Swickard: When the price is wrong

© 2017 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  It happens often that a local business closes. We have enjoyed years of that business in our community but now it is closed. Rarely do we understand what happened.

            There is a popular show, “The price is right” where contestants must know the correct price of items. When a local company goes out of business one explainer is that they didn’t charge enough for their products. Not always. There are other explainers.

            Restaurants are one type of business I notice when they close because several have closed even though I was a regular customer. Businesses come and businesses go. It is a natural happening in our free enterprise model of capitalism.

            The popular notion is that anyone in business for themselves are rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. The one commonality is most local businesses are started by risk-takers. They put up the money and their own time to see if we will vote for their ideas with our wallets.

            The first danger for sustainable businesses is that their prices are too low for the cost of doing business. So, they can be in business for a while before they run out of money. If that happens then they go out of business.

            The most important issue is the return on investment for someone in business. There are ways to change the bottom line such as quality and efficiency. But ultimately the buyer is the judge and jury of that success. Except for when the government gets involved.

            The government regulations are a component in the price and bottom line. They require the business to do things they may not want to do such as pay more for employees than would allow for a profit. At times.

            This is not good for either the employees or the customers when businesses close. Then the businesses that are left leave less choice and price pressure to support customers.

            Sometimes the loss of profit is obscured by inventory only to eventually kill the business. The patron of the business pays the asked price or they go somewhere else. The lure of going to a bigger town means that money leaves which does kill businesses.

            The economic pressures on local businesses include competition, cost of goods and the changing needs of our population. In the computer business, it used to be a value-added store where the customer knew little and the store experts were needed to walk customers through getting a computer up and running.

            Then it all changed and those stores closed. The new online option for purchase makes it harder to be in local business if you sell some items. The same is true for local restaurants. But there is one thing that local businesses do that the big ones do not.

            The local business owners spend their money in the local economy. The nationals ship the money out of your town quickly. Will losing money out-of-town close local businesses? Of course. That price is always wrong for your town.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net - Swickard’s novel, Hideaway Hills,is available at Amazon.com 

Swickard: When the price is wrong

Swickard: Solving problems with guns

© 2017 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.   Every year for decades there have been students bringing guns to school to “fix a problem.” In the days after the school shooting many people speculate on how the kid obtained the gun and got it to school along with many more how-it-was-done questions.

            I never hear the question: why did this kid think using a gun would solve any problems? Rather, it causes more problems than can be imagined. So where did that student get the notion that bringing a gun would make things better?

            What this something the child learned in school? Of course not. It is not part of the public school curriculum. Further, it is not modeled behavior by teachers to shoot problem students, regardless of how irritating students can be.

            Yet, students are bringing guns to school apparently with the belief that the guns will solve their problems. If they do not learn that notion in public school, they must learn it somewhere else. Is it in the home?

            Most parents reject that premise. “I certainly do not teach my children that shooting someone will solve problems.” But they do. The message is transmitted repeatedly to their children. Under their supervision kids watch hour after hour of television and movies where the solution to problems is to shoot someone.

            The average school age student watches hundreds of “shootings to solve a problem” a week. Heroes as well as bad people, all larger than life, solve their problems with guns.

            Research strongly suggests a correlation of behavior in children exposed to violence. Kids in one research project were observed with fellow students for an hour. Then they watched violent cartoons for an hour and were observed with students for the hour afterwards.

            In the second and third hours, the incidence of aggressive behavior increased dramatically. The research is compelling that watching television influences behavior. That is why advertisers spend millions on commercials. It influences behavior.

            The responsibility lies with the parents to protect their children from these influences. The copycat syndrome has been established by the police in some types of crimes. It is seen on television and then replicated in society.

            Television and movie violence is so pervasive because it is the most easily created form of drama, “Is someone going to die or not?” I’m not saying kids should be kept completely away from all television, but it should be screened.

            The issue is not to stop television from showing the use of guns as a solution to a person's problems, rather, the issue is that parents must stop letting impressionable kids watch hour after hour of this guns will solve problems message.

            It is like planting a tree. The best time to plant a tree was ten years ago, the next best time to plant a tree is now. The best time to screen television programs was ten years ago. The next best time is now. No, we do not need a law, we need a culture that understands the influences on children.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net - Swickard’s novel, Hideaway Hills,is available at Amazon.com 

Swickard: Solving problems with guns

Swickard: Assuming our way to school change

© 2017 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.   Let us look at assumptions. They are the building blocks of change. American public schools provide an example. Not everyone agrees that they are broken; some just think they should be improved.

            As to public schools: in the past and now, there are calls for educational change by political leaders wanting to make political hay and get votes. Some say we need to innovate while others say we must reform the schools. What is the difference?

            Innovation assumes things can be better. Reform assumes things are so bad that they must be changed. Now assumptions do no harm so long as no one acts upon them. Unfortunately, people are acting. There are many attempts to reform schools when what is needed is innovation.

            Worse yet, many attempts to reform schools are not tied to research. One of the most problematic assumptions people make is that educational research is not essential. The truth is that any school change not research-based will be a disaster.

            Want proof? Every politically driven reform movement in the last fifty years has not been research-based. Constantly some politician has an idea for changing schools and everyone jumps on to the fad.

            The change may not make things better or the change will make things worse. It is like when an airplane is flying along and the pilot finds something isn’t working quite right. The pilot may fiddle with it to the point the aircraft quits flying completely.

            The standards and accountability movement is not research-based. Someone thought, hey, let’s try this. The public schools are busy accounting for themselves without a clear notion what it means when the accountability numbers vary.

            The general assumption is that the schools did something wrong when the numbers are poor. However, research assures us that schools can only teach students who want to learn. No one is attending to this truth.

