There is a better way Alberta!

Alberta's basic operations like health and education have been held hostage by the price of oil for too long. Albertans need to understand that there is a better way to manage our oil so that we can keep our promises to our children, our seniors and ourselves.

We need to manage our spending as much as our revenue.

Alberta needs fair and progressive corporate taxation.

Alberta's oil belongs to Albertans. Albertans deserve their fair share of the profits from our oil.

Alberta has been lied to for too long. Blaming scapegoats might get you elected, but at some point, Albertans will speak truth to power, revealing the real culprits.

Take less than 5 minutes and watch this:

Whom is the Alberta Government for?

Alberta's public schools are expected to be
everything to everyone with less and less.

In Alberta, a dependency on oil and gas has left us grossly susceptible to excessive revenue volatility -- things are glorious in the booms but down-right scary in the busts. Thus, Alberta has come to be defined as much by our advantages as our disadvantages.

Today, Alberta is busting under a 40+ year old government now led by Jim Prentice who is yet again looking to balance the budget by cutting hard working Albertans and public goods such as health and education.

No one in their right mind would ask Jim Prentice to Be Like Ralph had the PCs learned anything in the 25 years since Ralph Klein took an axe to Alberta's schools and hospitals.

Alberta isn't broke, but Jim Prentice and the PCs' priorities are.

Hard working Albertans get upset when the government demands "burden sharing" during the tough times but ignores "profit sharing" during the good times. It takes zero courage to make hard working Albertans pay for the bad times while PC MLAs mismanage the good times in their own favour.

It's nearly impossible to believe that Alberta's oil belongs to Albertans when we have the second lowest oil and gas royalty regime in the world -- only Yemen has a lower royalty rate for oil. But, it's like they say, if it's good enough for Yemen, it's good enough for us... (wait, no one says that!)

Hard working Albertans get frustrated when "everything is on the table" means that public goods for all like schools and hospitals will be sacrificed to save private interests for the privileged few. In other words, austerity is when people who have the least give up the most, so that people who have the most don't have to give up anything. Cutting expenditures while ignoring revenues is like building a house with only a saw.

Webber Academy is an elite private school in Calgary
that has select admissions, annual tuition ranging from $10-20
thousand and is subsidized by Alberta taxpayers.

In 2013, any Albertan who made more than $17,593 paid the same percentage (10%) of Alberta tax regardless of their income. Alberta could raise its taxes by $11 billion a year and remain the lowest taxed province in Canada. When public services don't keep up with the wealthy's demands for things like health and education, they pay for it out of pocket -- while everyone else likely goes without. Need proof? Keep in mind that 1 in 7 children in Alberta live in poverty while you watch this powerful 9 minute video on the difference between an affluent private school and a poor public school in Calgary.

Cutting expenditures can not be the only solution. Prentice has said that, "I could terminate the employment of every single employee of the Government of Alberta, leaving aside healthcare, and it would not fill a six- to seven-billion-dollar hole." This isn't an argument for cutting healthcare or education -- it's an argument that says if your only tool is a saw, you will cut everything.

Alberta teachers are in the middle of a collectively bargained contract that has me get 0%, 0% and 0% pay increases over three years. I already have 30+ children in my grade 6 and 8 classes, and I teach 120+ students everyday. In 2013, Alberta schools added 11,000 more students, but the PCs cut 14.5 million. How many students will I have after Prentice and the PCs cut even more? How much more of the burden do children, teachers and schools have to pay?

Trickle-Down Economics or Flood-Up Economics?

If everything is honestly on the table, however, then Alberta needs to address our revenue problem by raising Alberta's corporate tax, oil royalties and moving to a progressive tax. We also need to take the Heritage Savings Trust Fund seriously.

The size of the Alberta government is not our primary problem -- our primary problem is figuring out whom the government is for. For too long, the so-called "Alberta Advantage" has been built on corporate welfare, crony capitalism and PC privilege which has led to socialism for the rich and capitalism for the middle class and poor. If the "Alberta Advantage" is truly for everyone, then Albertans need a government who will build this province with more than a saw.

Albertans don't need an early and illegal election that will cost them $20 million, but Prentice and the PCs do if they want to deliver a budget that will likely double down on four decades of PC failure, mismanagement and squandering. Alison Redford had no-meet committees while Prentice has why-meet committees, both are an assault on our budget and democracy. When crisis hits Alberta, and democracy seems a practical impossibility, we need a government that is for Main Street, not Wall Street.

