Concerning Data on Expulsions, But More Information Is Needed

The Chicago Tribune reports that privately run charter schools in Chicago have a higher rate of expulsion than do Chicago public schools. Significantly higher.

In the 2012-2013 academic year privately run charter schools expelled 307 students, out of 50,000. Traditional public schools expelled 182 out of 353,000. That kind of disparity should raise eyebrows. However, there are a few things that could be at play and must be brought into consideration.

The first is that the statistic is for privately run charter schools. I would like to see similar stats comparing private charters and public charters - as the charter presence expands and spreads to new cities, this information should be increasingly easy to find. It would be valuable to know how public charters compare to private charters and traditional public schools in terms of expulsion rates.

The second thing that should be noted, and is mentioned in the Tribune article, is that some private charters have lower rates of expulsion than public schools. This indicates that some private charters are doing better than public schools at addressing acute behavioral issues and keeping students in schools. Those private charters at the low end of the range may well be able to teach publics a thing or two about how to handle discipline issues. The charter advocate in me would point out that these successes are exactly why charters are so important - innovating is key to improving education.

This leads to the possible objection that some private charters are expelling more students, which might be a sign that the school is not doing well. One problem is that this criticism is often extended to the point of saying that charters shouldn't exist. The obvious weakness in this argument is that it doesn't hold traditional publics to the same standard. Many traditional public schools are horrible, but that doesn't mean all public schools should be eliminated.

Another weakness in this argument is that it does not account for the difference in the student populations of each school. Charter enrollment is predominantly students who have struggled with their previous school. The "cream skimming" theory has proven to be false. While this theory did initially seem to be plausible, it is equally logical that happy, successful students do not want to leave their school, which has been the case. With this in mind, one might expect a charter to have a higher rate of expulsion - a school that tends to draw struggling students might expect to have more behavioral issues. This is not to say that high rates of expulsion are to be excused, merely to say that these rates in and of themselves may not be sufficient grounds for condemnation or closure.

Lastly, these numbers do not get at qualitative issues. What does a school do with a dangerous or disruptive student? A school could lower its expulsion rate by putting struggling students in a room and setting extremely low standards for social and academic progress. This might look great on the stat sheet, but doesn't help the individual student very much, if at all. Conversely, a school with a high rate of expulsions might have a highly effective program for helping troubled children, but is overwhelmed by the number in need of help and must expel some. Or a school might have an excellent program, but if they attract those children who are the hardest to help the expulsion rate could still be quite high.

I do not mean to say that private charters should get a pass. The Tribune did well to publicize these stats. The figures should lead to further investigation. What I do mean to say is that these numbers do not make an iron clad argument against private charters. There is much more that needs to be known.

In Education, Autonomy and Accountability Help Everyone

Today I submitted the following response to an article in the Denver Post.

The importance of Superintendent Boasberg’s push to give schools more autonomy and greater accountability is made clear in Denver Teachers Challenge Law Over Forced Placement of Teachers. Autonomy and accountability serve the interests of teachers, who are concerned about staffing decisions, and advocates of reform, who are concerned about providing the best education possible to Colorado students.

Boasberg’s statement that staffing “is a matter for the courts to decide” shows that, without autonomy and accountability, the outcome is undesirable for all involved. When principals are not given the power to hire and retain the best teachers there is, understandably, reason for educators to be upset. Top-quality teachers do not demonstrate their skills in a courtroom. Similarly, parents and students deserve teachers who excel in the classroom.

In order for teachers to be treated with the respect they deserve principals must be able to hire the best educators and must also face the consequences of failing to hire the best. Many teachers spend countless hours honing unit and lesson plans, and spend countless more hours tailoring plans to fit the needs of specific students. No such teacher should suffer because staffing is left in the hands of legislators or judges.

Similarly, parents and students deserve schools that are empowered to make necessary staffing choices and are held to account for the outcomes of those choices. Every parent should feel that their child learns from teachers who are chosen for their ability to meet student needs.

