Global Strategies

2010-11 High School Year In Mexico for $5,392

Give your child, or grandchild (or more students in Oregon as a strategic economic development priority), the opportunity to take their Spanish language learning to a new level in Mexico. Oregon does have many students studying Spanish, from numerous immersion programs to high school classes. Spending a year attending a Mexican high school would boost their Spanish fluency.

ASSE (American Scandinavian Student Exchange, here) offers a high school year study abroad in Mexico for $5,392 plus airfare. Program fee includes comprehensive health, accidental death and travel insurance, host family recruitment and screening, non-English speaking country language training and orientation. Program fee does not include air travel, passport and visa fees, school uniforms (if required), educational/recreational overnight field trips, school lunch money (if necessary), and pocket money.

Host families do not receive fees or reimbursements for expenses. They will provide meals and lodging; all they ask in return is that the students participate as a responsible member of the family, assuming her/his fair share of chores around the house and sharing in family activities.

ASSE maintains 38 offices in 31 countries and accommodates more than 30,000 high school age students and host families annually in its programs in the participating countries.

The $5,392 fee is for an early application by January 15, 2010.

The 2009 Oregon legislature did not pass the Go Global High School Study Abroad Program so students and families must fund study abroad on their own. ASSE does provide some scholarships.

Oregon’s State School Fund pays local school districts on average about $6,100 per student per year. Local school districts all collect and spend additional federal, local and grant funds. The average total expenditure per student per year in Oregon is about $10,000. The Go Global High School Study Abroad Program would have permitted local school districts to use their funds to pay for high school student to study abroad. They could pay all or part of the fees. Local school districts could save money by sending many of their high school students to study abroad in Mexico for a year.

This is some of what ASSE says about a high school year in Mexico:

Spend a school year in Mexico, a land of cordial hospitality with a strong sense of family, community and heritage. As an ASSE exchange student to Mexico, you may experience life in one of its traditional, colonial towns or quaint villages. While attending high school, you will soon make friends and get to know the warmth and generosity of the Mexican people. As you become proficient in Spanish, you will enjoy chatting with your ASSE host family over meals.

In addition to flavorful cuisine, Mexico is proud of its cultural dances which are an important link to the country's heritage. Youngsters learn such dances and perform on special occasions with pride. As a member of your host family, you too may celebrate local festivals with your host family in traditional costume.

The rich, Mexican culture encompasses both Spanish heritage and folklore as well as a history that stretches back many centuries to the Mayan and Aztec civilizations. Learn about the uniqueness of each state, such as Oaxaca with its beautiful folk art. As you master Spanish, you will learn about Mexico City, the capital and historic home of North America's only king and queen! As an exchange student in Mexico, the learning opportunities are as numerous as the country is varied.

A year spent in this enchanting land and culture is sure to change your perspective on life, family and the world.

Gas @ $12: "Urban Revolution and Suburban Decay"

This is my fourth installment post of excerpts from “$20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better” (here) by Christopher Steiner. These are from his “Chapter $12: Urban Revolution and Suburban Decay.” I do think that higher gas prices will give strong incentives to live more compactly, especially trying to get our job locations closer to our homes.

It’s important to realize, too, that electric cars, though they will be swinging to popularity, can’t and won’t stop our assimilation into cities. Getting an electric car will be possible, but they won’t be cheap and they won’t be plentiful; and our thorough changeover to electric cars will take decades. In the meantime, many people will be looking to drive less or not at all. This movement will give rise to a massive shift of population as our fringe suburbs lose their value and out inner cities reinvent themselves again. When gas reaches $12 a gallon, Americans will feel themselves in a limbo of sorts – the nascent stage of electric vehicles’ slow takeover and gasoline prices so high that driving to the supermarket becomes an exercise of coasting through stop signs in neutral to save every precious drop of fuel. The only thing real, the only thing proven to save us money and time and to stand the perseverance of market swings and real estate undulations, will be our cities’ great neighborhoods and the infrastructure that supports them.

Trains will overflow. New Subway cars will be bought, and manufacturing will revive on the back of this movement as the demand for light rail, urban electric trains, and buses spikes to levels unseen. The American dream of one-acre lots, four bedrooms, three cars, and a suburb of sparkling big box stores will be shaken. The dream of America won’t fail, but it will change. To many people already, New York is the American dream. That way of living, in dense, efficient, and elegant blocks, will spread across the country, from one city to the next, from Atlanta to Saint Louis to Minneapolis to Denver. No city will reach New York’s level of compression; that’s something that’s been developing for more than 200 years.

