ESL program and Equity

Reading Stone's chapter on equity reminded me of some thoughts I have had regarding policy towards minority groups in schools. I work at Logan High School as a "ESL aide," where I am involved in trying to enhance the educational opportunities available to students with a language barrier. Basically, in addition to some tutoring, my job consists of attending classes with the students, helping them take notes, translating, helping them get through assignments and tests, and any other needs that might arise. When I look at the situation though, I wonder how it might relate to the concept of equity.

Students in the ESL program at the high school appear to be getting a much larger portion of the cake when it comes to receiving individual attention and resources. They have the resource (unavailable to the "typical" students) of additional "helpers" attending class with them, helping take notes, and helping them with homework. Some aides will even take notes when the students "miss" class (although I am not one of them, I guess I am one of the mean ones), which in effect means they may get just as much info by not attending as they do by attending. In addition they have a separate computer lab set aside just for ESL students which have a much lower student to computer ratio. Also a special "study skills" class has been designed just for ESL students, which in effect is simply a free hour for them to work on homework, which is not available to other students in the school. These are just a few of the resources available. In short, I think there could be a definite argument about the equity of this scenario in Logan High School, and it is interesting to look at.

Having said that, however, I do want to state that I am in no way against the program in place at LHS. I actually do think that the program has been very beneficial and that it is important in the school. Besides, without it I wouldn't have a job!

Health Insurance for USU Students

Mandatory health insurance has been a big issue recently on our fine campus. Many students, faculty and administrators feel that requiring students to have health insurance is neccessary.
Going to Munger's concept of framing, this issue could be "framed" in several ways.
This issue could be seen as a health issue, a neccessary requirement to maintain a high level of health and wellness amonsgt the students here in Logan. Or as I personally see the issue, an added burden to the students least capable of handling it. The majority of students on campus are between the ages of 18-23. Students whose families are middle-class to upper-middle class are going to be covered under their families insurance until they are 23. This is not a big concern for these students. They just fill out the form and turn it in, no out of pocket cost. However, the students that come from working class families that may not have family coverage and are receiveing financial aid are the students that need to buy the health coverage. The students that are struggling to stay in school now have an added cost, the students that have family coverage through their mother or father's insurance do not have a burden yet the students with out this must pay. If you have looked at the policy offered by the University, called First Student, you will find it to be outrageously expensive. I looked at the brochure at the Health and Wellness Center. To Buy the premium for a single student is 1288 for the year. Thier CO- pay are ridiculous, like $25 for lab fees and perscritions. $200 for overnight hospital stays, etc... they only pay 70% of the fees also. It is a horrible plan. Further, if you are with in 50 miles of the Student Health and Wellness Center and it is open, you must go there first...
There maybe some second and third order consequences to mandatory health insurance for students. I think we would be hurting those that have the least means neccessary to deal with the added cost.

The Fence

No kidding. The “Cyclone fence”, “cities within city” mode mentioned in Jane Jacob’s book is just what we have in China – not really exactly the same, but very common. I hope I could have found some picture links so that you would have a clearer idea of it, but I don’t. So let’s take the Aggie Village where I am living now for an illustration. If built in China, it would never be an open community like it is here – people can get to any building from all possible directions. It would be fenced around in Chinese cities with brick wall of nearly one and a half person height, which will be called living zone if for living and otherwise any business name. There will be security guards at each gate -- normally four gates for relatively big communities, east, west, south and north, only where people can enter, and visitors may need to write down their names and purposes of entering. Chinese cities are built with numerous such fenced areas, including the living zones, schools, factories, organizations and so on. People who visit China must be amazed at the imposing sight of walls.

In fact, the wall is not a recently popular thing in China. The Chinese ancestor liked to build walls. They built walls in Beijing, Xi’an, and many other cities, and the most famous one is the Great Wall, which snakes across half the country. They built walls to protect against enemies and evil spirits. This tradition has survived to this day that the Chinese still have their parks and schools walled off from the public.

Certainly here I do not intend to discuss just the walled city planning in China. I mean, people’s social behavior reflects their national character and culture, and which would be a critical element in their policy making, and should be taken into account by the outsiders to understand their policies. The walled-up cities to some extent reflect the inward, defensive kind of characteristic of Chinese people, who valued the private affairs inside the wall, private as family to family, city to city and of course more importantly, nation to nation. In that sense, I don’t think China would bother to step outside the borderline and pose such a threat to other countries, because we respect others’ privacy as we do to ourselves. I totally understand the concern of China threat facing such a rapidly growing power, like that we Chinese do also try to modernize military in a sense of protecting ourselves from any possible threats. But, to look deeper into each other’s culture and gain more mutual understanding, we might feel more released at what we have seen others doing instead of over-reacting like to China's destruction of an aging Chinese weather satellite.

To reiterate my point, it is that when making a policy, maybe more a foreign policy here I mean, we are affected by our cultural character, consciously or subconsciously. To better realize this would help us make sounder choices in terms of making policy decisions.


