Global Strategies

“We plan to expand aggressively overseas, so we need recruits who were themselves bold enough to go overseas”

This NY Times article is about Japanese business firms not hiring Western educated talent and, thus, becoming increasingly non-competitive in the global economy. It could just as easily be about the refusal of the Oregon educational system to expand foreign language immersion programs or to send its high school student to study abroad. The results are the same: economies increasingly unable to sell their good and services abroad.

From the NY Times article “For Japanese Job Seekers, Overeas Study Can be a Deal Killer” by Hiroko Tabuchi (here)

…. Notoriously insular, corporate Japan has long been wary of embracing Western-educated compatriots who return to the homeland. But critics say the reluctance to tap the international experience of these young people is a growing problem for Japan as some of its major industries — like banking, consumer electronics and automobiles — lose ground in an increasingly global economy.

Discouraged by their career prospects if they study abroad, even at elite universities, a shrinking portion of Japanese college students is seeking a Western education. At the same time, regional rivals like China, South Korea and India are sending increasing numbers of students overseas — many of whom, upon graduation, are snapped up by companies back home for their skills, contacts and global outlooks.

“Japanese companies here are missing out on the best foreign talent, and it’s all their fault,” said Toshihiko Irisumi, a graduate of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and former Goldman Sachs banker. He runs Alpha Leaders, a Tokyo-based consulting firm that helps match top young talent with employers based in Japan. “They really need to change their mind-set.” ….

And:

Some Japanese companies have made a point of reaching out to returnees. U-Shin, an auto parts maker, attracted attention in February when it placed a prominent ad in Japan’s largest business daily offering twice the normal starting pay to candidates with overseas degrees.

“We plan to expand aggressively overseas, so we need recruits who were themselves bold enough to go overseas,” said Koji Tanabe, U-Shin’s chief executive…..

More on a possible PPS bond levy

Supporters of a facilities bond levy should not expect the campaign issues to be just about facility needs and inadequacies. It will be about the programs and operations of PPS as well, and PPS needs to make significant changes.

In an Oregonian letter to the editor titled “Response to Lainie Block Wilker commentary: Proposed PPS policies conflate, confuse the issue, Trace Salmon seems to be argue that Portland Public Schools is a good educational system that just needs more operational funding. Not so!

From Salmon’s letter (here):

In her May 22 opinion piece "PPS should find better policies before seeking bond,” Lainie Block Wilker seeks to undermine potential public support for a facilities bond measure by using a shotgun approach to attack the district.

While our current education funding crisis owes its genesis to Oregon's extreme property tax limitations and over-reliance on volatile income tax funding, Wilker argues that the voters should not agree to tax themselves to restore an aging and neglected portfolio of buildings. It is optimistic at best to imply that closing and consolidating more facilities will free up large sums of money in administration and building operational costs that will allow the district to offer 25 percent more instruction per day at the high school level. The fact is, there is no connection between operational funding, which comes from the state, and capital improvement funding, which is based on local property tax assessments. The sole exception to this is that PPS is using state funds to patch and prop up 1920s-era buildings with an emaciated maintenance department, while every available dollar is scrimped to provide adequate academic offerings…..

And:

Overall, Wilker's arguments conflate and confuse the issues, while advocating for a system of institutionalized inequality based on address, opposition to fixing and modernizing our facilities, and continued silence on solving our ongoing operational funding dilemma.

Wilker and I have different reasons for opposing a potential 2012 facilities bond levy (here). Wilker advocates for more efficiencies within the current system. I want to change and update the system (more immersion programs, more high school online classes, and a high school study abroad program). We do both agree that we want operational changes in the school system before we support a facilities bond measure. We both have changes that would impact which facilities get updated (for example, I think PPS has one too many high school for the future), but those facilities related changes are not the primary focus of our proposals.

