The response was predictable; as soon as word got out the president would be making a speech about reducing carbon pollution Republicans flipped back through their folder of poll tested pre-election talking points to "W" for "War on Coal". Update a few numbers and there you have it - President Obama is slowing ruining America and killing jobs with his obsession with having clean, breathable air.
Apparently to these Republicans nothing is more sacrosanct than jobs. And while lives trumped jobs back in the days of lead paint, mercury, and asbestos - at this point it seems the estimated 13,000 lives lost each year due to coal power are less important than the potential 16,000 jobs the president's new initiatives could eliminate.
Of course if Republicans are really serious about increasing employment regardless of the costs, there is plenty of good news available. Outside of passing the American Jobs Act that the president proposed the congress could also reverse the hiring trend in the public sector that has cost the economy over 600,000 jobs since 2009. Additionally it is estimated that the sequester cuts, which are starting to impact the employment status of many, especially those in the defense industry, will eliminate some 750,000 jobs this year.
But even beyond government jobs there are plenty of other opportunities to boost the economy that Republicans should support if jobs are our number one consideration. The recent gay marriage ruling by the Supreme Court for instance will induce hundreds of millions of dollars of new economic activity, as well as increasing tax revenue. Perhaps being gay is an abomination in the eyes of the lord but it still creates jobs.
Since 1982 the US has shut down over 1,000 abortion clinics. Obviously the closure of these facilities due to government regulations and red tape, restricting abortions across the country, have cost jobs which we could easily restore with some common sense changes that loosen government restrictions. This may lead to an increase in aborted fetuses but really what's more important here?
We should also consider ending the drug war. According to a report by the Cato Institute the legalization of cannabis alone would generate tens of billions of dollars in additional tax revenue for states. Maybe millions of people will become addicted to drugs they would have never had access to before but personal responsibility right?
And while it may lead to more crime and human trafficking, legalizing prostitution is certain to boost employment and add to government coffers. I think we can all agree that safety should take a back seat to jobs.
Clearly these are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to job creation but if we are serious about fixing the economy, the only possible way to accomplish this goal is to completely abandon the "good of the people" meme that our government operates under and expand job opportunities where ever possible. Otherwise we stand to lose valuable jobs like those in the coal industry that can't just be replaced by some free market clean energy solution.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Friday, June 21, 2013
Insuring corporate profits at the expense of consumers
Across the country as the economy took a turn for the worse in late 2007 many saw an opportunity to reduce the size of government, cut taxes for the wealthy and cut benefits for the most needy. And while these austerity measures were good at putting money in the hands of the rich and big corporations they hurt the middle class and the poor.
Continuing this trend, Michigan legislators are pandering to the auto insurance industry by considering a cap to the lifetime personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The idea is that capping these benefits will lead to lower rates for Michigan drivers. Given that Michigan drivers pay one if not the highest auto insurance rates in the nation reducing the costs would be a welcome change. However the resulting $125 per driver savings the governor is touting will have zero effect on our standing as the nation’s leader in auto insurance rate.
Additionally while Michigan residents do pay 5% more for their PIP benefits than the national average we also pay 13% more for comprehensive coverage and 30% more for collision.
This indicates that the motives for attacking the best PIP coverage in the nation has less to do with saving driver's money than appeasing the auto insurance industry who last year pulled in around $285 of profit per Michigan driver or over twice the savings of capping PIP.
But perhaps most disappointing is the governors statement that Michigan's PIP, which keeps many from having to declare bankruptcy simply to get the care they deserve, is too generous. This sets up a false choice of either expensive insurance or generous benefits. The reality is that there are a lot of things the government could do to affect auto insurance rates that wouldn't sacrifice benefits.
For example changing intersections to roundabouts has been shown to reduce injury accidents by 80% and all accidents by 40%. Obviously the less accidents drivers are involved in the less cost to insurance companies and the lower rates we should pay. The same is true of speed limits where the increased speed limits many states have adopted have lead to as much as a 9.1% increase in accidents.
And while "choice" has been the excuse to alter many of Michigan's long standing laws regardless of cost - such as in the case of the motorcycle helmet law repeal, where the decision to give riders a "choice" has resulted in a 34% increase in per accident costs - no such consideration has been given regarding PIP. Perhaps some consumers would choose to pay the additional $125 per year to have lifetime benefits while others would choose to reduce their rate and accept a lower level of coverage.
