More Good News: Why Go Back?

WESTPORT, Conn. — Math students in this high-performing school district used to rush through their Algebra I textbooks only to spend the first few months of Algebra II relearning everything they forgot or failed to grasp the first time.

So the district’s frustrated math teachers decided to rewrite the algebra curriculum, limiting it to about half of the 90 concepts typically covered in a high school course in hopes of developing a deeper understanding of key topics. Last year, they began replacing 1,000-plus-page math textbooks with their own custom-designed online curriculum; the lessons are typically written in Westport and then sent to a program in India, called HeyMath!, to jazz up the algorithms and problem sets with animation and sounds.

Connecticut District Tosses Algebra Textbooks and Goes Online, Winnie Hu, June 8, 2009

As I said on Friday, some good ideas are so good they seem like common sense and it’s hard to understand why they are not commonly used. Even more than that, there are entire industries that do nothing but waste our time and money. The private health care industry is a great example. Why should so many people spend so much time trying to make a profit on keeping us healthy?

As has often been said, that makes no more sense than creating an entire infrastructure dedicated to making a profit off of fire or police services. (We’ve really suffered from the desire to make a profit from war, too.) These are all very large-scale, dramatic examples that seem to generate all sorts of passions, perhaps because the changes seem so enourmous.

The end of the textbook industry, however, is a good example of a less-than-earth-shattering transformation that makes as much sense as a single payer health care system. As the Connecticut example shows, with a small investment (in their teachers) school districts can save a lot of money by simply by-passing a completely unnecessary, wasteful industry.

This is the sort of change– like SPIN farming– that is no doubt accelerated by the mess that conservatives have made of the economy. It’s also the kind of thing– like SPIN farming– that should be developed further as a part of the economic recovery. I think this could have gone even further, too. Districts could combine resources, for example, and hire local programmers.

“SPIN stands for S-mall P-lot IN-tensive”

SPIN stands for S-mall P-lot IN-tensive

SPIN-Farming is a non-technical, easy-to-learn and inexpensive-to-implement vegetable farming system that makes it possible to earn significant income from land bases under an acre in size. Whether you are new to farming, or want to farm in a new way, SPIN can work for you because:

* Its precise revenue targeting formulas and organic-based techniques make it possible to gross $50,000+ from a half- acre.
* You don’t need to own land. You can affordably rent or barter a small piece of land adequate in size for SPIN-Farming production.
* It works in either the city, country or small town.
* It fits into any lifestyle or life cycle.

SPIN is being practiced by first generation farmers because it removes the two big barriers to entry – land and capital – as well as by established farmers who want to diversify or downsize, as well as by part-time hobby farmers.

What is Spin Farming?

I watched “Earth 2100” the other night and it was so effective at communicating a sense of slow-moving doom that I had to go find something to clear my often-pessimistic political palate. The “Spin” plan is one of those simple, clear-headed ideas that seem so obvious that it’s hard to believe it’s not common practice.

It’s also interesting to think about what the site calls “first generation” farmers. I think it’s easy to see history as very linear: we lost all or most of the small farms and most of us left the countryside for the city and suburb and there’s no going back. The Spin folks seem to suggest all sorts of other ideas.

Maybe, a rust-belt city like Detroit, now being laced with small garden plots and farms, will become the model of a sustainable culture. Maybe]some of us will become farmers again. Instead of isolated, large scale plots of land, though, they will weave their farms into the ruins. It’s a great thought.

Death of a Cash Cow, Part II

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s budget proposal on education would for the first time index student-aid Pell Grant to inflation, guaranteeing low-income college students a stable grant amount, and pay for that expensive shift by eliminating $4 billion in annual subsidies to private banks who make student loans.

“The president has proposed the biggest change in the federal programs that help students finance a college education since the main higher education law was written in 1965,” said Terry Hartle, a vice president at the American Council on Education, which represents hundreds of colleges and universities.

Student Loans, SAM DILLON, February 26, 2009

The Reagan Era made stupid ideas seem ordinary and t encouraged us to not think too carefully. There are so many dumb ideas circulating that it’s impossible to know where to start the critique. Why, for example, were loans the primary form of student aide? And why were private banks involved?

A loan doesn’t make an education affordable, it puts off the costs of the education until after graduation. It’s a classic conservative short-term thinking confidence game. Don’t worry about the loans, the argument goes, you’ll be making more than enough money (thanks to your degree) to afford it.

Meanwhile, conservatives argue for increases in tuition and make enormous profits on textbooks while trying everything possible to drive down wages and salaries. And if that were not enough, they make the loans impossibly expensive (and profitable) by adding the costs of profit and administration.

It would make much more sense to cut if not eliminate tuition and fees. Schools, including universities, should be a ubiquitous and expected as fire departments and highways. In any case, taking private banks out of the equation can help free up a lot of money and potentially reduce the abusive of students via these loans.

Evolve and Dissolve: The Death of a Cash Cow

Evolve or dissolve. That advice, from a recent report on virtual universities, played out in two news stories this past week. The University of Texas’ online division is staring down a deep budget hole as it loses a longtime subsidy. And in Utah, budget cuts have killed a 10-campus online consortium.

Those and other predicaments reflect the growing pains of public online education. As programs mature, their business models have come under more scrutiny. The Texas and Utah cases speak to difficult questions facing states: What role should those programs play? How should states pay for them? Or should they?

Technology growth in the 1990s prompted a surge of online-learning collaborations. The groups prodded member colleges to put classes online, pooled courses into collaborative degrees, and supported online programs with promotions. Some became little more than state- or systemwide online catalogs.

News Analysis: Online Education Grows, but Painfully, By MARC PARRY

This story caught my eye because just this week the corporate entity that I work for celebrated enrolling 25,000 students for the first time. So while proprietary online education continues to grow, at least in some of its manifestations, public online schools continue their prolonged retrenchment.

I think the reasons are very obvious. The public schools thought they could leverage their reputations and already existing student bodies into a cash cow that would require little investment. They believed their own hype and invested very little of their own resources– financial and social– into developing a viable model.

Not surprisingly this model failed– or, rather, it has gone through a decade long rolling failure as one insitution after the other abandons projects that, as they sheepishly admit, turn out to not be very profitable after all. (The “Open Course” model, on the other hand, continues to thrive; that’s a separate story.)

I don’t mean to imply that the proprietary schools are doing a better job, or that they are in some sense less focused on the bottom line. That’s far from true. I think the proprietary online model is going to fail in the long run too, if that model continues to be conceived as a replacement for traditional education.

In the long run, I think, distance education is not going to be hugely profitable or broadly applicable. It’s a niche market. Once the public schools realize that and begin to search out and target their niches, the programs will run on the same model as traditional education: not a cash cow, but not a drain either.