Thursday, March 28, 2013
Capitalism Is Alive
Good news! Capitalism is alive in the world and expanding its programs!
A major German international chemical company, Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik, also known as BASF, has established research collaboration with Harvard, MIT, and the University of Massachusetts. Research concentration will be on biofilms, and chemical formulations for drugs, foods, and cosmetics.
New and hopefully improved products for public use are generally developed through research operations at private or public companies, generally known as "industry". Much of that research is done within the company confines, known as the Research Department, where the economics and practicality of programs can be closely administered.
However, large American universities also have developed Research Departments, in conjunction with their major objective, which is teaching. Advanced degrees in the sciences, such as Masters and Doctorates, invariably require research, which is a combination of what is already known about a particular subject and physical laboratory work extension toward an increase in the knowledge of that subject.
In many cases, it is advantageous for industry to farm out some of its research programs to the universities, where much of the work can be done by graduate students at considerably lower cost. Industry administrators also have an opportunity to work with professors to reasonably direct the work toward their needs. This association is also advantageous to the graduate students, who are then through their research getting a head start on subjects of interest to their prospective employers. The system has been in effect for many years, but more recently has been overshadowed by large grants of taxpayer money from federal departments.
Federally supported research at universities is usually of less practical importance than industry supported research. Industry supported research has the intention of developing new profitable products for the supporting companies. Federally supported research is much less intent, since no profit motive is involved. This leads to a diversity of programs which are either favorable to government ideology, such as global warming, or those of a "curiosity" nature, such as how fast a butterfly beats its wings.
In these times of extreme budget deficits, I have been calling for a significant reduction of government grants research universities, because they effectively have no payback. However, I am a proponent of research of a more practical nature, and industry supported research more effectively supplies that need. In addition, the research cost is paid by industry and the economic nature of that operation automatically forces the research to be done at a practical level. Conversely, taxpayer supported research has no significant objective, other than to support, if possible, the ideologies of the federal government, and/or spend as much money as possible, which automatically enhances the power of the administrators.
It is on this basis that, I am pleased to report the newly established relations between BASF and the three Massachusetts universities.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Education Secretary Duncans Flap with the Press
Two days ago Education Secretary Duncan
was on the pan with reporters trying to explain about pink slips to
teachers.
It doesn't make any difference whether he called them pink slips, job dissolution, or anything else. He was trying to hedge, in an effort to make a political statement. More importantly, he really has nothing to do with it. Local teaches are hired and fired by the school board and teachers at military establishments are hired and fired by the military.
If he thinks he has some power to hire and fire local teachers, he must be referring to his control of of federal taxpayer fund allocations to local school districts. However, even that is not a significant item. If you don't know who pays the bulk of local teacher school salaries, take a look at your local real estate tax bill. The biggest item by far is the school tax, payable if you own a property, whether you have any children in school or not.
However, let's grant that federal funding may make up 10% or even 20% of the local school budget. An across-the-board cut based on the sequester might bring the funding down to say 1%, which is 5% of 20%. Remember that the sequester was supposed to apply equally to spending cuts across the board.
Let's also grant that the federal government finds a way to make spending cuts disproportionate for political reasons, and that the reduction in funding might be 5%. Would that make a real difference?
I believe most people would agree that public schools are not run economically. They tend to have bloated payrolls, not because the average teacher or even the best teachers are overpaid. Rather, because the administrations and costs thereof have grown disproportionately to the needs of the students. The teachers union has also arranged, as unions usually do, to keep on the incompetent at high salaries based upon their length of service.
With that said, what could be done by local school boards to compensate for a 1% cut in revenue, based upon a 5% sequester cut or even a straight 5% cut?
I have a few suggestions. First, weed out high paid incompetent teachers. This may require facing a threat of a teacher strike, but the threat should be faced. We may find that many teachers will continue to go to work in spite of a union strike position.
Next, look at the administration for each local school. It needs a principal, a secretary/receptionist and a janitor. Other school maintenance, such as lawn, building repair, and plumbing & electrical emergencies should be handled by private contract in the same manner as we usually handle these items for our homes.
For the remainder of the staff, a school nurse could be available for one to two hours each morning, with teachers and parents handling any emergency situations thereafter. Advanced therapy, such as psychiatrists, should be eliminated. Parents can do their own psychoanalysis or pay for professionals from their own pockets.
When I say the "remainder of the staff", I don't mean only the staff of the individual schools but also the school administrative offices in each municipality. Use an ax. We don't need pencil pushers there. Individual principles and secretaries know how to do their jobs, without overseeing by a barrage of "over the shoulder" lookers. A municipality the size of Lubbock needs a Superintendent of Schools, his/her secretary, and perhaps 4 or 5 other people. Anything else is excessive.
Eliminate all free school lunches. Maintain a lunchroom for students to eat their lunches brought from home. Parents can each morning prepare sandwiches and add fruit to a paper sack, with a bottle of water or milk for each lunch. If they have insufficient funds to do this, they can buy the food with their food stamps. This also eliminates the need for cooks, cleanup people, and the cost of food itself. The janitor can handle the disposal of sandwich wrappers and paper bags.