I opposed the May 2011 facilities bond levy for the same reasons. In that campaign, people argued with me, as Salmon does above, that there was little connection between my proposals and facilities: that I should support the facilities bond measure and work separately for my proposed changes. My answer then, as now, is that it is politics. There is a political coalition, usually a majority, that controls much of the running of Portland’s public schools. A significant component of that coalition is very protective of neighborhood schools and against more foreign language immersion programs (or any other kind of school of choice rather than geography determining school attendance). Another significant component of that political coalition is the teachers’ unions which oppose both more online high school classes and a high school study abroad program. In general, the governing coalition of Portland’s public schools is against change, for the status quo and for more funding. That governing coalition is never willingly going to support the changes I want. Maybe, and it is a long shot, they will make some small changes in exchange for support for more funding.  If not, that is why I’ll be opposing the facilities bond measure.

Supporters of a facilities bond levy should not expect the campaign issues to be just about facility needs and inadequacies. It will be about the programs and operations of PPS as well, and PPS needs to make significant changes.

Rename "Portland Peace Prize" to "Portland Social Justice Prize"

In yet another example of the “localism” of Portland’s political culture, and a distressing perspective into our current educational system, students at two Portland high schools will award a “Portland Peace Prize” to a local nominee who has done little to reduce international tensions or the chances of war between nations but who has worked largely on local social justice issues. The award should be renamed to something like the “Portland Social Justice Prize.” We do have local people working hard on international issues. Like the Nobel Peace Prize, the Portland Peace Prize should have a significant international aspect. Why don’t these students understand this?

From the Portland Tribune article “PDX Peace Prize down to four finalists” by Nate Ford (here):

Students from two Portland high schools have selected four community leaders as finalists for the third annual Portland Peace Prize.

The winner of Portland's only award of its kind will be officially named on Friday by students from Madison and Lincoln high schools.

The finalists, narrowed down from 20 original nominees, are Mark Jackson, executive director of REAP Inc. (Reaching and Empowering All People); Jeri Sundvall-Williams, a coordinator for the city's Office of Neighborhood Involvement; Kayse Jama, executive director for the Center for Intercultural Organizing, and Ronault "Polo" Catalani of the city's Office of Equity and Human Rights.

All four have demonstrated dedication to promoting peace, democracy, and sustainability in the community, the students say……

None of the four nominees (from the description in the article) has work to reduce conflicts between nations. Only two nominees,  Kayse Jama and Polo Catalani, both working to help local refugees and immigrants, have an international aspect.

Video: "Biking through China's countryside"

About the above video, Sam Roggeveen of the Lowy Institute for International Policy (Australia) writes in his blog post “China: What ‘grinding poverty’ means” (here):

.... Still, there's truth to the proposition that China's economic rise is incredibly uneven, and it's brought home by this wonderful little home-made documentary by blogger Sinostand (here), who cycled into China's countryside.

In eight minutes you get a story not only about poverty but about surveillance of foreigners, the one-child policy, and the housing bubble. On the poverty issue, the shot (1:22) of a woman working a type of mill (presumably grinding the hulls from rice grains) is particularly striking. I imagine the machinery on display there hasn't changed in several centuries. 

City Club should revise its report on improving civics education in Portland

"We live in a world of powerful interest groups. We need people who can think about the common good. We live in a world with a torrent of print, media, and electronic information. We need people who can think critically. We live in a world where individuals choose the news that will reinforce their views. We need people who listen to many sides of an issue before making up their minds. We live in a world of harsh rhetoric. We need people who will practice civil discourse. We need these things because the issues that our democracy faces are difficult and complex." from the Portland City Club Report "Educating Citizens"

The Portland City Club has published a draft report “Educating Ctizens: A City Club report on improving civics education in Portland’s high school” (here). As they note, it is not an official Portland City Club report until their membership approves it by vote. That has not happened yet.

The Portland City Club membership should not approve it as written. It should go back to their committee for substantial revision. While the traditional three high school social studies courses (US history, global studies or world history, and economics/government) certainly need strengthening, and while students certainly need more opportunities and better incentives to participate in making community decisions, those improvements are not enough. The report lacks global dimensions and the imaginative use of information technology.

