DYSFUNCTIONAL DEPENDENCY

Some time ago, in a posting entitled “The Façade of the Will,” this writer quoted Lawrence Lessig:

There is a feeling today among too many Americans that we might not make it.  Not that the end is near, or that doom is around the corner, but that a distinctly American feeling of inevitability, of greatness – culturally, economically, politically – is gone.  That we have become Britain.  Or Rome.  Or Greece.  A generation ago Ronald Reagan rallied the nation to deny a similar charge:  Jimmy Carter’s worry that our nation had fallen into a state of “malaise.”  I was one of those so rallied.  And I still believe that Reagan was right.  But the feeling I am talking about today is different:  not that we, as a people, have lost anything of our potential, but that we, as a republic, have.[1]

This concern seems very relevant as the nation engages in the most recent debate over taxes.

          One side of the debate over the pending legislation promises lower taxes and the other side states that with the GOP plan taxes are going to go skyward for million of Americans.  This posting will not settle this seemingly contrary arguments, but it will point out a concern associated with the argument:  US politics and US politicians are up for sale and whatever the “donors” want will become the message they will “sell.”

Lessig points out that this is not the first time this charge has been made.  During the last years of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century, the commonly referred to “Robber Barons” – the heads of industrial America – were buying off government officials left and right.  Through this corruption they were able to secure legislation (and some would say judicial decisions) to line their pockets with higher profits from their business interests. 

But at the same time, this malfeasance spurred the reform efforts of the Progressive movement.  In turn, along with, in later years, the New Deal, many of the unethical, immoral, and illegal practices were in large measure brought under control.  Perhaps today, a similar movement is called for; at least that is what many commentators, regular citizens, and reform politicians are demanding.

          Is there evidence that this alleged degradation is currently describing the behaviors of business leaders and their politician friends?  Lessig provides evidence that while behaviors from these business people and their business policies might not be so blatant as those of the earlier time, they still are present and still causing many detrimental results. 

 This posting wants to point out one example to illustrate the general point – an example provided by Lessig.  The medical drug companies of the US have used their financial clout – the funding of political campaigns – to influence the drug laws of the nation. 

That influence, it is alleged, is not to bolster the overall health of American citizens.  If it were, perhaps the US would rank higher on indices reflecting the overall health as compared to other countries.  Instead, as the charge goes, it is to bolster the bottom lines of the drug companies. 

They are in the business of selling drugs and a more liberalized policy concerning the production and selling of those drugs – mainly through the abandonment or easing of regulations – can accomplish higher profits.  So, for example, regulations that existed against drug companies advertising directly to the US public have been abandoned. 

Only New Zealand and the US allow such advertising.  Now, one doesn’t go to the doctor to find out what medications he/she should take, but goes pre-“informed” what those drugs should be.  Further, drug companies provide income producing opportunities for doctors – speaking gigs, for example – and then keeps track whether a doctor prescribes those companies’ drugs and to what degree. 

This is subtler than a quid pro quo arrangement (what was common in the Robber Baron days), it is more of a dependency relationship that is set up.  Lessig calls this type of practice setting up a “dependence corruption.”  He claims it is not limited between business people or between business people and professionals, but extends between business people and government officials (more on this in subsequent postings). 

And to that point:

… [W]hen we think of an institution in which key individuals have become distracted by an improper, or conflicting, dependency … [I]t is this pattern that explains precisely that weakens our government.  It is the pattern that explains that corruption without assuming evil or criminal souls at the helm.  It will help us, in other words, [to] understand a pathology that all of us acknowledge (at the level of the institution) without assuming a pathology that few could fairly believe (at the level of the individual).[2]

          Such patterns undermine the people of this nation to seek civic humanism or social capital.  It not only corrupts those so engaged, but it can corrupt the foundations of a republic.

          A more concrete example of what this posting is attempting to point out is illustrated with the institution of scientific research.  One question that is found to be of current importance is whether certain chemical substances, used in the production of goods, is harmful. 

This example somewhat parallels the research that was done to find out whether cigarettes were harmful.  The example here is whether the plastic substance, Bisphenol A (BPA), used in the manufacturing of certain products for babies – like pacifiers – is safe.  Lessig reports on the results of over 160 studies.