As long as Albertans continue to vote the way they have always voted, Albertans will continue to get what they have always gotten. It's time Albertans stopped choosing between being healthy and wealthy, when we so obviously need both.

If Jim Prentice and the PCs are to receive this message loud and clear, most Albertans need to find a new political home and vote for someone and something different.

I know I am.

9 ways Jeff Johnson and his task force have failed Albertans

Dear Jim Prentice,

As you may know, there is a rumour going about that you may be interested in the leadership of Alberta's Progressive Conservatives.

While I'm sure there are a gazillion reasons why you should not pursue political suicide, here are 9 more that are specific to Jeff Johnson and his task force on teaching.

Johnson is reckless

Too often, Johnson tries to make change by imposing his will on those who have less power. First, he threw around the idea of merit pay (the bad idea that won't die).

He threatened to remove teachers' collective bargaining rights with legislation. Using the teachers' registrar certification contact list, he sent an e-mail to 30,000 teachers, and now is being investigated by the privacy commissioner.

He orchestrated an agreement with Alberta Teachers without including School Boards.

And now Johnson thinks that he can improve Alberta schools with his Orwellian Task Force that looks to take over punishing teachers. The Alberta Teachers' Association is raising serious concerns about direct ministerial interference in the work of the task force and have requested a FOIP request on Johnson's Task Force.

Johnson ignores teachers

The best decisions for the child are made by the child in collaboration with a safe and caring adult who actually spends time with them. Those adults are not bureaucrats or politicians -- they are the classroom teachers. Jeff Johnson continues to openly ignore teachers and their Alberta Teachers' Association. 

To create a task force on teacher excellence without actively collaborating with teachers is contrary to common sense, collaboration and transparency. 

There is a big difference between keeping teachers passively informed and encouraging them to actively participate in improving Alberta's schools.

Johnson confuses innovation with privatization

When asked about for-profit, online charter schools, Johnson says he's open to all options that create excellence and opportunities -- despite the evidence that for-profit, online charters offer children neither excellence or opportunities. 

Being open-minded is one thing but Johnson's response is growing old and tired. Every time someone asks him about a potential idea in education, regardless of its quality, he fires back with this hollow political boilerplate.

Albertans should be immensely proud of our world-class public education system -- simultaneously, Albertans should be appalled when our elected officials consider for-profit, private schools as a way of improving our education system. I've written a post here about why Cyber Charter schools are such a bad idea. 

It's one thing to suggest that students should be encouraged to become entrepreneurial but it is quite another to unleash entrepreneurs to profit off of children and public education. To be clear, this is not about pedagogy -- it's about privatizing public education which is ultimately wrong.

Johnson is entitled

After Alison Redford's gross misuse of taxpayer's dollars, The Alberta Party brought to light Jeff Johnson's entitlement: "Education minister Jeff Johnson’s expenses reveal double-billing, lost receipts, taxpayers billed for optional extras like seat selection and hotel movies, and include a backdated claim for an expensive hotel room during the Calgary Stampede."

Johnson votes against Gay-Straight Alliances that put children first

Johnson will wear a pink shirt on anti-bullying day, but he won't vote for legislation to help kids. 

Johnson was one of many PCs to ally with the Wildrose to reject supporting Gay-Straight Alliances in schools where children want them. 

This is yet another example where Johnson's walk lies in stark contrast to his talk of putting children first. 

Johnson says class size doesn't matter

If I was Jeff Johnson and the Alberta Government, I may want to distract the public from funding cuts in public education by creating a task force that focuses on teacher quality. For this school year, the Alberta Government cut school board budgets by $14.5 million even though 11,000 new students entered Alberta's schools.

This will lead to all sorts of problems for teachers' working conditions including larger class sizes. While it's true that reducing class sizes is not a sufficient move to improve an education system, it most certainly is necessary. Alberta Teachers' Association President Mark Ramsankar describes the problem aptly when he said, "a Ferrari still can't perform on a gravel road." Check out this video on the inequities in Calgary's schools.

A great teacher with 15-25 students in the classroom may be a mediocre or even poor teacher with 30+ students. When the government doesn't do their job of properly funding and supporting teachers, it makes it harder for teachers to do their job.

Ultimately, great teachers make great schools, but great teachers can’t do it alone – they require the support of an equitable society.

