.

Before you state that some of these subgroups have a history of low-performance and the Olentangy district performed as expected, download the data from ODE and see for yourself how many districts with much less resources saw subgroup scores much higher than those attained by Olentangy. The issue is not with the subgroup, the issue is the failure to satisfy the heart of the mission statement.

Missing AYP in 2006 should not shock anyone. Sadden? Yes. Shock? No.

Funny how missing AYP never made the district's self-congratulatory dispatch regarding results from the latest state report card. Swept under the rug I suppose ...


footnotes:

[1] In school year '07-'08, the AYP threshold will ratchet up once more. This means the AYP standard will increase above the current standard Olentangy failed to meet.

Improved state report card scores: What do they mean?

I like to say that my swimming times would have won Olympic Gold, if only I swam in 1952. Just as times in swimming have improved each year, scores on state-mandated tests have also been improving over time. The question one has to ask when reviewing district scores: Were the tax dollars spent by your district worth the improvement when even the average district is improving at a significant rate? Based on simple probability, half of the district certainly implemented programs of little merit. So, average improvement does not necessarily show improved programs or wisely-spent tax dollars. Average improvements may simply be a reflection of what happens naturally over time; result improve.

Coming soon

I didn't buy my property to enhance your property value. An essay on home ownership, property rights, and supposed externalities.

Also coming soon

An Austrian School of Economics response to Education and Capitalism: How Overcoming Our Fear of Markets and Economics Can Improve American Schools, Herbert Walberg and Joseph Bast, editors, 2005 Hoover Institution Press.

My response to a great article from George Reisman

George Reisman posted a great article on Mises.org. In Mining for the Next Million Years, Reisman addresses the fallacy of a world running out of energy and minerals.

My response:

Great article. One point that is sometimes missed is that capital is required to access those minerals. Even the minerals that coat my hand when planting trees are not easily extractable. Go farther underground or deeper into the oceans and the need for capital goods to extract minerals becomes obvious. The real problem is that though we fear that we are running out of minerals, such as oil, we look to government to tax profits and capital from investments in mineral-producing sectors. A pathetic response to the problem, but the only one than can make it so that we live the paraphrased quote from O'Neill, "it is horrible to be dying of cold with oil so near."

A great weekly news magazine

Read World magazine for a Christian perspective on the news. Every media source has its own bias, so chose the bias that fits with your views. And since there are no "R" rated photos or stories, you don't have to be embarrassed leaving a copy around for kids and guests to review. The magazine contains nothing other than the national and world news reported from a Christian perspective. Refreshing, indeed.