First, the studies can be divided between those funded by independent agencies and those funded by the involved industry.  Among those that were independent, they found, in 152 studies, BPA to be harmful (86%), 11 independent studies found it not to be harmful (14%).  In the 13 studies funded by the industry, no studies found it to be harmful (0%) and all of them found it to be not harmful (100%). 

Whether one side of this divide is right or wrong, this writer has no idea – although he does have the logically derived hunch as to the safety of the product.  But his point is not whether BPA is harmful or not, his point has to do with how one views this sense of dependency between the individual scientists and his/her funding source. 

It was pointed out that the focus of the independent studies was the potential hazard the product might introduce or not introduce in the use of the eventual products (like pacifiers); that of the industry studies, on the other hand, was the risk exposure the product posed the producers.  The effect is to undermine the trust one puts on scientific studies. 

One logically reads such results and walks away with the question:  if any of the independent researchers were funded by the industry, would they find opposite results?  Are these scientists corruptly dependent on who pays the bills?  No, there are no satchels of money being handed over, the relationship is subtler.  It takes on a more respectful veneer.

But, upon reflection, the institution of science loses some of the trust the society once collectively placed on it.  When that happens, one can readily see how much more difficult it is to maintain “a social environment of trust and cooperation” generally among the population, when a venerated institution is besmirched.  As stated earlier in this blog, an environment of trust is a central attribute of social capital.

This blog will revisit this concern in the future.

---

[1] Lawrence Lessig, (2011).  Republic Lost:  How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It (New York, NY:  Twelve, 2011), 1.

[2] Ibid., 17.

BEING HONEST ABOUT THE TEACHER CORPS

This blog has often made the claim that of all the problems attached to schooling in America, especially those emanating from public schools, the bulk of the blame should not be placed on the teacher corps.  This is the case for two reasons:  one, it is not true teachers, in general, are responsible for the problems; they constitute part of the victimhood.  They are subjected, along with students and parents and other community members, to the social forces that are to blame.

          Two, there is the very practical problem with solely blaming teachers:  there are too many teachers out there and placing the bulk of the blame on them just about makes reform impossible.  Limiting one’s effort to resolving the “teacher problem” would call for solutions that are impractical and unwieldy.  One can say comfortably, that the nation is lucky these problems are not, in the main, the fault of teachers.

          Can one say the nation is blessed with an exceptionally fine teacher corps?  No.  That would also not be true.  The nation has an adequate teacher corps; one that can improve, for sure, but not one that must revamp itself to get satisfactory results from our school system.  Teachers are not the enemy.  By and large, they are people that want to do a better job, but face forces way beyond their control to do so.

          This posting briefly addresses this concern.  It, more than anything, helps set the stage for this issue.  In future postings, the issue will be addressed again.  This is more of an introduction.  As with many of the issues this blog looks at, this one has to do with equality and, indirectly, liberty, two instrumental values in the federalist moral code this blog has offered (and the writer has had published in the academia literature[1]). 

This posting will establish this same claim with the help of a recently published work.[2]  Dana Goldstein, the author of that work, first, mentions how economically segregated the nation’s schools have become.  Within their walls, they are places in which, unlike the past, student bodies mostly come from households of one socio-economic class. 

There are schools where rich kids go to; there are other schools where not so rich kids go to; and there are yet other schools were poor kids go to.  Therefore, they, the schools, have lost their function as “mixers” where young students are exposed to the realities of others – especially when it comes to an otherness defined by income and wealth.  Of course, this has consequences.

          One immediate statistic reflecting this segregation is graduation rates.  In 2005, for example, the graduation rate of the top fifty city systems was 53 percent.  This is a stark difference from the that of the suburbs that comes in at 71 percent.  And as just cited in this blog, with its treatment of foreign trade over the last series of postings, Americans are doing poorly in comparisons with other nations when it comes to educating the young – a more recent development over the last several decades.