Johnson and Big Oil

Suncor, Syncrude, Cenovus and other big oil corporations are enlisted by Johnson as partners in the current curriculum development. Other tech companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Pearson and SMART have also been signed up. 

Albertan's are rightfully concerned about the exploitation of students in the name of corporate profits.

Johnson wants to punish teachers

Are there some bad teachers in Alberta?

You bet there are, but there are also bad accountants, doctors, mechanics, columnists and politicians.

There are incompetent professionals in all professions.

The most successful education nations don't test and punish their teachers -- they diagnose and support them. The best education systems in the world worry less about firing bad teachers, and more about creating and supporting great teachers.

We don't have a teacher quality problem -- we treat them so badly, they leave.

The Alberta Teachers' Association's Research tells us that one of the major causes of early-career teacher attrition is inadequate pre-service preparation (which traditionally has been a greater concern in the US than in Canada) and difficult working conditions (particularly in under resourced schools) and professional isolation.

Alberta doesn't have a teacher quality problem -- we have a teacher leakage problem. Because of systemic problems, anywhere between 25-50% of teachers leave inside of before five years on the job.

Johnson's Orwellian Teacher Task Force will kill Inspiring Education

Jeff Johnson needs to stop borrowing America's
failed Education Reforms.

Johnson's Inspiring Education is about control and compliance via mistrust, manipulation and competition. Johnson sees himself as the change agent that will disrupt the system. Rather than work with teachers, he merely does things to them.

He uses Inspiring Education and his Excellence in Teaching Task Force to create the impression that he is collaborating while he pursues his political agenda.

Rather than address the growing inequities students are experiencing as a result of his government's broken promises (poverty reduction, full day kindergarten) he trots out the Task Force for Teaching Excellence and continues to distract public attention away from classrooms that are growing in size and complexity by cherry-picking data from international studies, claiming that class size does not matter and chasing American-style market based reforms such as merit pay.

***

As you know, Mr. Prentice, the PCs in 2014 have no shortage of enemies, and adding teachers to the list makes as much sense as running for the leadership.

Lessons Of Chile's Voucher Reform Movement

This was written by Martin Carnoy who is a professor of education and economics at Stanford University. He is the author of two books: Faded Dreams: The Economics and Politics of Race in America and Fathers of a Certain Age. This article is adapted from an essay that originally appeared in Education Week. This post was originally found here.

by Martin Carnoy

Voucher plans have been in place for many years in other countries. Contrary to the claims of pro-voucher advocates in the United States, the experience internationally suggests that voucher plans promise a lot but may actually be worse for children from low-income families, for whom the gains are supposed to be the greatest.

"The primary negative effect of school choice is its natural tendency to increase the educational gap between the privileged and the underprivileged," John Ambler, referring to voucher plans in Britain, France, and the Netherlands, wrote in the "Journal of Policy Analysis and Management" (1994).

The most interesting comparison is from Chile, which has a long-standing voucher plan where pupils have been assessed regularly. The Chilean plan began in 1980 under the Pinochet military government as part of an overall "de-governmentalization" free-market package. It meets almost all the conditions of those in the United States who advocate "choice with equity," including fully subsidized, deregulated private schools competing head-on for pupils with deregulated municipality-run public schools in all metropolitan neighborhoods, from middle-class suburbs to low-income barrios.

One key feature of the Chilean plan was privatizing teacher contracts and eliminating the teachers' union as a bargaining unit. Teachers were transferred from the public employee system to the private sector. By 1983, even public schools, meaning those schools run by municipalities, could hire and fire teachers without regard to tenure or a union contract, just like any un-unionized private company. Another feature was to release all schools from the previously strictly-defined structure of the national curriculum and from national standards.

What were the results of this reform? The first was that even when parents' contributions are included, total spending on education fell quite sharply after increasing in the early 1980s when the central government was paying thousands of teachers severance pay as part of privatizing their contracts. In 1985, the federal contribution was 80% of total educational spending, and total spending was 5.3% of Gross National Product (GNP). Five years later, the federal portion was 68% of the total, and the total had fallen to 3.7% of GNP. Private spending rose, but not quickly enough to offset the drop in real federal contributions. Most of the decrease in federal subsidies to education came at the secondary and university levels, where per student public spending dropped drastically.

