Punishing Failure, and the Law of Unintended Consequences

by

Asian kids rarely miss school. Common sickness is not an acceptible cop-out. To be sick enough to get the ‘okay’ from the parents to stay home, one would literally have to have a dementia inducing fever, exhibit signs of an advanced stage of leprosy, perhaps even demonstrate the coughing of blood, before getting a very reluctant acceptance that, God forbid, maybe, just maybe school would be out of the question that day. In elementary school, for several years in a row, I received the “Perfect Attendance Certificate”, an honor shared between only myself and roughly three-quarters of the other Asian kids in school. I sometimes wonder about how many countless other children we needlessly infected as walking, breathing carriers of disease. It makes me chuckle.

I could probably count the number of times I’ve missed elementary school on one hand, perhaps even without the use of my more opposable joints. Boy, was I a miserable sight those days. I had to be. I’ll admit, though most of it was genuine maladiction, much of it consisted of showboating, just so my parents could know that I was truly, beyond a reasonable doubt, sick. My mother fashioned herself a medicine woman, a healer, an expert on Chinese remedies – she still does, as a matter of fact, in spite of the fact that she has had absolutely no training in the subject, save some extended gossip sessions with the wife of the local accupuncturist. She used to make for me a strange black concoction, calling it a several thousand year old ‘traditional ginger cure’. From what I could understand, it was a mix of several different herbs – and more ginger than any living soul should consume in a month’s time. If you’ve had ginger before – raw – imagine that taste multiplied by a factor of a hundred. Yeah, that’s about how bad it tasted. I dreaded it. I forced it down, and I tried to wash the taste out of my mouth. It never worked, but that never stopped me from trying.

I got sick again recently. I did my best to make no signs of it during the Chinese New Year celebrations, but a sneeze and a sniffle gave me away to Inspector Mom. Guess what the first thing she said to me was as soon as she figured out I wasn’t feeling well? “I’ll make you the ginger soup.”

Liquid dread. “No, mom, it’s okay, please, none of that, I have NyQuil.”

She’s never liked the fact that I’ve never really had too much faith in Eastern medicine. No, actually, that’s not entirely true. She’s never liked the fact that I’ve never had faith in her Eastern medicine. “But it’s always cured you within one day when you were young!”

I sighed. It was time to come clean. “No, mom, it’s never cured me. I just hated it so much because it was so disgusting that I would rather go to school sick than drink it. It tastes that bad. And I know you just made it up. There’s no medical research that indicates drinking your ginger soup will cure anything. If it actually cured the common cold, you wouldn’t be keeping it a secret. We would have patented the formula, extracted the vital ingredients, created a pill, bribed someone in the FDA, and made millions of dollars while saving the American economy millions of dollars in lost productivity. In fact, if anything, your ginger soup was worse for society as a whole because it would scare me into going back to school without having fully recovered and infect all the other kids.” Yes, it was time to let her have it. I was an adult, and, goddammit, I was going to stop her from ever inflicting that torture she called a cure on any more living souls.

She made it anyway. “What? You’re not going to drink it? You’re going to make me waste good ginger and other expensive Chinese medicines?”

I drank the ginger. Goddammit.

She asked me later on if I wanted more. I fought off my Pavlovian gag reflex from imagining the taste of the soup. “No, no, no, it’s quite alright. I’m not sick anymore.”

“Good,” she smiled. “And you didn’t believe it would work.”

———

A few years ago, George W. Bush signed into law the “No Child Left Behind” act, establishing a system of accountability for public school districts that would, ideally, motivate educational administrators to implement reforms for trailing schools and improving the academic performance of certain minority demographics. In theory, it’s a good idea. In a free market system, key performance motivators are the expectation of rewards for success, and the fear of being punished for failure. Public educators, have long been criticized for being too protected by tenure programs and union bubble shields. The No Child Left Behind act specifically detailed a plan for reducing funding for schools that failed to meet a federally set benchmark, and called for “restructuring” consultants to come into a failing school to clean house if needed, in effect turning the school in question into an artificial corporation specializing in the production of students at every grade level producing strong standardized test scores.

Years later, we are beginning to see some very adverse side-effects to this system. Teachers and administrators in difficult school districts, afraid of losing what little federal funding they were receiving, began cheating for the students. Rather than keep more problematic students in school, counselors would advise students to drop out rather than bring down a school’s average. And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

At the very core of the problem is the philsophy behind punishing failure. In a free market system, a corporation assesses all the risks behind a particular market before investing to overcome any barriers of entry. The reward for success is a net increase in funds, and the punishment for failure is a net decrease in funds. After too long a period of decreasing funds and incurred debt, the corporation goes out of business. Similarly, when an employee performs well, his employer rewards him with prestige and bonuses. When the employee underperforms, he does not gain the bonuses, is possibly demoted, and eventually, fired, unless he leaves first. That’s the beauty of a free market system and free market employment: “at will” production of labor – there is always a chance, even if infinitely small, of a company going out of business. When the company goes out of business, if there is any kind of demand for the commodity it produced, another company will rise in its stead to produce the commodity, perhaps at a lower quality and lower quantity, to avoid sharing the fate of its predecessor. The system of punishing failure, thus, only works if the ecology allows for extinction and adjusted repopulation.