          More to the point:

International assessments conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, show American schools are producing young adults who are less able than our counterparts in other developed nations to write coherently, read with understanding, and use numbers in day-to-day life.  Even our most educated citizens, those with graduate degrees, are below world averages in math and computer literacy (though above average in reading).  I do not believe schools are good enough the way they are.  Nor do I believe that poverty and ethnic diversity prevent the United States from doing better educationally.  Teachers and schools alone cannot solve our crisis of inequality and long-term unemployment, yet we know from experience of nations like Poland that we don’t have to eradicate economic insecurity to improve our schools.[3]

This writer believes this more extended quote from Goldstein captures the problem and a sense that things can be better without casting blame on the teacher corps or others who run the nation’s schools.  The schools are among the victims.  Yes, they need to change and, this writer believes, will change when broader social conditions are addressed.

As Goldstein goes on to argue, the answer does not lie in testing teachers and ranking them.  Instead, the question should be:  how can states and communities around the country make teaching a more attractive career choice?  If that question is addressed and becomes the center of the collective concern of the nation, higher qualified entrants into the profession can be secured. 

She cites Jonah Rockoff and his call for “moving the big middle” of the teaching profession.[4]  This education thing can be better – a lot better – assuming the true factors are identified.  Perhaps, civics students can draw some of their attention to how well this public place, their school, is meeting its responsibilities.

---

[1] Robert Gutierrez, “Moral Code for the Current Secular State of Affairs,” Education 125, no. 3 (2005):  353-372.

[2] Dana Goldstein, The Teacher Wars:  A History of America’s Most Embattled Profession (New York, NY:  Doubleday, 2014). 

[3] Ibid., 11.

[4] Ibid.

DEBATE TWO: TAX INCENTIVE STRATEGY

The end has come.  Well, the end of this blog’s effort to report on the writer’s development, in real time, of a unit of study.  The unit is designed to be instructed as the last unit of an American government course.  That makes it an instructional plan suitable for high school seniors.  In addition, the unit is slotted as the last unit of the course.  This last factor placed one or two constraints on its options.

          The developer, at this point, would like to emphasize once again, that his effort was in real time.  That means each entry was thought of as the blog reported his progress.  As a result, and upon reflection, he would have done somethings different.  The main change he would implement is that he would not have two debates.  What he would do instead is offer the two proposals that the students are debating and ask students if they would add to the list.  Then the class would, through some discussion, decide which one topic they would formally debate.

          The advantage of this latter approach would be two-fold.  First, the students, for the topic chosen, would have sufficient time to debate it.  This would include more time for follow-up discussion over the issue.  Second, this would allow a more responsible development of the skill:  determining what is worthwhile debating.  As such, students, it is assumed, would have more buy-in to the concern motivating the debate.  Oh well.

          Now for the last lesson plan.

LESSON ON DEBATING QUESTION TWO:  SHOULD A STATE UTILIZE A TAX INCENTIVE STRATEGY?

Objective:  Given the instructional content of this unit of study, the student will viably fulfill his/her role in a debate.  This activity is to be evaluated by the ability of the student to synthesize and logically apply the information the unit presented vis-à-vis the proposal under debate.

Lesson steps:

          Pre-lesson.  The teacher rearranges the seats of the classroom in a suitable configuration.  The arrangement should allow the two debate teams to be in the front of the class in the form of a panel arrangement with a gap between the two teams.  A third panel arrangement, facing the debaters, is set up for the interrogators.  The rest of the class members take up the rest of the class space, behind the interrogators.

(Same day)

1.     Teacher reminds students that the class period is to have the second of two debates.  He/she reminds them why the seats are as they are and asks the students to take the appropriate seats given their role in the debate.  He/she collects student assignment (might take role based on these papers).  As this is taking place, the teacher takes role and handles other administrative items.  (five minutes)

2.     The teacher states, for the benefit of the class, the final version of the debate proposal.  Also, the teacher points out that the debate is not really an opportunity for back and forth arguments – previous class discussions gave students ample opportunity for that.  Time is “short” and students’ presentations need to be to the point and that is all.  (moments)

3.     The affirmative makes its initial argument.  (eight minutes)

4.     The negative makes its initial argument.  (eight minutes)

5.     The interrogators meet to decide what questions they will ask of which side and in what order.  (three minutes)

6.     Interrogators ask their questions and affirmative or negative debaters either answer the question or take it for further consideration.  (seven minutes)

7.     Both debate side members meet within their group and decide final rebuttal statements.  (five minutes)

8.     Negative side makes their final statement by one or two of their members.  (five minutes)

9.     Affirmative makes their final statement by one or two of their members.  (five minutes)

10. Interrogators meet and decide which side wins and formulate a rationale for their decision.  (five minutes)

11. Simultaneous to #10, members of both debating sides meet within their group to organize the contents of a letter to a public figure.