Links:

ChineseCulture
One-stop Chinese Culture

China confirms anti-satellite test

Senator urges robust U.S. stance on China space moves

China's Defense Budget

Chinese WTO membership is a blessing

modified CAM

I was reading a math methods for MBA students textbook this week and ran into a modified version of Munger's Criteria Alternatives Matrix. It compares different degrees of a policy against a random variable representing the 'state of nature.' For example: a proposal to build a new concert venue with county tax revenues could be set up as follows:
worst case base case best case
large venue -1200 -200 1800
medium venue -600 300 1100
small venue -50 400 700

This gives payoffs (in thousands) associated with worst case, base case, and best case attendance scenarios. The best part is that probabilities from surveys can be assigned to each of the 'states of nature.' This means that bureaucrats can make informed choices about how to implement policy by comparing expected net benefits...

Other Blogs

If you find any other blogs or sites you'd like added to the blogroll email me @ ryanyonk@yahoo.com and I'll add them to the front page.

Local Zoning Policy

For the past couple of weeks I've been following a case of zoning enforcement for converted apartments in Logan, and the way in which the argument has been framed is actually quite fascinating, worthy even of munger's framing discussion.

In short the two sides each frame their argument in very different ways. The property owner in question has framed their discussion of the apartment in terms of property rights, with the central question being one of a takings issue by government. The city on the other hand has framed the discussion in two ways the first being equality of enforcment and the second the preservation of the historic core of cental logan.

The way in this has been framed by both sides can really influence the gut reaction to the policy. Everyone wants laws enforced fairly, and most everyone wants to see the historic core of central logan preserved, on the other hand most everyone expresses a firm support for property rights.

The framing of this issue is simply fascinating, and in the end this issue like many others will be decided mainly by how the arguments are framed and which version of the same facts are most palitable to both the public and the city council.

Additional Information

Logan Zoning Maps

Logan City Grandfathering Code

Herald Journal Article 5/16/04

Jay Nielson Community Development Director Podcast

Steven Lucherini Property Owner Podcast

Type I and Type II Errors

Here is a great post on Type I and Type II errors. Make sure you understand what they are and their implications. The blog this is posted on is an excellent blog--worth reading often.

Criteria Alternatives Matrix

At the risk of sounding completely nerdy, the equations in table 1.3 of the Munger book (pg.13) are wrong. They are full of typos. Just encase some of you wanted to learn how to use the matrix, I thought I should let you know.

For example: The build more prisons equation reads,
-.25x105+.25x3+.25x0-.25x4=-26.5
The equation should read, -.25x105+.25x3+.25x0+(-.25)x4=-26.5

All of the equations in the table are wrong, many of them are much worse than the example shown here. You should follow example above for the correct formula.

Framing the Healthy Forest Restoration Act

In 2003 Congress passed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA), legislation put forth by the Bush administration to reduce the number and severity of forest fires and to protect people, homes and other dwellings in areas of urban-wildland interface. This is done by thinning forests of smaller trees and undergrowth. Without going into too much, if any, detail on the specifics of the bill I will show 3 different ways that this legislation has been framed.

1. The Bush Administration and legislators from states with large timber industries: HFRA will reduce the number and severity of forest fires, thus protecting homes and lives. The anthropocentric argument - this bill will save lives by reducing forest fires.

2. Environmental Groups and restoration ecologists and biologists (science): A century of forest fire suppression has lead to the increased number and severity of Forest fires in recent years. To make forests healthy we must let fires burn allowing forest to return to a natural state. Fire is a natural and necessary part to forest ecosystems. The ecocentric argument - this bill will harm forests.

3. Fiscal conservatives and hatters of budget maximization: HFRA is a colossal waste of tax payers dollars. All this bill will do is provide subsidies to wealthy timber companies and harm forest health while not saving any lives. This bill will waste money.

Because of brilliant framing by the sponsors (anthropocentric argument) and horrific fire years in 2000 and 2002 HFRA passed for two reasons: (1) It will save lives and (2) people don't like fire.

To read more on this legislation go to www.ti.org.

Markets v. Queuing

Popular sentiment often accuses market processes as being 'unfair.' What happens, however, when a more 'fair' allocation institution is chosen? Munger mentions that "queue-based allocations often evoke secondary, or "black," markets, where allocations initially dictated by queueing are reallocated by prices."

This Christmas season the nintendo wii was exceptionally scarce. Some retailers bundled the wii with games and doubled or tripled the price. Most retailers, however, relied on queuing to distribute what they had in stock. Opportunity cost of owning the wii was higher than the value gained by playing it for most, and an extensive secondary market emerged. It seems that we do not have the ability to prevent barter and trade between people.

Furthermore, the equity consideration is also fallacious. While market allocation is biased towards those with money, queuing is biased to those people with time. How can we say one bias is better than the other without descending into the realm of normativism.