And, about another dimension:

As the suburban model decays, America’s zoning and building codes will be rewritten. Their homogenous nature and their pedantic enforcement have played not small role in America’s aimless srawl. Minimum set backs, lot size requirements, and Byzantine building codes, much of them excessive, have spawned what can only be called enforced sprawl. The bureaucracy of our building regulations has kept creative minds out of the planning field and kept density even where it’s warranted and would be desired by most residents out of most towns. It’s hard to develop a block of attached townhomes centered around a village green when the locality has zoned the area strictly for large, single-family homes with maximum heights and minimum setbacks. “The zoning laws that have really pushed most of our development since World War II are already changing,” says Mary Ann Lazarus, the sustainable design director for HOK, a global design firm with twenty-nine offices on four continents. “And the price of fuel will quicken those changes.”

Quoted on James Fallows' blog

I’ve been quoted on James Fallows’ blog (here). That “reader” was me. I’ve been astounded and mystified by the lack of news coverage of, editorial comments on and general information about President Obama’s announcement that “the United States will dramatically expand the number of our students who study in China to 100,000.” To me, if interpreted generously, it is a game changer. However, we don’t know any details yet, so it may turn out to be something quite modest, and I should not get too excited. The mere fact that I cannot find out any more information about it online is mystifying. It either slipped into a black hole or my online search abilities are weak. In any case, Fallows will investigate. I can't think of anyone better. I will learn more.

I can note also that President Obama probably outdid my hopes with his announcement. I emailed a letter-to-the-editor to the Oregonian on 11/6/09. They have not published it. It said:

President Obama is scheduled to begin an eight day trip to China on November 15^th. Many strategic issues will be discussed. But there are several simple steps he could take to fundamentally improve relations between the two countries going forward. First, he could initiate a federal effort to get five percent of US K-12 students studying Mandarin. This need not cost much. The Chinese would help supply the teachers. Second, he could initiate a phased-in program to get 10,000 high school students (Oregon’s share would be about 100) per year studying abroad in China. Again, the Chinese could help find families for these students to live with and schools for them to attend. Like the Go Global High School Study Abroad Program legislation in Oregon’s 2009 session, this need not cost any additional federal, state or local funds. Just permit local school districts to pay for such study abroad programs using funds they already have.

Saving $60 million with online learning

The Oregon legislature’s Joint Online Learning Task Force met again (11/17/09). I listened to their meeting online. They have one more meeting scheduled before the February special session.

(1)   I am very disappointed in their efforts. They have focused very narrowly on issues relating to virtual charter schools, not the broader issues of developing online education all across Oregon. And, even on virtual charter school issues, they have focused on issues which can be resolved by the February session, meaning, I think, issues on which there is now a political majority. This approach leaves off the table most of the important online learning issues, and, more or less, continues the status quo.

(2)   At this meeting, three members of the Task Force expressed frustrations with the scope of their activities. Representative Dembrow said it was “frustrating” and that he had “hoped to look at online education in a fundamental and comprehensive way.” The school board representative (could not get name listening online) said she “thought it would be a much broader discussion about online learning, and not just about how we do online charter schools in Oregon.” She wanted to get to “How do we get to the idea of providing online learning opportunities for every student throughout Oregon.” Dennis Dempsey (representing school superintendents, I think) spoke of supporting “multiple sources of virtual education for all kids in the state,” and that maybe it was time to look at the Florida model.

(3)   What the Task Force did not do was to identify, gather data, and estimate the costs savings that aggressive development of online learning could bring to Oregon education. My very rough estimate is that online learning could save at least $60 million from the existing $6 billion K-12 education budget in this biennium, and much more after that. The Task Force should have developed more informed and sophisticated estimates. They could get data unavailable to me.

(4)   This is my rough estimate of cost savings: Currently Oregon has 1-2% percent of its students using online education. I think over the next six years Oregon could grow online education to 10% of the educational activity (a mix of full time and part time online programs). Online  education cost about one-half (see here, Salem Keizer Online’s full-time high school program is about one-half the average per pupil state fund payment) of brick-and-mortar education. Going from 2% to 10% is an 8% growth. Saving one-half of costs on the 8% growth is saving 4% of total costs, or $240 million of a $6 billion statewide educational budget. Perhaps only 1%, or $60 million, could be saved in the first biennium.

(5)   I think the cost savings could be even greater. I’ve proposed a statewide RFP process that would use competition to drive the cost of online education down further. See here. 