12. Interrogators announce the winning side and the reasons for their decision. (three minutes)

13. Teacher tells students, the participants of the day’s debate, that as their assignment for the next period is to finish their letters.  The interrogators are to convert the content of their rationale into letter form and address it to the public figure identified earlier.  (one minute)

Post-script.

As indicated by the time allotments, time is tight and the activity needs to be conscious of this fact.  In that vein, experience might indicate that this activity needs to be over two days.  If so, the teacher can eliminate one of the previous lessons or limit the plan to only one debate (choose which proposal he/she wants to “do”) to be done over two class periods.

Assignment:

Students, who participated in the day’s debate, within their groups, finish the letter that advocates the position of their group.

Post unit:  Teacher collects any assignment papers that are outstanding.  Also supervises the mailing of one letter to the pre-identified public official.

And that does it.

DEBATE ONE: RIGHT-TO-WORK

Then there were two.  In this current effort, this blog has been, in real time, reporting on the development of a unit of study.  The unit is for an American government course.  It is the last unit of the course and designed to be presented over two weeks of instruction.  The topic of the unit is foreign trade and how that trade has affected the availability of jobs in the US.  This posting will present the plans for the ninth lesson.  This is the penultimate lesson of the unit.

          To this point students have been preparing to engage in one of two debates.  In this day’s lesson, students conduct the first of the two debates.  The debates are over whether the students’ state government should engage in one of two activities that are meant to lure manufacturing jobs to the state’s economy.  The first activity (in the form of a proposal), and the one this lesson will debate, is:

The government of this state should rely on a “right-to-work” status the state either currently has or should begin the process to attain (changing its laws to acquire the status) to lure manufacturing activity to the state.

The exact wording of the proposal might vary from this initial expression in that it would be subject to a negotiated point of stasis.[1]

          Before getting to the lesson plan, the developer wants to focus on the role of the interrogators.  The reader is reminded that there are three participating roles in a debate:  affirmative debaters, negative debaters, and interrogators.  The roles of affirmative debaters and negative debaters is straight forward:  one side argues for the proposal and other argues against the proposal.  The interrogators, on the other hand, fill several functions.

They ask questions of the debaters, they judge the debate to determine the winner, they provide a rationale for their decision, and, in the case of this debate, they are to write a letter to a chosen public figure to advocate the winning position of the debate.  The developer suggests that that figure be the governor of the state.  This will constitute the action component in this unit.[2]

LESSON ON DEBATING QUESTION ONE:  SHOULD A STATE UTILIZE A RIGHT-TO-WORK STATUS?

Objective:  Given the instructional content of this unit of study, the student will viably fulfill his/her role in a debate.  This activity is to be evaluated by the ability of the student to synthesize and logically apply the information the unit presented to the proposal under debate.

Lesson steps:

          Pre-lesson.  The teacher arranges the seats of the classroom in a suitable configuration.  The arrangement should allow the two debate teams to be in the front of the class in the form of a panel arrangement with a gap between the two teams.  A third panel arrangement, facing the debaters, is set up for the interrogators.  The rest of the class take up the rest of the class space, behind the interrogators.

(Same day)

1.     Teacher reminds students that the class period is to have the first of two debates.  He/she points out why the seats are as they are and asks the students to take the appropriate seats given their role in the debate.  As this is taking place, the teacher takes role and handles other administrative items.  (five minutes)

2.     The teacher states, for the benefit of the class, the final version of the debate proposal.  Also, the teacher points out that the debate is not really an opportunity for back and forth arguments – previous class discussions gave students ample opportunity for that.  Time is “short” and students’ presentations need to be to the point and that is all.  (moments)

3.     The affirmative makes its initial argument.  (eight minutes)

4.     The negative makes its initial argument.  (eight minutes)

5.     The interrogators meet to decide what questions they will ask of which side and in what order.  (three minutes)

6.     Interrogators ask their questions and affirmative or negative debaters either answer the question or take it for further consideration.  (seven minutes)

7.     Both debate side members meet within their group and decide final rebuttal statements.  (five minutes)

8.     Negative side make their final statement by one or two of their members.  (five minutes)

9.     Affirmative make their final statement by one or two of their members.  (five minutes)

10. Interrogators meet and decide which side wins and formulate a rationale for their decision.  (five minutes)

11. Simultaneous to #10, members of both debating sides meet within their group to organize the contents of a letter to a public figure.