Additionally analysis shows that thanks to no fault insurance Michigan drivers are more likely to visit the hospital after an accident. These "extra" visits end up costing insurance companies regardless of how necessary the visit. Perhaps people should be given a choice to have a co-pay for these trips to the hospital. This should lower the rates of those who choose such an option.
Michigan legislators could also do other things like increase the number of police on the streets to cut down on auto theft, promote methods of reducing insurance fraud, and implement a system similar to the one in North Carolina that sets a state rate which is very difficult for insurance companies to increase. This system helps them to consistently offer some of the cheapest auto insurance rates in the nation.
Of course all of this assumes our insurance rates are even a real problem. According to the Insurance Institute of Michigan, most states start with a base rate and go up from there with various surcharges. In Michigan the base rates tend to be the top rates charged instead of the lowest, with discounts typically being offered. This means comparing base rates would not be a true apples to apples comparison.
In the end, of all the options available to the Michigan legislature, capping PIP may be the worst possible solution for consumers given the potential costs for such a small savings. Rather than again asking the poor and middle class to accept the bulk of the "shared sacrifice", perhaps it is time for legislators to start doing the job they are paid by Michigan tax payers to do and start looking for real solutions that benefit everyone instead of another corporate giveaway.
Continuing this trend, Michigan legislators are pandering to the auto insurance industry by considering a cap to the lifetime personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The idea is that capping these benefits will lead to lower rates for Michigan drivers. Given that Michigan drivers pay one if not the highest auto insurance rates in the nation reducing the costs would be a welcome change. However the resulting $125 per driver savings the governor is touting will have zero effect on our standing as the nation’s leader in auto insurance rate.
Additionally while Michigan residents do pay 5% more for their PIP benefits than the national average we also pay 13% more for comprehensive coverage and 30% more for collision.
This indicates that the motives for attacking the best PIP coverage in the nation has less to do with saving driver's money than appeasing the auto insurance industry who last year pulled in around $285 of profit per Michigan driver or over twice the savings of capping PIP.
But perhaps most disappointing is the governors statement that Michigan's PIP, which keeps many from having to declare bankruptcy simply to get the care they deserve, is too generous. This sets up a false choice of either expensive insurance or generous benefits. The reality is that there are a lot of things the government could do to affect auto insurance rates that wouldn't sacrifice benefits.
For example changing intersections to roundabouts has been shown to reduce injury accidents by 80% and all accidents by 40%. Obviously the less accidents drivers are involved in the less cost to insurance companies and the lower rates we should pay. The same is true of speed limits where the increased speed limits many states have adopted have lead to as much as a 9.1% increase in accidents.
And while "choice" has been the excuse to alter many of Michigan's long standing laws regardless of cost - such as in the case of the motorcycle helmet law repeal, where the decision to give riders a "choice" has resulted in a 34% increase in per accident costs - no such consideration has been given regarding PIP. Perhaps some consumers would choose to pay the additional $125 per year to have lifetime benefits while others would choose to reduce their rate and accept a lower level of coverage.
Additionally analysis shows that thanks to no fault insurance Michigan drivers are more likely to visit the hospital after an accident. These "extra" visits end up costing insurance companies regardless of how necessary the visit. Perhaps people should be given a choice to have a co-pay for these trips to the hospital. This should lower the rates of those who choose such an option.
Michigan legislators could also do other things like increase the number of police on the streets to cut down on auto theft, promote methods of reducing insurance fraud, and implement a system similar to the one in North Carolina that sets a state rate which is very difficult for insurance companies to increase. This system helps them to consistently offer some of the cheapest auto insurance rates in the nation.
Of course all of this assumes our insurance rates are even a real problem. According to the Insurance Institute of Michigan, most states start with a base rate and go up from there with various surcharges. In Michigan the base rates tend to be the top rates charged instead of the lowest, with discounts typically being offered. This means comparing base rates would not be a true apples to apples comparison.
In the end, of all the options available to the Michigan legislature, capping PIP may be the worst possible solution for consumers given the potential costs for such a small savings. Rather than again asking the poor and middle class to accept the bulk of the "shared sacrifice", perhaps it is time for legislators to start doing the job they are paid by Michigan tax payers to do and start looking for real solutions that benefit everyone instead of another corporate giveaway.