The second result was that in Chile, as in Europe, those who took advantage of the subsidized private schools were predominantly middle- and higher-income families.

Who Goes to Private Schools?

Chile offers a voucher to all students. "Fees" often are charged at the private schools on top of the voucher, and private schools are allowed to screen students. (There are also elite private schools which do not take part in the voucher plan, where students' families pay the complete tuition.) As a result of the voucher reform, there was a massive shift of students into private schools, in particular middle-class and upper-middle-class children. By 1990, of families in the lower 40% of the income distribution, 72% attended municipal public schools. In the next highest 40% income bracket, only 51% of the families sent their children to public schools, with 43% in subsidized private schools and 6% in elite private schools where parents paid the full tuition. And in the top 20% income bracket, only 25% had their children in public schools, with 32% in subsidized private schools and 43% in elite private schools.

The third result was that the increase in pupil achievement predicted by voucher proponents appears to have never occurred. Scores in Spanish and mathematics from two nationally standardized cognitive achievement tests implemented in 1982 and 1988 for fourth graders registered a national decline of 14% and 6%, respectively. According to World Bank economist Juan Prawda, the test scores fell most for low-income students in public schools, but they also fell for low-income students in subsidized private schools. Middle-income students had small increases in test scores whether they were in public or subsidized private schools. Subsequent tests in 1990 showed increases of 9% in Spanish and 11% in math, but this still left scores about the same as in 1982. Middle-income students averaged higher scores on these tests in private schools than in public, but lowest-income students tended to do better in public schools. University of Georgia political scientist Taryn Rounds' estimates of pupil achievement as a function of type of school, location, parents education, and students' socio-economic class using the 1990 test results confirm that lower-social-class students did better in public schools on both the Spanish and math tests, and middle-class students did better in subsidized private schools.

Because low-income parents were less able to add private contributions to the voucher amounts, private schools in Chile were apparently not that interested in doing any better than public schools with lower-income pupils. If the declining scores in Chile's municipal public schools mean anything, it is that increased competition had a negative effect on student achievement, and that the Chilean voucher plan contributed to greater inequality in pupil achievement without improving the overall quality of education.

Some analysts in Chile claim that subsidized private schools cost less because they have somewhat higher pupil-teacher ratios and pay their teachers lower salaries. But there is no evidence that this means that private schools are becoming more "efficient" while public schools lag behind. Indeed, if private schools are consistently "creaming off" easier-to-teach students, municipal schools may have to maintain smaller classes with more highly paid teachers just to stay even academically.

The fourth result was the need to recentralize influence over the educational system once a democratic government was elected in 1990. Under the Pinochet reform, government made no effort to improve the curriculum, the quality of teaching, or the management of education, since this was supposed to happen spontaneously through increased competition among schools vying for students. It did not. Neither did municipalities or most private schools come up with incentives for improving pupil performance. Low-income municipalities were at a special disadvantage because they, even more than other municipalities, lacked the fiscal capacity and resources for school improvement. And as soon as unions were legal again, teachers reorganized themselves, fought for higher salaries, and for the right to representation. Not surprisingly, they focused their demands on the central government, which oversees minimum salaries for both public and private schools.

Lessons for the United States

The lessons for us here in the United States are obvious, but they are not the one that privatization advocates want known. Voucher plans increase inequality without making schools better. Even more significantly, privatization reduces the public effort to improve schooling since it relies on the free market to increase achievement. But the increase never occurs. Private schools may end up producing higher achievement than public schools, but they generally do this by keeping out hard-to-manage pupils, who get concentrated in "last-resort" public schools.

There is another lesson to learn from the Chilean case. At the end of the voucher road, the case for public schools becomes more, not less, difficult. The new democratically elected government, which by U.S. standards would be considered center/left, continues to blame public school bureaucracy and lack of market incentives for the low level of achievement in municipal schools. Once a voucher plan is implemented, many middle-class parents find that they like their children being separated from low-income students. Furthermore, teachers in public schools find that given the worsening conditions and lack of support, it is even more difficult to be innovative. This last lesson should spur public school advocates to support rapid and radical reforms of schools in inner cities now, and to emulate, sooner rather than later, those reforms that seem to be working for at-risk students.

Chile had a military dictatorship in the 1970s and 1980s that could impose vouchers from above and suppress opposition by force. In a democracy, it takes highly dissatisfied constituencies to produce reforms, even if they are not the ones who ultimately benefit from them. Conservatives have figured out that the most dissatisfied educational constituencies are the poor, and will use them to dismantle public education.