 (6)   I’m not for spending less on education. I would reallocate online savings to other educational activities. High on my list are invigorating foreign language programs (including online programs) and developing a Go Global High School Study Abroad Program. I’m also supportive of more funding for early childhood education, smaller class sizes, more pay for some teachers, and more funding for under-achieving students/schools.

(7)   I support Measure 66 and 67 to raise an additional $733 million for state government. Much of that will go for education. I fear wasting $60 to $240 million of that because the Joint Online  Learning Task Force has not been more aggressive in its advocacy of online learning. It makes supporting Measure 66 and 67 more difficult.

(8)   The Joint Online Learning Task Force, or some other groups, should get back to work. Have that broader discussion. Delve into potential cost savings. And bring a proposal forward soon.

“Oregon and China: Developing Strategies for Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability”

The Asian Education Foundation presented a panel discussion on “Oregon and China: Developing Strategies for Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability” at the Port of Portland on 11/16/09.

There were two panels. The first panel included (photos are in this order) the Speaker of the Oregon House Dave Hunt, who lead a recent legislative delegation to China; Representative Jules Bailey, a leader on both environmental sustainability and China related legislative issues (also on the legislative delegation); Annette Price, State Government Relations Manager for the Port of Portland (also accompanied the recent delegation); and Jon Blumenauer, Managing Partner of Hutani (here), who traveled to China this year with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to discuss environmental policies with top Chinese leaders.

Speaker Dave Hunt reported that each trip was an opportunity to strengthen economic, educational and cultural ties; that the two countries have a lot more in common than the average Oregonian or US citizen thinks; that there are huge trade opportunities, not just in products, but services; that there are now amazing opportunities in sustainability; that our futures are tied together; that, after meeting with the Confucius Institute, the legislative bipartisan delegation agreed to work to make Oregon the top state in Mandarin education; and that he found discussions with the Chinese open and honest about our differences.

Representative Bailey, who has lived in China and speaks Mandarin, said he found the speed of change impossible to describe. There was no longer a strong contrast between Hong Kong and Beijing.

Annette Price noted that the Port of Portland has known of the importance of the Asian markets, especially Japan and China, and has spent lots of time and money building relationship in China. She also noted the stunning growth in China, and that “it’s not republican or democratic, it’s the future.”

Jon Blumenauer reported on his trip to China with Speaker Pelosi. He found China to be very serious about tackling issues of environmental sustainability. They will continue to put economic growth at the top of their agenda (they do have 40-150 million people living below their poverty level), but they are taking serious step to deal with their environmental problems.

There was a question and answer period. The most interesting exchange, IMHO, came on a question from former Secretary of State (now candidate for Governor) Bill Bradbury. He asked, in effect, what Oregon business sectors had the largest opportunities in China. Speaker Hunt answered that the already large agricultural export trade had opportunities to add value to their products. I agree with this. Representative Bailey noted sustainability services and expertise, but then added some significant comments. He said, in effect, that business sector advantages would change over time, so that what Oregon should aim for is an innovational and human capital competitive advantage. We needed to become the place for new ideas about business opportunities in China. We need to develop the capabilities to stay one step ahead of others in generating and implementing such ideas. I agree, and this is where legislative action is needed to develop our China related educational infrastructure.

After the question period, there was another panel of two China entrepreneurs: Ocean Yuan, President of Grape Solar, Inc. (here), and Executive Director of the China Solar Industry Consortium, the world's largest conglomerate of photovoltaic manufacturers; and Jack Chu, CEO of Terra Solar Global (here).

Ocean Yuan spoke of the federal and state tax incentives for solar, that the total cost of installed solar is 50% hardware and 50% labor for installation, and that there is a need to cut the hardware costs further to make solar more competitive.

Jack Chu said western assumptions can create blind spots in doing business in China, and that China is complex and different. New businesses should take their time to understand China.

Obama: Expand to 100,000 US students in China

I watched (11/15/09) President Obama’s Shanghai town hall with Chinese students on CNN and, when CNN switched to something else, online. The NY Times coverage is here. The most significant announcement, IMHO, was President Obama saying that the US would expand the number of US students studying in China to 100,000 (here, for example). No details were provided.

At about 1.25% of the US total population, Oregon's share would be about 1,250 students.

Update: Here's a youtube of President Obama's opening statement. The written quote below begins at 9:38.

We know that more is to be gained when great powers cooperate than when they collide. That is a lesson that human beings have learned time and again. And that is the example of the history between our nations. And I believe strongly that cooperation must go beyond our government and must be rooted in our people. In the studies we share, the business that we do, the knowledge that we gain, and even in the sports that we play.