Broken bureaucracy bad for education
If you happen to be on Governor Snyder's email list you know he has been talking up his education policy recently. The most recent promotional item being offered up by the governor’s office is the claim that state education spending has increased each year of his term.
While it is true that "state" spending has increased each year total spending on education has not. To make his numbers work the governor co-opts funding that was previously supplied at the local level and now includes it in the state numbers.
The Citizens Research Council of Michigan did thorough research on the topic and found that actual per pupil revenue for traditional K-12 education has fallen by 13.1% since 2004. Similarly the Michigan Senate report on per pupil spending shows that current spending is below the pre-Rick Snyder era levels. Additionally for the 2003-2004 school year Michigan's per pupil spending was 7.8% more than the US average while the 2009-2010 level is 2.9% below the US average.
Of course Rick Snyder is a politician and we all expect politicians to spin data to suit their needs. But who is Rick Snyder trying to impress here? Liberals and educators have followed the cuts to education spending far too closely to be deceived by political number manipulation. And Republicans and corporatist already think education spending is too high to laud what they see as yet more education spending.
But even if this is just deft political maneuvering by the governor, being lectured from a politician on improving education is an ironic situation. When discussing Michigan's education system Rick Snyder said "Our whole system in the United States is pretty broken".
Well perhaps the governor would be interested in knowing that according to polls 79% of parents give the school their child attends and "A or B" rating while only 40% of Michigan residents approve of the job the governor is doing. It should also be noted that according to a CNN poll, 86% of Americans say our system of government is broken.
The reality is that the meme that our education system is broken is politically motivated myth. So rather than spreading more hyperbole in an attempt to corporatize our children perhaps politicians should spend some time getting their own house in order instead of saddling hard working teachers with more uninformed bureaucracy.
While it is true that "state" spending has increased each year total spending on education has not. To make his numbers work the governor co-opts funding that was previously supplied at the local level and now includes it in the state numbers.
The Citizens Research Council of Michigan did thorough research on the topic and found that actual per pupil revenue for traditional K-12 education has fallen by 13.1% since 2004. Similarly the Michigan Senate report on per pupil spending shows that current spending is below the pre-Rick Snyder era levels. Additionally for the 2003-2004 school year Michigan's per pupil spending was 7.8% more than the US average while the 2009-2010 level is 2.9% below the US average.
Of course Rick Snyder is a politician and we all expect politicians to spin data to suit their needs. But who is Rick Snyder trying to impress here? Liberals and educators have followed the cuts to education spending far too closely to be deceived by political number manipulation. And Republicans and corporatist already think education spending is too high to laud what they see as yet more education spending.
But even if this is just deft political maneuvering by the governor, being lectured from a politician on improving education is an ironic situation. When discussing Michigan's education system Rick Snyder said "Our whole system in the United States is pretty broken".
Well perhaps the governor would be interested in knowing that according to polls 79% of parents give the school their child attends and "A or B" rating while only 40% of Michigan residents approve of the job the governor is doing. It should also be noted that according to a CNN poll, 86% of Americans say our system of government is broken.
The reality is that the meme that our education system is broken is politically motivated myth. So rather than spreading more hyperbole in an attempt to corporatize our children perhaps politicians should spend some time getting their own house in order instead of saddling hard working teachers with more uninformed bureaucracy.
Friday, June 14, 2013
The merit pay disconnect
Given that the Michigan legislature is considering merit pay for public teachers, conservatives are attempting to convince residents that this free market idea is essential to improving educational outcomes. Unfortunately these articles tend to be heavy on opinion and light on data showing that merit pay actually improves educational outcomes.
The most recent examples of the merit pay arguments have been offered up by Tom Gantert at Capital Confidential and Brittany Baldwin here at the Detroit News. In this iteration of the argument "Teacher of the year" recipient Gary Abud represents the anecdotal evidence that proves the need for merit pay.
The contention is that while Mr. Abud has been chosen as Michigan's best teacher he is not compensated accordingly because of evil union contracts that use degrees and years of service to determine his pay.