The lack of global dimension in the report is not surprising, but it is unfortunate. I’ve blogged about how the “localism” of Portland’s political culture is crippling our economic future (here):

With explosive economic growth and increased wealth abroad offering the best growth opportunities for Portland businesses and local investments, Portland’s three leading candidates for mayor skip any international thinking and stress growing local small businesses. The three candidates avoid mentioning the job generating potential of more exports and of more foreign investment in local businesses.

 That “localism” is again reflected in this report. And it’s not just economic growth that will require more global skills and knowledge. Through technology and commerce the world is becoming smaller and more interconnected. New economic and political powers are emerging. Is not preparing students to deal with these realities a part of any 21^st century civic engagement? And do we not need to prepared students with the skills and knowledge to deal with whole new sets of global issues?

On the rise of China, (one of those new issues) for example, back in 2006, State Representative Dennis Richardson and I wrote (here, p. 10):

If the goals suggested, and the associated costs, seem high, ask yourself the question: what if we do not do at least this much? What if we just let the Chinese language courses grow at their natural pace with a few more students here and there, with only a few more college students trickling over to study abroad in China? What price will Oregon pay for not having the robust business and business idea connections to China that can fuel our economy? What cost will Oregon society pay for not having the broad and deep understanding of China that could help build world political stability throughout the twenty-first century? We can do less, but it will not take Oregon or the U.S. either far enough or fast enough. Oregon over time will be missing opportunity after opportunity in the China market. We could become a backwater rather than a major center in the global economy. And we could miss opportunities for world peace and stability. Much is at stake, possibly everything if we get China wrong. We need to put a lot of eager, learning students on the ground all over China now. It could be the primary learning opportunity, responsibility and adventure of their lifetimes. It is up to our leadership to enable them to have this vital, international preparation.

So yes, students do need a whole new set of skills and experiences to engage 21^st century issues. More students need better foreign language skills and more students need to spend time abroad. We should, like Utah (here), expand our foreign language immersion programs in languages strategic to our economic and national security future (Utah has selected six: Spanish, Mandarin, French, Brazilian Portuguese, Japanese and German). We should make a year of study abroad a high school option. We, the public, should pay for a high school year abroad for appropriate, willing students (paying, at least initially, no more than the current cost of an in-district student).

The Portland City Club report lacks any discussion of the use of communications technology in engaging students in historical or contemporary issues. Every high school student should have a laptop computer (or its equivalent) connected to the internet. This opens up many learning and civic engagement opportunities from online courses (or mini-courses) to participation in elections, conferences, and research projects all around the world. We are just beginning to develop online learning. Online civics learning and engagement will open many new opportunities unimaginable now.

If we are going to upgrade the civic engagement of our high school students (and we should), we need to engage them with the whole world, not with just the little corner that is Portland. And we need to use all available communications technology to do it.

Why do online courses cost more at community colleges?

Is Mt. Hood Communiity College lying to us about the costs of online courses?

Mount Hood Community College may be lying to its students and public. At least, to me, there is an unexplained mystery: why do online courses cost more and why should those increased costs be going up?

From the Oregonian article "Mt. Hood Community College raising tuition and fees" by quinton Smith (here):

Mt. Hood Community College students registering for summer or fall classes will need to dig deeper into their wallets. The college is raising tuition and student fees.

The changes took effect May 11 with the first day of registration for summer term.

The increases are part of a three-pronged attempt by the college to find new revenue or make cuts totaling $6.1 million to balance its 2012-13 general fund budget of $68 million.

To raise $2.3 million, the MHCC board voted to raise in-state tuition by $5 per credit hour, from $84 to $89. It replaced a $25 per term parking fee paid by some students with a $35 access fee for all students, increased a service fee from $30 to $40 and raised an online course fee from $40 to $55. Students already pay an activity fee of $3 per credit hour and an energy fee of $4.75 per credit hour.....