If the school system has a Head Start program, eliminate it. A recent federal government report shows that students who have participated in a Head Start program are no further advanced after several years than are students who have not been involved. In fact, the Had Start students are somewhat behind. Obviously, Head Start is not only a waste of money, it is detrimental to student advancement.
If those suggestions are implemented, I am sure we can not only continue to run a viable school program, perhaps more viable, to compensate for any sequester or further cuts that may be coming along and we would still likely be able to reduce our local school tax.
Before I forget it, there is one item of considerable significance. That is students do not need a country club atmosphere in order to learn. I lived in Italy for some years and found that the Italian education was quite competent, even though students used buildings which were in many cases perhaps 50 or 100 years old. We don't need bond issues with interest being paid by taxpayers in order to replace buildings every 10 or 20 years.
Finally, and of greatest importance, there is the need to eliminate the Department of Education. It is another high cost item of the federal government, which contributes nothing to the advantage of the public. Any kind of organization necessary to consolidate school districts can be done by state governments. We need to remember that the Constitution delegated few responsibilities to a federal government. Everything not so specified were reserved for control by the states.
It doesn't make any difference whether he called them pink slips, job dissolution, or anything else. He was trying to hedge, in an effort to make a political statement. More importantly, he really has nothing to do with it. Local teaches are hired and fired by the school board and teachers at military establishments are hired and fired by the military.
If he thinks he has some power to hire and fire local teachers, he must be referring to his control of of federal taxpayer fund allocations to local school districts. However, even that is not a significant item. If you don't know who pays the bulk of local teacher school salaries, take a look at your local real estate tax bill. The biggest item by far is the school tax, payable if you own a property, whether you have any children in school or not.
However, let's grant that federal funding may make up 10% or even 20% of the local school budget. An across-the-board cut based on the sequester might bring the funding down to say 1%, which is 5% of 20%. Remember that the sequester was supposed to apply equally to spending cuts across the board.
Let's also grant that the federal government finds a way to make spending cuts disproportionate for political reasons, and that the reduction in funding might be 5%. Would that make a real difference?
I believe most people would agree that public schools are not run economically. They tend to have bloated payrolls, not because the average teacher or even the best teachers are overpaid. Rather, because the administrations and costs thereof have grown disproportionately to the needs of the students. The teachers union has also arranged, as unions usually do, to keep on the incompetent at high salaries based upon their length of service.
With that said, what could be done by local school boards to compensate for a 1% cut in revenue, based upon a 5% sequester cut or even a straight 5% cut?
I have a few suggestions. First, weed out high paid incompetent teachers. This may require facing a threat of a teacher strike, but the threat should be faced. We may find that many teachers will continue to go to work in spite of a union strike position.
Next, look at the administration for each local school. It needs a principal, a secretary/receptionist and a janitor. Other school maintenance, such as lawn, building repair, and plumbing & electrical emergencies should be handled by private contract in the same manner as we usually handle these items for our homes.
For the remainder of the staff, a school nurse could be available for one to two hours each morning, with teachers and parents handling any emergency situations thereafter. Advanced therapy, such as psychiatrists, should be eliminated. Parents can do their own psychoanalysis or pay for professionals from their own pockets.
When I say the "remainder of the staff", I don't mean only the staff of the individual schools but also the school administrative offices in each municipality. Use an ax. We don't need pencil pushers there. Individual principles and secretaries know how to do their jobs, without overseeing by a barrage of "over the shoulder" lookers. A municipality the size of Lubbock needs a Superintendent of Schools, his/her secretary, and perhaps 4 or 5 other people. Anything else is excessive.
Eliminate all free school lunches. Maintain a lunchroom for students to eat their lunches brought from home. Parents can each morning prepare sandwiches and add fruit to a paper sack, with a bottle of water or milk for each lunch. If they have insufficient funds to do this, they can buy the food with their food stamps. This also eliminates the need for cooks, cleanup people, and the cost of food itself. The janitor can handle the disposal of sandwich wrappers and paper bags.
If the school system has a Head Start program, eliminate it. A recent federal government report shows that students who have participated in a Head Start program are no further advanced after several years than are students who have not been involved. In fact, the Had Start students are somewhat behind. Obviously, Head Start is not only a waste of money, it is detrimental to student advancement.
If those suggestions are implemented, I am sure we can not only continue to run a viable school program, perhaps more viable, to compensate for any sequester or further cuts that may be coming along and we would still likely be able to reduce our local school tax.
Before I forget it, there is one item of considerable significance. That is students do not need a country club atmosphere in order to learn. I lived in Italy for some years and found that the Italian education was quite competent, even though students used buildings which were in many cases perhaps 50 or 100 years old. We don't need bond issues with interest being paid by taxpayers in order to replace buildings every 10 or 20 years.
Finally, and of greatest importance, there is the need to eliminate the Department of Education. It is another high cost item of the federal government, which contributes nothing to the advantage of the public. Any kind of organization necessary to consolidate school districts can be done by state governments. We need to remember that the Constitution delegated few responsibilities to a federal government. Everything not so specified were reserved for control by the states.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