But here is where the supporters of merit pay make the giant leap of faith. Even without monetary incentives Gary Abud was motivated to become the best teacher in Michigan. Not only that, even when pushed on the topic Mr. Abud didn't argue for merit pay. At this point the only people really arguing for merit pay are the corporatists, who, regardless of data, believe in their hearts that merit pay works - you know the way all great business decisions are made - completely void of data and analysis.
And while conservatives will argue that "innovation" and "creative solutions" are key in education apparently that only applies to Charter schools since these very same conservatives are trying to standardize everything in public education and are ironically pretending that all Americans are motivated by the same thing - money.
Would a pastor inspire more good deeds if he was incentivized to do so? Would a Doctors without Borders doctor save more lives if there was a monetary reward for doing so? Would a fire fighter put out more fires if it increased his pay?
The reality is teachers are motivated by their students not by money. That doesn't mean they don't want to be compensated fairly but these people have many options and choose to teach knowing the pay going in. As a matter of fact Gary Abud was studying to be a physician before deciding his true calling was education. Any business will tell you that you can't design an effective incentive program is you don't understand what motives the employees and insisting that everyone values money in the same way is perhaps the biggest reason why merit pay consistently fails.
But even beyond this there is a massive disconnect at play in this argument. The criteria for determining the teacher of the year are "biographies and written essays that describe educational history, professional development activities, philosophy of teaching and thoughts on emerging education trends and issues." Conversely the criteria for determining merit pay bonuses currently being considered is student test scores. Perhaps Gary Abud's students routinely get the best test scores in his district or the state but those scores were never a consideration in how successful a teacher he is.
If Gary Abud is the poster boy for great teachers then design your merit pay program to match the skills measured for this honor, otherwise admit that your obsession with merit pay has more to do with your personal beliefs than some well thought out free market style analysis that results in a truly effective program.
The most recent examples of the merit pay arguments have been offered up by Tom Gantert at Capital Confidential and Brittany Baldwin here at the Detroit News. In this iteration of the argument "Teacher of the year" recipient Gary Abud represents the anecdotal evidence that proves the need for merit pay.
The contention is that while Mr. Abud has been chosen as Michigan's best teacher he is not compensated accordingly because of evil union contracts that use degrees and years of service to determine his pay.
But here is where the supporters of merit pay make the giant leap of faith. Even without monetary incentives Gary Abud was motivated to become the best teacher in Michigan. Not only that, even when pushed on the topic Mr. Abud didn't argue for merit pay. At this point the only people really arguing for merit pay are the corporatists, who, regardless of data, believe in their hearts that merit pay works - you know the way all great business decisions are made - completely void of data and analysis.
And while conservatives will argue that "innovation" and "creative solutions" are key in education apparently that only applies to Charter schools since these very same conservatives are trying to standardize everything in public education and are ironically pretending that all Americans are motivated by the same thing - money.
Would a pastor inspire more good deeds if he was incentivized to do so? Would a Doctors without Borders doctor save more lives if there was a monetary reward for doing so? Would a fire fighter put out more fires if it increased his pay?
The reality is teachers are motivated by their students not by money. That doesn't mean they don't want to be compensated fairly but these people have many options and choose to teach knowing the pay going in. As a matter of fact Gary Abud was studying to be a physician before deciding his true calling was education. Any business will tell you that you can't design an effective incentive program is you don't understand what motives the employees and insisting that everyone values money in the same way is perhaps the biggest reason why merit pay consistently fails.
But even beyond this there is a massive disconnect at play in this argument. The criteria for determining the teacher of the year are "biographies and written essays that describe educational history, professional development activities, philosophy of teaching and thoughts on emerging education trends and issues." Conversely the criteria for determining merit pay bonuses currently being considered is student test scores. Perhaps Gary Abud's students routinely get the best test scores in his district or the state but those scores were never a consideration in how successful a teacher he is.
If Gary Abud is the poster boy for great teachers then design your merit pay program to match the skills measured for this honor, otherwise admit that your obsession with merit pay has more to do with your personal beliefs than some well thought out free market style analysis that results in a truly effective program.
Monday, June 10, 2013
How to correct poltical correctness
Much has been made recently of the flippant statement Sergio Garcia made when discussing his squabble with Tiger Woods. While Sergio subsequently apologized for his remarks, the issue of political correctness is a source of much consternation for many conservatives.