Note the phrase “and raised an online course fee from $40 to $55.” The questions are why do online courses cost more and why are those costs going up?

In MHCC budget document (here), on page iv, there is the only explanation of the online course fee increase I could find. It says; “Distance Learning fee increase of $15 to cover administrative costs.” “Distance Learning,” I think, is just another way of saying online courses

So the rationale is “to cover administrative costs?” Here is where I think they may be lying or, at least, there is a mystery that needs further explanation. What kind of “administrative costs” do online course have that other kinds of courses do not have. I cannot think of anything significant.  I do not think additional online server capacity is that expensive. I challenge MHCC to provide comparison cost accountings of an online course versus a conventional course.

Online course, to the contrary, should cost less to provide and those reduced cost should be passed on in reduced, not higher, tuition. Online courses do not required the costs of classrooms and other facilities.

This is not a trivial issue. If community colleges were private businesses, their business models would be their own concerns. But community colleges are tax supported institutions. We expect them to be operated efficiently. If online classes are less costly to provide than conventional classes, we, the public, would expect to see a shift, where appropriate, to the less costly. By keeping the tuition and fee costs higher, community colleges are giving financial incentives for students to take the more costly (to the institution) form of education and requiring the tax paying public to pay more than necessary.

Further, online course are greener and more sustainable. In not requiring students to travel for classes, they reduce carbon emissions.

MHCC is not alone in charging more tuition for an online course. I sampled five other Oregon community colleges. Four out of five charged more. Portland Community College charges a $20 “Distance Learning Fee” per online course (here). Clackamas Community College charges “a $35 Distance Learning fee per course” (here).  Rogue Community College charges a “Distance Learning fee: $10 per credit, per class up to 4 credits” (here). Lane Community College says “Tuition and fees are charged at the same rate as on-campus courses” (here).

At MHCC, a student taking five courses of three credits each would pay $275 per term more (above the per credit tuition) for taking those courses online. For three terms that would be $825, for four terms (a calendar year) that would be $1,110.

So, MHCC, give us the comparison cost accountings!

 

 

 

 

"It is particularly important for African-American students to study abroad"

"Can you imagine what our country would look like if most Americans actually had the opportunity to study and travel abroad. We live in a great country. But to imagine an America in which the majority of us have had overseas experience is to imagine an American that is even more innovative, more creative, whose population is more exposed to the world, has more credibility abroad, and is, therefore, safer and has a stronger position in the world.”  -  Kimberly McClure

There is a US State Department video of Kimberly McClure, an eight year Foreign Service Officer, speaking to an audience of African-American college students. She urges them to study abroad in China. The video is here (I could not embed it in this post). In part, she says:

But I do want to take a step back first and talk about “why.” Why it is so important that American students study abroad. And I want to make the case to you all today….why it is particularly important for African-American students to study abroad in greater numbers…. For my generation going into the workforce having global skills and a sense of global competency was something that was a bonus. It was something that was “nice” to have. For your generation, however, I think it will be absolutely critical. I think it will be the key to separating yourself from the competition in the workforce.

Oregon, or Portland Public Schools, could pay for high school students to spend a high school year abroad. It need cost no more to send a student abroad for a year than to educate them in local school district in Oregon. There is no financial reason not to send high school students abroad.

“After Barreling Ahead in Recession, China Finally Slows”

From the NY Times article “After Barreling Ahead in Recession, China Finally Slows” by Keith Bradsher (here):

A nationwide real estate downturn, stalling exports and declining consumer confidence have produced what a Chinese cabinet adviser, quoted on the official government Web site on Thursday, characterized as a “sharp slowdown in the economy.”

Though the Chinese economy continues to expand, construction workers are losing jobs in droves and retail sales grew last month at the slowest pace in more than three years. Investments in fixed assets have increased more slowly this year than in any year since 2001.