            So, what is the accountability movement really measuring? The school’s effect is comingled with out-of-school influences. Do the people in the accountability reform movement realize this? No, they assume poor scores are automatically the school’s fault.

            A change should be made in the way we change our schools. Since students ultimately benefit or are harmed by educational change, those political leaders changing the schools should have to put something in escrow before making sweeping changes.

            Then, if they are right, we should reward them well. If they are wrong, they should pay a penalty. Make them risk their retirement. Then we will see how sold they are on school uniforms or quarter hour math ladders or whatever new fad.

            There would be a rush to use research. It would then be more dependable than just driving down the road, running over a turtle, and thinking that Flat Turtle Math Programs are the answer.

            That is not to say that the public schools are not ripe for innovation. Schools can be made better or worse. It completely depends upon the research assumptions. And please ignore the political school change fads.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net - Swickard’s novel, Hideaway Hills,is available at Amazon.com 

Swickard: Assuming our way to school change

Swickard: The need for vocational education

© 2017 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  Imagine that a wave of brown smelly sludge starts pouring over the edge of your toilet. Oh no! That is not the textbook way brown sludge should be handled by the toilet. When you press the handle the “product” should just disappear out of sight, mind and smell.

            But it is overflowing and coming down the hallway. There is the immediate necessity to find someone competent in plumbing. We are not looking for conversations about academics. We need plumbers, not professors.

            I was thinking about this because many public schools, starting even in kindergarten, are pushing all of their students to go to college. No exceptions. But someone needs to be trained and ready to fix the biffy along with other repair professions.

            If every child goes to college there will be a huge problem. Millions of young adults can look at the human waste coming down your hallway and comment on the Peloponnesian War of 431 BC which had minor similarities to the crisis you are facing.

            When they are through talking about Greek history you still have a mess unless you find a plumber. The brown stuff will just keep on keeping on down your hallway.

            So many young people will know right where to put the comma, but nothing vocational. When trying to fix things you ask: what about using a screwdriver? No, not the liquid kind. And plumbers are not the political leak finders in Washington, they are those professionals who make the plumbing work as advertised.

            I was lucky that vocational education was for all students in the 1960s so that I am mildly competent in most repair situations. Even better, I know when not to tackle a problem other than tackle it with my wallet and someone who will fix the problem correctly.

            As a society, we are looking down our academic noses at those people who work with their hands and come home occasionally smelling like low tide at the swamp. The only thing we will know in the future is what we know now: everything will break at the least useful moment.

            We should bring vocational education back and put every public-school student through some of it so that minor things can be fixed by each of us. The wave of crud backing up from the toilet will take a real plumber. I hope we still have them in the future.

            It is wrong to push all students to college. Rather, we should make students aware of the possibilities without pushing what we think and let them decide what interests them. I understand colleges are worried by dropping enrollment.

            Partly this is due to the incredible increase in college costs plus a stagnate job market. They need skills that our world will support financially.

            Many young people do not want to go deeply in debt. Be a plumber first and then use those dollars to explore other professions. When the brown sludge overflows you will know what to do other than worry.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net - Swickard’s novel, Hideaway Hills,is available at Amazon.com 

Swickard: The need for vocational education

Swickard: Taking money to lose games

© 2017 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.” Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

             On page C5 of the Sunday, October 1, 2017 Albuquerque Journal is a headline: Aggie offense shows well in money game.” While some weak football programs do it, I object to the ethics of selling losses in “money games” to national powerhouses.

            It is certainly the right of NMSU to engage year after year in this ethical morass of selling losses. But it is not right for them to do so. The football team plays mostly unwinnable games a couple times a season for money.

            Over the last forty years NMSU has sold losses in a sport entirely judged by the team’s win-loss record. I have spent those forty years complaining about this to no avail.

            In the modern NCAA Football era comes an unethical practice of strong national teams spending millions of dollars for an easy week while weak teams collect millions providing a loss. This last week the University of Arkansas paid NMSU $1.35 million to go there and lose.

            Over that forty years NMSU has won twice and lost more than a hundred times. Many Aggie Football coaches have been fired because of their win-loss record.

            Three concerns: first, it appears giving two losses a season keeps the Aggies from going to Bowl Games. NMSU hasn’t gone to a Bowl Game since Eisenhower was the President in 1960. I see a trend.

            Secondly, smaller teams playing physically larger teams often get players hurt. This is not a strong team in your conference, these are national teams.

            Finally, it is a thumb in the eye of home fans. Not going to Bowl Games because of selling losses makes selling season tickets harder.

            Partly personal: I have watched NMSU football for fifty years. My first year was with legendary coach Warren Woodson in 1967. I have had season tickets most of the time including this year.

            The NMSU Athletic Department have spoken to me over the years due to my criticism. They say I don’t understand Higher Education. I always respond I have a Ph.D. in Higher Education from NMSU. But they don’t listen to me.

            Former NFL Head Coach Bill Parcells wrote, “The only way to change people is to tell them in the clearest possible terms what they’re doing wrong. And if they don’t want to listen they don’t belong on the team.” This is true at NMSU where the same old strategy has failed for so many years.

            The way to change the fortunes of the NMSU Football program is: first, never ever sell a loss. Secondly, play teams you can beat. Finally, with enough wins go to Bowl Games. Any Bowl Game The program will pick itself up and success will follow.

            As Bill Parcells said, “Success is never final, but failure can be.” The NMSU Football Program will be shrouded in failure so long as they continue to sell losses.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net - Swickard’s novel, Hideaway Hills,is available at Amazon.com 

Swickard: Taking money to lose games