Public education does not and cannot fall under this umbrella.

The public education system cannot go out of business. Nor can it afford to offer anything but service of the highest caliber. As much of a Libertarian as I am, I believe very strongly in class mobility and accessibility to quality education as a vehicle to that mobility. In order for a Democracy to survive the entropic nature of a free market economy’s tendency towards Oligarchy and no-compete monopolies, education must always be available as well as improving so the next generation can invent the Next Big Thing to unseat the Last Big Thing. Unlike the commodoties and franchises with limited life-cycles produced by corporations for consumption, the supply of education must never, ever drop below the demand for it. Any generational respite in producing educated workers in a First World market will lead to an absence of the growth of new, marketable franchises, and subsequently economic implosion.

My mother is not a stupid woman. In fact, she is very, very sharp. I’ve long suspected, for instance, that her ‘ginger soup’ is a punishment for my not being careful enough to avoid getting sick, and my fear of having to drink it subconsciously drives me to be extra careful with personal hygiene, dressing appropriately, and in general avoiding environments which facilitate the spreading of disease. Certainly, my reported incidents of sickness have decreased. But what of its effect on my actual increased precaution towards staving off sickness? Questionable, at best. The same applies to the No Child Left Behind act and its approach towards motivating by way of fear. The conspiracist would argue that it is in the interest of the ruling class to oppress the masses by way of depriving us of education, while at the same time looking like heroes for ostensibly increasing test passage rates (and the particularly vile would argue that my mother does not actually care about my well-being as much as she cares about not having to hear about my lack of it). We need public education reform; there is no doubt of that. It’s time to move on. Fear of punishment has not created the results public education so desperately needs. It’s time to throw “No Child Left Behind” in with all the other failed social experiments.

Advertisement

8 Responses to “Punishing Failure, and the Law of Unintended Consequences”

  1. Akrypti Says:

    Another consequence not mentioned in the above post: the obliteration of art and music programs at public schools; even Phys. Ed. has been cut. With the policy’s express focus on math, science, and reading proficiency, public schools channel as much of their funding as possible into math, science, and reading only, since that’s where the deal-breakers lie. Children aren’t getting the renaissance education that once upon a time distinguished the American school system from the rest of the world, in particular, Asia.

    As an alternative to the “No Child Left Behind” policy, the government should offer full scholarships to top university students who agree to teach for 5 years after graduation at one of the public schools. “No Child Left Behind” wasn’t some social experiment modeled after capitalist concepts; it was a fascist order given to a society otherwise accustomed to work only for financial incentives. It was doomed to fail right from its inception.

    My concern with public education today targets the teachers. Do you know what kind of college grads become public school teachers? The kind of college grads that big capitalist corporations refuse to hire because they’re not even qualified to serve coffee. There’s a few folks I know who I used to party with back in college. They’re now public school teachers. These people have no interest in literature, no passion in math or science, no thirst for any knowledge whatsoever; only a thirst for weekend martinis at seedy bars. They stumble their way toward a diploma, drunk or high or both, taking all the easy-A courses and cutting every corner they know how. Once out of the academy, they realize that every rational and not-desperate company will reject their meager resume. Too stupid for a doctorate, they go back to school to do the only thing they can: get certified as a schoolteacher. Now they teach the future leaders of America? For pete’s sake, no wonder we’re in trouble.

    Law schools tend to only hire law professors who once were top law students. Legal education in America is what it is because the teachers come from the top of the GPA roster, not the bottom. Elementary, middle, and high school education is in the dire state it is because the teachers come from the bottom end of the GPA roster in college, not the top. Improving the public education system requires change at THIS level, not at the back end with standardized testing. How do you expect students to pass the standardized tests when the teachers teaching them couldn’t even pass those standardized tests themselves?

  2. posteriori Says:

    [Libertarian Response /w attitude]

    The answer is to privatize education!

    You can’t reap free market efficiency when the schools are still public institutions. Law schools are able to hire better teachers because they have more money. Regardless of a few outliers, people go where the money flows (ok– that’s the only Rev. Jesse Jackson impression, I swear).

    The demand for education is huge. Disease ridden kids and horny adolescents are multiplying, and the reason we’re not seeing better teachers in schools is because there is a CAP on how much teachers can be paid. They follow a reletively rigid pay schedule, and you cannot reasonably expect better education when the teachers have no incentive to teach better. The threat of losing their job is negative reinforcement, and that is only motivation to do the minimum needed to get by.

    By privatizing the education sector, you’ll be able to get the free market effectiveness that “No Child Left Behind” sought to achieve. Better teachers which results in a better education.

    “Not all families can’t afford private schools!”

    Familes CAN afford private schools. They are already paying for it via property taxes. 12.7% of america lives in a state of poverty (making under 20K a year), and really, most of those ppl are broke college students. And those who are living in poverty and not a student — why are you having kids in the first place when you can barely support yourself? Contraceptives were invented ages ago.