Boasberg is right that “the principle of forced placement for teachers is a bad thing.” It is bad for teachers, parents, and students. High-quality teachers deserve to be recognized and rewarded for their talents, not shuffled around due to legislative dictate or judicial decision. Parents and students deserve the best possible educators, not those who are placed by a congressperson or judge.

An Increase In The Minimum Wage Could Well Hurt This Specific Person

Those who defend the minimum wage do not seem to do well when asked to respond to the question of why the minimum wage shouldn't be $100 an hour. The usual response is to laugh and call the question ridiculous. I don't think it is a ridiculous question at all. If $15 is reasonable (as was recently imposed in a Washington town), why not $20? Or $25? I believe minimum wage defenders do a poor job answering this question because, deep down, they know that the demand curve slopes down. As the price of labor goes up, those who purchase labor will adjust their purchasing decisions. This fact is more easily escapable when the effects are smaller. At a minimum wage of $100, it isn't so escapable. So, if a higher minimum wage could hurt some, how is it justified?

I have also heard (a few) minimum wage proponents admit that a higher minimum wage could hurt the employment prospects of some, but those who keep their jobs will earn more, and this gain offsets the cost to the person who is not employed, or underemployed, or is worked harder. I think that this position is easier to hold when one doesn't think of a specific individual who might suffer. (I do think it is immoral to make such a decision for someone else, but I'll leave that aside.)

This past weekend I encountered someone who could suffer from an increase in the minimum wage. I was grocery shopping at a large supermarket. Normally I use the self-checkout line, but I was purchasing a lot more than normal, so I opted for a lane with a checker and bagger. As always, I had a few canvas grocery bags with me. As my items were being scanned I noticed that the bagger was not being very careful about the bagging process. Delicate produce was underneath boxes and cans. Fresh greens were pressed up against a pint of ice cream. (I once walked a few blocks home with a head of lettuce in January. Turns out greens don't handle cold very well.) Of the three bags I brought, one was packed quite full, one mostly full, and one contained only a single item. Perhaps I am more discerning when it comes to grocery bagging - my first job was bagging and stocking shelves, and I am generally a fairly particular person - but I think it is safe to assume that any customer would be upset if their produce was crushed, their greens frozen, and/or they had to repack their bags so that the items were somewhat evenly distributed for carrying. Upset customers take away from productivity. Additionally, while my groceries were being scanned, the bagger was lamenting only being on the schedule from 2:45 - 4:30 that day. The checker looked at the schedule and corrected the bagger, "The schedule says you're in from 12:45 - 6:30. Did you come in at 12:45 or 2:45?" Being late also takes away from productivity. I was leaving at this point, so I do not know the outcome of the schedule confusion. It seems, though, that the bagger had difficulties reading a work schedule or had difficulties sticking to a schedule, and also needed work on bagging technique.

This bagger seemed to lack some important work skills: attention to detail, customer service, and punctuality. I have no idea what this individual's productivity is but, based on the skills this person might need to develop, it would seem a safe bet that it isn't $15 per hour. I am glad that the supermarket is able to employ this person in a productive role, and I hope that this role provides the opportunity for the bagger to enhance their skills. I fear that the supermarket, if it were forced to pay $15 an hour, would not be able to employ this bagger.

I am very thankful for the opportunities I had to improve my skills. I did not always make the best choices, and sometimes made costly mistakes. Luckily, I have had opportunities to improve my decision making and enhance my professional skills. An increase in the minimum wage could take such an opportunity away from the bagger, and others.

The Alluring Myth of "Free"

My good friend created an award-winning tech and media Flipboard magazine. Yesterday, it included a link to an article from Wired about a father and daughter who drove their Tesla S across the country. My friend, in teasing the link, added just a few words. Those words, I'd say, are very important. Here is the title, and then the title with my friend's addition:

First Cross-Country Tesla Trip Takes Less Than A Week, Costs $0

First Cross-Country Tesla Trip Takes Less Than A Week, Costs $0 [well $0 for the drivers at least]

That bit in the brackets is so important because it highlights the common belief that we can have/use things at no cost. The Wired article says that the father and daughter used Tesla's charging stations (which must not charge a fee for usage). The drivers, then, did not incur any monetary costs for charging their vehicle. The usage of the charging stations most certainly incurred a cost, though. The charging station is made of a number of materials. Labor and equipment were required for construction and installation. Each charge requires electricity. There is no way to harness and conduct electricity without using resources. The point is that a driver may not have to pay when they charge their car, but this does not mean that charging a car is free of cost.