And these bridges must be built by young men and women just like you and your counterparts in America. That’s why I’m pleased to announce that the United States will dramatically expand the number of our students who study in China to 100,000. And these exchanges mark a clear commitment to build ties among our people as surely as you will help determine the destiny of the 21^st century. And I am absolutely confident that America has no better ambassadors to offer than our young people. For they, just like you, are filled with talent, and energy, and optimism about the history that is yet to be written. So let this be the next step in the steady pursuit of cooperation that will serve our nations and the world.

Afghan Fight Too Expensive, Alternatives are Higher Priorities

As Obama works his way through deciding what to do in Afghanistan, the financial costs of fighting there are coming into focus. The costs are high. Now as high as $1 million per year per soldier there, or, for 100,000 US soldiers in Afganistan, $100 billion per year.

$100 billion is real money. I’ve suggested alternative, higher priority spending that would make more national security sense. Two NY Times columnist have both suggested alternative uses for the funds. Tom Friedman, visiting Governor Antonio Waldez Góes da Silva of the Amazonian state of Amapá, writes (here):

What if we kept just one soldier back from Afghanistan and gave you the money, I asked the governor? What would it buy you? Gov. Waldez Góes mulled that over: “If you kept three soldiers back, that would be enough for me to keep the State University of Amapá running for one year, so 1,400 students could take different courses on sustainable development for the Amazon.”

O.K., I know. It is a bit misleading to take a war budget and assume that if it weren’t spent on combat, it would all go to schools or parks. And we do have real enemies. Some wars have to be fought, no matter the cost. But such comparisons are still a useful reminder that our debate about Afghanistan is not taking place in a vacuum. We will have to make trade-offs, and there are other hugely important projects today crying out for funding, as my colleague Nick Kristof has pointed out regarding health care.

From Ncholas Kristof’s op-ed “America’s Defining Choice” (here):

President Obama and Congress will soon make defining choices about health care and troops for Afghanistan.

These two choices have something in common — each has a bill of around $100 billion per year. So one question is whether we’re better off spending that money blowing up things in Helmand Province or building up things in America.

The total bill in Afghanistan has been running around $1 million per year per soldier deployed there. That doesn’t include the long-term costs that will be incurred in coming decades — such as disability benefits, or up to $5 million to provide round-the-clock nursing care indefinitely for a single soldier who suffers brain injuries.

So if President Obama dispatches another 30,000 or 40,000 troops, on top of the 68,000 already there, that would bring the total annual bill for our military presence there to perhaps $100 billion — or more. And we haven’t even come to the human costs.

Another alternative, mine, more closely related to our national security, is to spend some of the $100 billion on sending our high school and college students to study abroad. At $10,000 per high school student studying abroad, the US could have 100 students studying abroad for each soldier in Afghanistan. For just $100 million per year of the $100 billion, or 100 less soldiers in Afghanistan, the US could have 10,000 high school students studying in China each year. Oregon’s share (1.25%) would be about 125 high school students per year going to China.

In the article “High Costs Weight on Troop Debate for Afghan War” by Christopher Drew,  the NY Times reports (here)

The latest internal government estimates place the cost of adding 40,000 American troops and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces, as favored by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American and allied commander in Afghanistan, at $40 billion to $54 billion a year, the officials said.

Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant.

So even if Mr. Obama opts for a lower troop commitment, Afghanistan’s new costs could wash out the projected $26 billion expected to be saved in 2010 from withdrawing troops from Iraq. And the overall military budget could rise to as much as $734 billion, or 10 percent more than the peak of $667 billion under the Bush administration.

Such an escalation in military spending would be a politically volatile issue for Mr. Obama at a time when the government budget deficit is soaring, the economy is weak and he is trying to pass a costly health care plan.

Senior members of the House Appropriations Committee have already expressed reservations about the potential long-term costs of expanding the war in Afghanistan. And Mr. Obama could find it difficult to win approval for the additional spending in Congress, where he would have to depend on Republicans to counter defections from liberal Democrats.

President Obama, please phase back our involvement in Afghanistan! Spend the funds on higher priorities. Or reduce the deficit.