Ironically, the privatization movement in the United States is gaining ground just when pupils from all groups, especially those most at risk, are making significant achievement gains and just when public school reform movements are reaching into inner cities to produce real change. To cite one example: between 1975 and 1989, the difference in average reading proficiency scores between African-American and white 17-year-olds went from 50 points to 21 points, or a gain of about half a standard deviation.

The best antidote to vouchers is to spread public school reform - fast.

My favourite excerpt from Reign of Error

Here is one of my favourite excerpts from Diane Ravitch's new book Reign of Error. Ravitch nails it by identifying the problems that are plaguing public education (and our democracy), while providing clear solutions:

In this book, I will show why the reform agenda does not work, who is behind it, and how it is promoting the privatization of public education. I will then put forward my solutions, none of which is cheap or easy, none of which offers a quick fix to complicated problems. I have no silver bullets -- because none exist -- but I have proposals based on evidence and experience. 

We know what works. What works are the very opportunities that advantaged families provide for their children. In homes with adequate resources, children get advantages that enable them to arrive in school healthy and ready to learn. Discerning, affluent parents demand schools with full curricula, experienced staffs, rich programs in the arts, libraries, well-maintained campuses, and small classes. As a society, we must do whatever is necessary to extend the same advantages to children who do not have them. Doing so will improve their ability to learn, enhance their chances for a good life, and strengthen our society. 

So that readers don't have to wait until the later chapters of this book, here is a summary of my solutions to improve both schools and society. School and society are intertwined. The supporting research comes later in the book. Every one of these solutions works to improve the lives and academic outcomes of young people. 

Pregnant women should see a doctor early in their pregnancies and have regular care and good nutrition. Poor women who do not receive early and regular medical care are likely to have babies with developmental and cognitive problems. 

Children need prekindergarten classes that teach them how to socialize with others, how to listen and learn, how to communicate well, and how to care for themselves, while engaging in the joyful pursuit of play and learning that is appropriate to their age and development and that builds their background knowledge and vocabulary. 

Children in the early elementary grades need teachers who set age appropriate goals. They should learn to read, write, calculate, and explore nature, and they should have plenty of time to sing and dance and draw and play and giggle. Classes in these grades should be small enough -- ideally fewer than twenty -- so that students get the individual attention they need. Testing in the early grades should be used sparingly, not to rank students, but diagnostically, to help determine what they know and what they still need to learn. Test scores should remain a private matter between parents and teachers, not shared with the district or the state for any individual student. The district or state may aggregate scores for entire schools but should not judge teaches or schools on the basis of these scores.
As students enter the upper elementary grades and middle school and high school, they should have a balanced curriculum that includes not only reading, writing and mathematics but the science, literature, history, geography, civics, and foreign languages. Their school should have a rich arts program, where students learn to sing, dance, play an instrument, join an orchestra or a band, perform in a play, sculpt, or use technology to design structures, conduct research, or create artworks. Every student should have time for physical education every day. Every school should have a library with librarians and media specialists. Every school should have a nurse, a psychologist, a guidance councelor and a social worker. And every school should have after-school programs where students may explore their interests, whether in athletics, chess, robotics, history club, dramatics, science club, nature study, Scouting, or other activities. Teachers should write their own tests and use standardized tests only for diagnostic purposes. Classes should be small enough to ensure that every teacher knows his or her students and can provide the sort of feedback to strengthen their ability to write, their noncognitive skills, their critical thinking, and their mathematical and scientific acumen. 

Our society should commit to building a strong education profession. Public policy should aim to raise the standards for entry into teaching. Teachers should be well-educated and well-prepared for their profession. Principals and superintendents should be experienced educators. 

Schools should have the resources they need for the students they enroll. 

As a society, we must establish goals, strategies, and programs to reduce poverty and racial segregation. Only by eliminating opportunity gaps can we eliminate achievement gaps. Poor and immigrant children need the same sorts of schools the wealthy children have, only more so. Those who start life with the fewest advantages need even smaller classes, even more art, science, and music to engage them, to spark their creativity, and to fulfill their potential.

There is solid research base for my recommendations. If you want a society organized to promote the survival of the fittest and the triumph of the most advantaged, then you will prefer the current course of action, where children and teachers and schools are "racing to the top." But if you believe the goal of our society should be equality of opportunity for all children and that we should seek to reduce the alarming inequalities children now experience, then my program should win your support. 