Luckily Sergio discovered the error of his ways but his comments still received a troubling amount of positive responses. It seems that there is still a considerable portion of the population that is very concerned that their right to arbitrarily insult and belittle those not like them is being infringed upon. To these people the true injustice being perpetrated here is that they now have to hide their disdain for others or worse yet put themselves in someone else's shoes.
After all the "N" word is just African American's being too sensitive, complaints about entities profiting from the names and images of groups our fore fathers slaughtered just proves how thin skinned Native Americans can be, and concern over being asked to endure a more thorough examination at the airport is an example of Muslims being too touchy.
The reality is that to the person who is being insulted, asking others to recognize why certain words and phrases could be considered abhorrent isn't silly. And honoring that persons request to speak to them in a more respectful way doesn't mean you're weak or pandering.
Of course complaints from conservatives regarding political correctness are quite ironic given their response when the shoe is on the other foot. When a liberal group made an Ad comparing President Bush to Hitler conservatives were outraged. Jane Fonda's inconsiderate words and actions towards US military personnel serving in Vietnam, still bothers many veterans today. Use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and you are likely to get an hour long special on Fox News. When Helen Thomas made insensitive remarks about Israelis, conservatives were quick to call for her dismissal. And perhaps nothing was more irritating to conservatives than when Michelle Obama said "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country".
The real problem here is not that we are too politically correct or too sensitive but that we don't really understand why someone might be offended by our words. So rather than listening, accepting that our statements might be hurtful and attempting to treat others as we would like to be treated - we pretend there is something wrong with everyone else and claim "political correctness is killing this country" to cover for our own ignorance.
Additionally there are many who believe our first amendment rights are being restricted with this new level of civility. But the truth is you are still just as free now as you ever were to say any bigoted idea that comes to your mind, the only difference is that now you are more likely to be publicly shamed for narrow minded views.
Having said that there is an easy way to keep the PC police from targeting you - take a little personal responsibility for what comes out of your mouth and stop making thoughtless insensitive comments - problem solved!
Luckily Sergio discovered the error of his ways but his comments still received a troubling amount of positive responses. It seems that there is still a considerable portion of the population that is very concerned that their right to arbitrarily insult and belittle those not like them is being infringed upon. To these people the true injustice being perpetrated here is that they now have to hide their disdain for others or worse yet put themselves in someone else's shoes.
After all the "N" word is just African American's being too sensitive, complaints about entities profiting from the names and images of groups our fore fathers slaughtered just proves how thin skinned Native Americans can be, and concern over being asked to endure a more thorough examination at the airport is an example of Muslims being too touchy.
The reality is that to the person who is being insulted, asking others to recognize why certain words and phrases could be considered abhorrent isn't silly. And honoring that persons request to speak to them in a more respectful way doesn't mean you're weak or pandering.
Of course complaints from conservatives regarding political correctness are quite ironic given their response when the shoe is on the other foot. When a liberal group made an Ad comparing President Bush to Hitler conservatives were outraged. Jane Fonda's inconsiderate words and actions towards US military personnel serving in Vietnam, still bothers many veterans today. Use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and you are likely to get an hour long special on Fox News. When Helen Thomas made insensitive remarks about Israelis, conservatives were quick to call for her dismissal. And perhaps nothing was more irritating to conservatives than when Michelle Obama said "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country".
The real problem here is not that we are too politically correct or too sensitive but that we don't really understand why someone might be offended by our words. So rather than listening, accepting that our statements might be hurtful and attempting to treat others as we would like to be treated - we pretend there is something wrong with everyone else and claim "political correctness is killing this country" to cover for our own ignorance.
Additionally there are many who believe our first amendment rights are being restricted with this new level of civility. But the truth is you are still just as free now as you ever were to say any bigoted idea that comes to your mind, the only difference is that now you are more likely to be publicly shamed for narrow minded views.
Having said that there is an easy way to keep the PC police from targeting you - take a little personal responsibility for what comes out of your mouth and stop making thoughtless insensitive comments - problem solved!
Monday, June 3, 2013
Free market solutions do not equal better educational outcomes
Given the recent Mackinac Conference many people are talking about ways to improve education. My colleague Gary Wolfram took his usual economic view of politics to discuss the meme regarding more education spending leading to better educational outcomes.
It should be noted that this is a vast oversimplification of what people who believe our education system could use more money, me included, actually think. No one really believes that just throwing money at education will suddenly get results.