12. Interrogators announce the winning side and the reasons for their decision. (three minutes)

13. Teacher tells students, the participants of the day’s debate, that as their assignment for the next period is to finish their letters.  The interrogators are to convert the content of their rationale into letter form and address it to the public figure identified earlier.  (one minute)

Post-script:  As indicated by the time allotments, time is tight and the activity needs to be conscious of this fact.  In that vein, experience might indicate that this activity needs to be over two days.  If so, the teacher can eliminate one of the previous lessons or limit the plan to only one debate (choose which proposal he/she wants to “do”) to be done over two class periods.

Assignment:

Students, who participated in the day’s debate, within their groups, finish the letter that advocates the position of their group.

          Then, there is one…

---

[1] Point of stasis is a negotiated statement that both sides agree to debate.  This usually is a more nuanced statement then is initially provided by the sponsor of the debate and allows the debate to avoid debating upon what is already agreed.

[2] Admittedly, this action is not very extensive given the other alternatives this blog has identified as possible actions students could take.  Logistically, given that this is the last unit of the course, with either final or mid-year exams in the offing, a more limited action component was deemed to be prudent.

RESEARCHING THE QUESTIONS

This blog will now enter the final phase of its current effort.  That effort is to give the reader an inside view of an instructional planning process – at least one that this developer is using.  In real time, this writer has been reporting his development of a unit of study designed to be the final unit of a course of study.  The course is American government, a required senior level semester course.

          The topic of this unit is foreign trade and how that trade affects job availability in the US.  This posting will describe lesson eight of the unit.  To date, the unit has students become aware and research the role foreign trade has played in the American economy since World War II.  During that historical time, the American economy has experienced significant loss of jobs due to the shifting of manufacturing to other countries and, some would argue to a much more significant level, automation.

          The lesson this posting will describe is one that sets out to have students engage in more targeted research as they prepare their role in a debate.  As was indicated in the last posting, the class is to prepare to conduct two debates with each student having a role in one of them.  The class has been given two debate questions (proposals) which asks whether a foreign trade policy, at the state level, should be implemented or, if already in play, be augmented.

          The two policy proposals are:

·        The state government in which the students live should rely on a “right-to-work” status the state either currently has or should begin the process to attain (changing their laws to acquire the status) to lure manufacturing activity to the state.

·        The state government in which the students live should engage in an aggressive tax incentive strategy to lure business activity to their state.

          Here is the lesson.

LESSON ON PREPARING A DEBATE OVER STATE ACTION IN FOREIGN TRADE (part 2)

Objective:

Given a research role in a debate preparation project, the student will identify and apply appropriate information regarding his/her state’s policy in eliciting foreign investments and/or the transfer of manufacturing facilities.  This objective will be evaluated in terms of the product of that research and its implementation in the debate activity.

Lesson steps:

          Pre-lesson.  See previous posting, “Setting the Problem,” October 17, 2017, for this element’s description.  In this eighth lesson, the “newsletter” will be again provided by the newsletter group.  The factoids for this newsletter is provided by “Live Velshi and Ruhle,” MSNBC, November 8, 2017.  The factoids are as follows:

·        Currently, trade with China amounts to $648 billion a year.

·        Exports to China is $91 billion.

·        Imports from China is $365 billion (exports exceed imports by about 4 times over).

Also, the claim that was made on this MSNBC show is that China is not a currency manipulator – this can be researched by students.

          In addition, the teacher will prepare two handouts.  One, he/she hands out a listing of all the insights the teacher research discovered.  Two, he/she hands out student designations list for the upcoming debate activity.