    “But these children shouldnt be short changed b/c they were born in a less privileged house.”

    There are various other ways to provide schooling for underprivileged children. Neighborhood home school is one of the most effective ways of going about it. Single parents would be able to go work while they leave their kids with a small group of home schooled children in the neighborhood. Children who attended home schools generally scored higher on the SAT than kids who attended public school. By relinquishing property taxes for education, corporations which are looking tax write offs and improving their public image could sponsor schools. The point is that there are many ways to provide schooling. This is the part where we get creative on ideas on how to school children. Yea– it’s not neat or clean cut, but this isn’t a system for ALL kids, just the poor families which can’t afford education.

    Furthermore, other non-profit organizations like religious schools offer all kinds of scholarship for poverty stricken families.

    “But there is no standard being taught! These schools can teach anything! They can neglect students!”

    This is the beauty of free market capitalism. The schools now have to compete with one another, otherwise parents can pull their kids from that institution. They also now have incentives to do better than the next school, because, more students = more money = better teachers = better education. You hire better talent that way.

  3. Akrypti Says:

    If you privatize education, then it will be motivated by profit, i.e. posteriori’s libertarian slant. Yes, people go where the money flows. Business entities, especially. If you privatize education, school becomes a business entity. No school will be built in the ghettos. As if the divide between rich and poor in America isn’t widening enough already, privatizing education will mean better schools in rich neighborhoods and no schools at all in poor neighborhoods.

    Also, if you privatize education, how do you plan on standardizing what is taught? By privatizing education, the one thing for sure you’ll accomplish is more kids taught Creationism.

  4. dionysian Says:

    Did you just try to use the “increasing gap between rich and poor” as an argument against a Libertarian? You might as well tell a die-hard Marxist that Communism will result in state owned enterprises.

    No, the fact is, true, pure, anarchistic Libertarianism is impossible because there is no such thing as a true separation of the state from the economy. Anyone that becomes king of the hill will pay the state handsomely to stay the king of the hill, erecting impossibly high barriers of entry to ward off competition, destroying the grease of the capitalistic engine.

    In reality, the compassionate Libertarian must support a syncretic form of government, a government which not only exists to enforce laws, but also to prevent capitalism from collapsing. Competition is a tricky thing. Invention is to mutation as business is to biology. The government must foster invention by enforcing laws, protecting intellectual property, and by educating the populace. Providing accessible public education may be against Libertarian principles, but it is most certainly not against Libertarian interests.

  5. Akrypti Says:

    Did a Libertarian support intellectual property laws just now? Even compassionate Libertarians generally denounce patent and copyright laws that exclude free or unhampered exploitation of inventions and expressions of ideas.

    If equal access to education is considered a personal liberty worth protecting, then I presume you Libertarians would agree that the government (minimal as it should be) has the responsibility of protecting that liberty so all may pursue education freely. Unregulated privatization of school systems WILL result in the denial of this personal liberty to a significant portion of folks. I interpret that as running very much against the philosophy of a compassionate Libertarian, as dionysian sort of implied.

    Basically, I’m just against posteriori’s proposal for a completely privatized education system because that approach neglects any consideration for the common good of society.

  6. dionysian Says:

    You know what Libertarians don’t support? Unfettered perversions of the word ‘liberty’ to justify as principle as Libertarian. Someone could come up to me on the street and tell me I should support a ban on pickles because pickles infringe on my right to my personal liberty to live a pickle-free life.

    The concept of ‘intellectual property protection’ nets me a lot of enemies within Libertarians. Perhaps Libertarianism isn’t the proprety party ideology for me. Is there a closer party to Liberal Capitalism? The priorities of government is seeking a balance in policy which would maximize as free a market as possible, while maximizing innovation and protecting personal liberties as much as possible. The key is not having a completely free market, or a market which completely protects innovation, or a government in which personal liberties are never violated.

    There IS another approach to education privitization: the government gives out money to corporations to actually run schools, and every few years, either a board of education or voters choose to throw the company out or leave them in after independent audits are performed on all the different educational companies (by a privitized auditing company, of course). The immediate disadvantage? All non-essentials will be cut. Music and art will be cut unless a performance art requirement is enforced. Civics will be cut, which is extremely detrimental to society as a whole. I very much like the idea of Bachelor’s candidates serving a mandatory time leading extended seminar and tutoring sessions for middle and high schoolers in addition to the current curriculum. Perhaps ‘non-essential’ courses can entirely be led by those seeking degrees? The quality of the classes will be inferior to those led by concert musicians or recognized artists, but come on, at present these classes are taught by hippies anyway. Dirty, diseased, hippies.

  7. Akrypti Says:

    Right to an education is often considered a positive liberty, even by the most unyielding of libertarians.

  8. jylgcveua avtgqsr Says:

    cswirefkh kmvpnt qyhfek kahunibf dntzs gkaue tyrnigecv

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.