The most striking feature of the slowdown is that it extends beyond the coastal provinces, which depend on exports and are closely linked to the global economy, to the country’s far more insular interior, including cities like Xi’an here in northwestern China.

China’s unexpected economic difficulties are starting to unnerve investors in world markets, especially commodity markets, as China is the world’s largest consumer of most raw materials and the second-largest consumer of oil…..

And:

….China’s economy was 8.1 percent larger in the first quarter of this year than a year earlier, but virtually all of that growth took place last year. The economy barely grew in the first quarter compared with the fourth quarter of 2011, and the second quarter of this year is likely to show even less growth from the preceding quarter, said Diana Choyleva, a China economist in the Hong Kong office of Lombard Street Research.

The World Bank also warned on Wednesday of a slowdown.

“Clearly the economy is much, much weaker than most people thought until recently,” Ms. Choyleva said. “They have a real mess on their hands.” ….

 A slowdown in the Chinese economy will hurt Oregon exports.

PPS community meeting at Lincoln supports November 2012 bond measure

Portland Public Schools held its third community meeting to gather input on a possible facilities bond measure. About 50-60 members of the public attended at Lincoln High School. In a show of hands, a large majority of them supported putting a facilities bond measure on the November 2012 ballots. A smaller majority seemed to support a bonding level of $1.50 per $1,000 (real estate property tax) over $1.00 per $1,000. A large majority also seemed favor to an emphasis on high schools projects. Beyond these points there seemed to be little consensus.

The format of the meeting was different than the first community meeting I attended at Roosevelt High School (here). There was no power point presentation of the 600 person poll taken on the bond issues and choices. Some results of the poll where on the tables as a handout.  Given the larger public turnout than at Roosevelt, discussions took place at small tables much more rather than as a full group.

Both in the entire group and at my table there was more mention of making changes not only to facilities but to the school system. There was an undertone that just rebuilding what facilities PPS has, even if more sustainable, would not produce a 21^st century school system. Little time, however, was spent in the full group exploring what needed to change.

The PPS Board and superintendent now have the difficult task of figuring out what to put in a bond measure. Although I am currently opposed to any bond measure (no high school study abroad), I think they have “heard” that the community wants one in November. But the community is not in agreement as to what they want in it.

Poll: 56% favor PPS facilities bond measure

I attended, on Tuesday evening, Portland Public Schools’ “community meeting” at Roosevelt High School that was intended to gather public input for a possible facilities bond ballot measure. I am, unfortunately, a probable opponent of any such measure since PPS refuses to fund a pilot high school study abroad program.

The meeting was not well attended. There may have been twenty general public members there, myself included. We were outnumbered by PPS staff and Board. I’m sure PPS would have liked more attendance, both to get input and to gain political support.

PPS now has a long range facilities plan requiring billions for upgrades and replacements. They cannot fund everything in one bond measure so they are trying to decide how much to ask for, what to ask for, and when to have a vote. Most community members at the meeting favored a November 2012 vote (not me). But on many of the choices as to what to do, opinions differed. Some preferred safety or seismic upgrades over educational improvements (like lab sinks). Some preferred high schools over elementary or middle schools. I came away with no strong preferences. I lean towards some safety/seismic projects at elementary and middle schools with a larger emphasis on general high school upgrades (thinking high school students are more sensitive to their learning environment).

PPS also presented some of the results of a 600 person survey. Some of their result slides are here as photos. The survey showed two different bond levels passing, with 56-61% now supporting a $500 million level bond measure.

I think the specifics of which type of projects the bond levy might fund are well down the list of issues that will cause voters to vote “no.” The bad economy, and the limited ability of people to pay more taxes, will be the main determinant. Second will be whether the public is satisfied in general with the programs and administration of PPS. I’m not.

I was also interested in a poll question about neighborhood schools versus larger schools with more course offering. Note the equal standoff (46% to 45%) . One of the obstacles to the expansion of Mandarin, Japanese and other immersion programs is the “neighborhood” school mentality. It is not that strong.