My guess is that many people would not think to add "well $0 for the drivers at least" in their head as they read the title. The reason I feel safe making this guess is that I often hear statements along the lines of "Healthcare should be free to all." Or, less often, "Housing is a human right and should be free for everyone." Both of these sound wonderful. Both are impossible. Think about healthcare. Even if all doctors agreed to work for free, there would still be a cost. A doctor who devotes their time to treating patients is unable to use their time doing something else. This is a cost, and seeing as skilled physicians could definitely be employed usefully in a variety of ways, it is a significant cost. Additionally, providing medical care requires the use of many resources. Buildings, machinery, materials, medicines, and on and on. These resources, when used to provide medical care, cannot be used for something else. Even if some generous individual or organization were to donate all of these materials, there would still be a cost incurred by not using them for another purpose.

I understand the urge to believe in free. I would love for everyone to receive free healthcare. And housing. And food. And many other things. However, we live in a world of scarcity, and free is not possible. Believing in free denies that there are costs. Just because the drivers don't pay at the charging station doesn't mean that someone, or many people, aren't paying in other ways.

Questions for Buy Local Advocates

One of the arguments used by advocates of the buy local movement is that buying local makes people more prosperous. I've got a few questions for anyone who claims that buying local makes people better off.

Historically, why have people been willing to face great risk in order to trade? Why was anyone willing to make the camel voyage across the Sahara Desert? Why did the Silk Road come to be so important? Why did so many people around the world think it was worth it to put oneself at risk of banditry and exposure, amongst other dangers, to make such long voyages? And why were these traders so much more prosperous than vendors in remote villages?

Why didn't any of the most prosperous civilizations emerge in isolated areas? Why are great civilizations linked to extensive trade networks? Going back to the trade routes mentioned above, why were the towns on the trade route more prosperous than towns located off of the route?

If a town were completely cut off from trade what would happen to it? What if this same town, still cut off from trade, had several truckloads of $100 bills magically appear? Would the town be better off?

Finally, exactly which products should be purchased locally? Why? Which products are not important to buy locally? Why shouldn't these be made and bought locally? How do I know which of these two lists a product should go on?

The answers to these questions should show some of the faulty reasoning at the heart of the buy local movement.

Is Bitcoin A Solution for Marijuana Sellers?

Marijuana has just become legal in Colorado. Last week I was there to visit family, and marijuana was all over the news. One evening the local news reported on an armed robbery of a business that sells marijuana. While the reporter didn't explicitly say "See, this is what happens when drugs are legal," the message was certainly implied.

It is fairly clear why this robbery took place. It also seems safe to predict that more will occur. Businesses that sell marijuana have an exceedingly difficult time banking. Federal regulations make it nigh impossible for those who sell marijuana to bank. This means that they must keep a lot of cash on hand. It is possible, though I would say highly unlikely, that the government will act so that marijuana sellers can access banking services. Assuming that this does not happen, such businesses will continue to have large amounts of cash. This is, predictably, an attractive target for criminals. It is not the legalization of marijuana that is causing crime, it is the government regulation of banking. If furniture stores were unable to access banking services, it is quite reasonable to assume that criminals would increasingly target furniture sellers.

Businesses that cannot use banks will find an alternative way to avoid holding large amounts of cash. A few possibilities come to mind. Marijuana businesses could use gold or other traditional stores of value. I also wonder if they will turn to bitcoin. Having minimal knowledge of how bitcoin is bought and sold, I cannot say what sorts of transactions costs might be involved with exchanging cash for bitcoins. If these costs are not significantly high, and if my assumption about governmental failure to act is accurate, perhaps marijuana sellers will turn to bitcoin as an alternative to banks.