Having said that Gary makes a number of points that many probably agree with. First and most important Gary says "More money spent on government-produced education does not necessarily mean a better education for children." and "The children of Michigan deserve a quality education. This will only happen once we produce education through the market process rather than the same way the Soviets produced nails."
Unfortunately Gary draws a conclusion that is not supported by data. While there are certainly studies that show more money doesn't necessarily get better educational results there are others that show that the states that spend more on education tend to produce better outcomes. Regardless, concluding that the free market is the only way to improve education is a giant leap.
Of course not only is it a giant leap, it also isn't true. The reality is that the evidence shows the two biggest free market solutions Michigan Republicans have been pushing, Charter Schools and Merit Pay, do not necessarily mean a better education for children. If failing to show a correlation proves the "more money" supporters wrong then failing to show a correlation between free market solutions and better test scores similarly proves the "free market" supporters wrong.
So if free market solutions don't actually improve education then maybe the main goal of free market reformist is to reduce the costs. Unfortunately privatizing government services has a long but inglorious history when it comes to saving tax payers money. A study on the topic found that of 35 jobs offered out by the government, private contractors cost more in 33 of those jobs.
Beyond the privatization angle Gary also says "More money spent on education can simply mean higher salaries for teachers or administrators or non-educational personnel." yet the data shows that in Michigan the more per pupil money a school spends on their teachers the better the educational outcomes. This suggests that not only is higher pay for teachers not the problem with public education but that it could very well be the free market solution conservatives have been looking for. Additionally if higher salaries for administrators is detrimental to education then free market supporters should be against Charter schools since on average they spend $800 more per pupil on administrative costs than public schools
In the end no one is really arguing for a blank check to improve education in the US. They just don't believe you can cut your way to better education. The reality is that it costs money to hire good teachers, train older teachers in the newest techniques, build and maintain good facilities and provide cutting edge technology that prepares students for the ever changing world we live in.
Pretending that decades old free market solutions are the answer ignores mountains of data to the contrary and diverts time, money and resources from real changes that could actually improve educational outcomes.
It should be noted that this is a vast oversimplification of what people who believe our education system could use more money, me included, actually think. No one really believes that just throwing money at education will suddenly get results.
Having said that Gary makes a number of points that many probably agree with. First and most important Gary says "More money spent on government-produced education does not necessarily mean a better education for children." and "The children of Michigan deserve a quality education. This will only happen once we produce education through the market process rather than the same way the Soviets produced nails."
Unfortunately Gary draws a conclusion that is not supported by data. While there are certainly studies that show more money doesn't necessarily get better educational results there are others that show that the states that spend more on education tend to produce better outcomes. Regardless, concluding that the free market is the only way to improve education is a giant leap.
Of course not only is it a giant leap, it also isn't true. The reality is that the evidence shows the two biggest free market solutions Michigan Republicans have been pushing, Charter Schools and Merit Pay, do not necessarily mean a better education for children. If failing to show a correlation proves the "more money" supporters wrong then failing to show a correlation between free market solutions and better test scores similarly proves the "free market" supporters wrong.
So if free market solutions don't actually improve education then maybe the main goal of free market reformist is to reduce the costs. Unfortunately privatizing government services has a long but inglorious history when it comes to saving tax payers money. A study on the topic found that of 35 jobs offered out by the government, private contractors cost more in 33 of those jobs.
Beyond the privatization angle Gary also says "More money spent on education can simply mean higher salaries for teachers or administrators or non-educational personnel." yet the data shows that in Michigan the more per pupil money a school spends on their teachers the better the educational outcomes. This suggests that not only is higher pay for teachers not the problem with public education but that it could very well be the free market solution conservatives have been looking for. Additionally if higher salaries for administrators is detrimental to education then free market supporters should be against Charter schools since on average they spend $800 more per pupil on administrative costs than public schools
In the end no one is really arguing for a blank check to improve education in the US. They just don't believe you can cut your way to better education. The reality is that it costs money to hire good teachers, train older teachers in the newest techniques, build and maintain good facilities and provide cutting edge technology that prepares students for the ever changing world we live in.
Pretending that decades old free market solutions are the answer ignores mountains of data to the contrary and diverts time, money and resources from real changes that could actually improve educational outcomes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