Gas Tax Could Cut Trade Deficit

At the Curious Capitalist blog on Time.com, Justin Fox posts “The U.S.: export juggernaut (if you don’t count oil or China)” (here):

Overall U.S. trade deficit for September: $36.5 billion

Trade deficit in petroleum products: $20.5 billion

Trade deficit with China: $22.1 billion

Overall U.S. trade surplus if you exclude petroleum and China: $6.1 billion

And note the comment from Harry Fox:

But our trade deficit in petroleum is largely within our control -- we could shrink it dramatically by imposing a gas tax that reflected the full costs of petroleum usage including the huge military costs incurred in protecting access to overseas sources, and by ending subsidies for petroleum consumption.

Yes, I agree, the US needs a gas or carbon tax. As I’ve said, I’d prefer that it be revenue neutral, with funds collected rebated to taxpayers in some fair manner.

2011 High School Year in Argentina for $5,230.

Give your child, or grandchild (or more students in Oregon as a strategic economic development priority), the opportunity to take their Spanish language learning to a new level in Argentina.

ASSE (American Scandinavian Student Exchange, here) offers a high school year study abroad in Argentina for $5,230. Program fee includes international airfare, comprehensive health, accidental death and travel insurance, host family recruitment and screening, non-English speaking country language training and orientation. Program fee does not include air travel to Miami, passport and visa fees, school uniforms (if required), educational/recreational overnight field trips, school lunch money (if necessary), and pocket money.

Host families do not receive fees or reimbursements for expenses. They will provide meals and lodging; all they ask in return is that the students participate as a responsible member of the family, assuming her/his fair share of chores around the house and sharing in family activities.

 ASSE maintains 38 offices in 31 countries and accommodates more than 30,000 high school age students and host families annually in its programs in the participating countries.

The $5,230 fee is for an early application by May 15, 2010. The Argentina high school year program starts January, 2011.

The 2009 Oregon legislature did not pass the Go Global High School Study Abroad Program so students and families must fund study abroad on their own. ASSE does provide some scholarships.

 Oregon’s State School Fund pays local school districts on average about $6,100 per student per year. Local school districts all collect and spend additional federal, local and grant funds. The average total expenditure per student per year in Oregon is about $10,000. The Go Global High School Study Abroad Program would have permitted local school districts to use their funds to pay for high school student to study abroad. They could pay all or part of the fees.

This is some of what Wikipedia says about Argentina (here):

 Argentina is the second largest country in South America, constituted as a federation of 23 provinces and an autonomous city, Buenos Aires. It is the eighth-largest country in the world by land area and the largest among Spanish-speaking nations, though Mexico, Colombia and Spain are more populous….

…. Argentina has the second-highest Human Development Index and GDP per capita in purchasing power parity in Latin America. Argentina is one of the G-20 major economies, with the world's 30th largest nominal GDP, and the 23rd largest when purchasing power is taken into account. The country is classified as upper-middle income or a secondary emerging market by the World Bank.

 

Talking to China about Afghanistan

I’ve called for many Chinese troops in Afghanistan, so I’d like to be a fly on the wall as Obama and his national security team meet with the Chinese this next week.

We have a military strategy, counterinsurgency, on how we want to conduct military operations in Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency would require 600,000 or more troops. US and current allies are not going to top 200,000, and I’d prefer much less. Plans usually call for Afghanistan itself to supply the rest. It’s not going to happen in a timely manner, if at all. So, there is a need to bring in others. Let’s look to the Chinese. They have a large standing military. They also have more at stake in Afghanistan in both geopolitical and economic terms than the US. They should supply as many, or more, troops as the US.

So, does the US have a political plan to draw China, and some of the other regional powers, into supplying troops? I don’t know but hope so. Perhaps “dithering” is part of the plan. At least, we can now ask China before we make our own current decision (and I’d like to think whatever decision we make can be constantly reevaluated based, in part, on what allies and potential allies do or do not do). If the Chinese have no interest in helping, we should ourselves phase back. Afghanistan is more their problem than ours.

National security analyst Tom Barnett puts it this way in his blog post “What Obama should do on Afghanistan” (here):

Me? If I'm Obama, I go to Beijing and tell them straight, "Listen, I'd like to be able to stay in Afghanistan long enough for you guys to see your $3.5B investment work out--along with other goals you might have, but what are you going to do for me in the meantime? Because I've got a domestic situation that does not support this long term, so if I cannot find some movement from neighbors like you, I may be offering you advice on how to deal with YOUR Afghanistan woes next time we meet."

Again, Obama's leverage on this whole decision is a wasting asset, so I don't mind the dithering, so long as side conversations like that are being pursued.

Are they? Rest assured you never hear about the truly serious ones.

So let's hope these guys are thinking glidepaths beyond just showing staying power, because that's why I voted for the man.