My premise is straightforward: you can't do the right things until you stop doing the wrong things. If you insist on driving that train right over the cliff, you will never reach your hoped-for destination of excellence for all. Instead, you will inflict harm on millions of children and reduce the quality of their educations. You will squander billions of dollars on failed schemes that should have been spent on realistic, evidence-based ways of improving our public schools, our society, and the lives of children. 

Stop doing the wrong things. Stop promoting competition, and choice as answers to the very inequality that was created by competition and choice. Stop the mindless attacks on the education profession. A good society requires both a vibrant private sector and a responsible public sector. We must not permit the public sector to be privatized and eviscerated. In a democracy, important social goals require social collaboration. We must work to establish programs that improve the lives of children and families. To build a strong educational system, we need to build a strong and respected education profession. The federal government and states must develop policies that recruit, support, and retain career educators, both in the classroom and in positions of leadership. If we mean to conquer educational inequity, we must recognize that the root cause of poor academic performance are segregation and poverty, along with equitably resourced schools. We must act decisively to reduce the causes of inequity. We must bring good schools to every district and neighbourhood of our nation. Public education is a basic public responsibility: we must not be persuaded by a false crisis narrative to privatize it. It is time for parents, educators, and other concerned citizens to join together to strengthen our public schools and preserve them for future generations. The future of our democracy depends on it.

What is changing about being a child

When I think about what is changing about being a child and an adolescent today that we must attend to, I find myself tying to figure out what is really plaguing public education.

If I had to pick just one problem, I would say there are two:

poverty and inequity

Some say that public education is the great equalizer. Some say that the antidote to poverty is education.

But what if the opposite is true?

What if public education perpetuates some of the worst injustices and inequities of our society? What if inequity and poverty are advanced, rather than stifled, by public education? What if public education is really the great divider?

These are scary questions -- nonetheless, important questions we really shouldn't run from or shrug at.

 So what are the implications of poverty and inequity?

With the shrinking of the middle class comes the inescapable truth that the social contract between education and community is being broken. While past generations found salvation in the advice get a good education and you'll get a good job the current generation of students are finding this to be a risky proposition.

As inequity and inequality increase, society and schools are likely to adopt an even more competitive mindset that encourages children and adults to see their peers as obstacles to their own success. When competition trumps collaboration, the ideology of rugged individualism tends to trump teamwork.

If we are competing, then we aren't collaborating. The ideology of competition says that everyone benefits, but when in reality competition is for the strong -- the winners continue to win on the backs of the losers.

Inequity and poverty are only destiny if we choose to ignore them. People who say poverty is no excuse are making excuses about doing nothing about poverty. Children never choose to live in poverty, but society can choose not to ignore it.

So where do we go from here?

Schools and society need to stop using excellence for the few as the driver for progress and start making equity for all our focus. Some might think by focusing more on equity that we have to focus less on excellence; this is a misconception. When we focus on equity, excellence becomes ubiquitous.

So how will we know if our education system is advancing inequity? If the affluent provide their children with a good education and a different education that is good enough for other people's children then we know something is amiss.

WTF is wrong with Americans?

I came across this image at Daily Kos. The original image is here.

Linda Darling Hammond with Dan Rather

• Everyone should care about countries like Finland that have found progressive ways to improve their education system.
• States and provinces in Canada and the United States are often the same geographic and population sizes as progressive countries such as Finland, Singapore and Korea. This is important because the responsibilities for education in Canada and the US are at the provincial and state governments. 
• There are very large, high achieving countries such as Canada and Australia who have very diverse populations that are pursuing very different education reforms than the United States.
• One of the America's greatest failures is their lack of equity.
• 1 in 100 people in America are in prison. America risks becoming a Prison Nation unless every citizen is afforded the opportunity to be successful. There is a school-to-prison-pipeline in America.
• Education is not a private-good -- it's a public-good.
• We all benefit or we all hurt -- depending on the quality of education other people's kids get.
• Californians pay $50,000 a year on an in-mate when they could have paid $10,000 a year to give an education. Most inmates are high school drop-outs and functionally illiterate.

Standardized inequality

What could be be more inequitable than expecting everyone to learn the same things, to the same level of competence, in the same amount of time?