(Same day steps)

1.     Teacher hands out the newsletter for the day, lists of insights, and role designation for the upcoming debate activity.  He/she explains to students what the information is.  Students are given time to read the material while attendance is taken and other administrative items are handled. (nine minutes)

2.     Teacher divides class into groups, the affirmative debaters, the negative debaters, and the interrogators. 

3.     Once in their groups, students begin discussing, strategizing, and researching their part of the upcoming debate.  (most of the rest of the period)

4.     Teacher circulates around the classroom to assist and monitors students being on task.

5.     As the period has about seven minutes left, the teacher calls on representative from the affirmative and from the negative to work out a point of stasis position.  That is the position or statement of the proposal that will be used to begin the debate.  The point of stasis identifies with what both sides agree.  Often that means the actual wordage of the proposal changes and becomes more nuanced.

6.     Teacher ends period encouraging students to continue their research and remind students that the next class period will conduct the “right-to-work” debate.

Assignment:  Student finishes preparing his/her role in the debate.

That ends lesson eight.

CHOOSING SIDES

Picking up the current effort of this blog – the development of a unit of study suitable for an American government course – this posting is the plan’s seventh lesson.  For those readers new to the effort, the unit has as its focus the policy area of foreign trade and how that trade affects the availability of jobs in the US.  This course is required for graduation and is offered at the senior level of a high school curriculum.

          This blog, as a lead-in to the actual lesson planning, shared the developer’s research into this topic.  As has been pointed out repeatedly, the development is in real time.  That research identified eighteen insights, mostly regarding the history foreign trade since World War II.  This seventh lesson incorporates one – possibly the last – of these insights.  It is:

In the US, while the federal government is mired in debating its proper role, state governments have become very aggressive in competing for jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector.  South Carolina is a good example of this.  Some strategies are aimed at luring such jobs from other states. 

This approach is particularly true in the south where they rely on being “right-to-work” states (a provision of the Taft-Hartley Act that diminishes the bargaining position of labor unions).  Of course, such moves – transferring jobs from one state to another – do not help the overall welfare of the American economy. 

Other strategies include tax incentives (mostly tax reduction plans); but best of all are investments in infrastructure (highways, bridges, communication facilities, schooling and training facilities, etc.).  Also in this pursuit of businesses and investment are larger cities. 

In the extreme, subsidies can prove to be hurtful by its diversion of public funds from needed public services and reliance on “right to work” provisions can hurt manufacturing workers as they lower wages and weaken legitimate union representation.[1]

This was originally the fifteenth insight.

          Overall, this insight will be the foundation of the final phase of this unit.  This phase will last for four class periods and will take the unit to its conclusion.  It will have students prepare and conduct a debate (deliberation) over what a local jurisdiction and its citizen should do over this issue.  It will then have students perform whatever the deliberation decides to do – its action component. 

          Here, from the posting, “The Action Part of the Deal,” are the types of actions in which students can engage:

·        showing up for and taking part in political meetings;

·        scheduling and putting on political meetings which can be platforms to express political opinions or demands;

·        organizing and carrying out fund drives;

·        canvasing an area to gather signatures in support or against bills or other initiatives;

·        seeking to attain membership on political boards;

·        joining or starting a political club;

·        participating in debates or other deliberations over a social and/or political issue relevant to student lives; and

·        starting an educational plan that leads to an occupation that has public value.

This unit will encourage students to petition their state government to take on what they determine would be an appropriate policy concerning foreign trade.  This can include organizing their community members to take part.

          Here is the lesson.

LESSON ON PREPARING A DEBATE OVER STATE ACTION IN FOREIGN TRADE (part 1)

Objective:

Given a research role in a debate preparation project, the student will identify and apply appropriate information regarding his/her state’s policy in soliciting foreign investments and/or the transfer of manufacturing facilities.

Lesson steps:

          Pre-lesson.  See previous posting, “Setting the Problem,” October 17, 2017, for this element’s description.  In this seventh lesson, the “newsletter” will be again provided by the newsletter group.  The factoids for this newsletter is provided by an Atlantic Monthly article.  The factoids are as follows:

·        “Roughly half of respondents to a Federal Reserve survey conducted in 2015 said that they could not come up with $400 in an emergency, with a third saying they could not cover three months of expenses, even if they sold assets, dipped into retirement accounts, and asked friends and family for help.”[2]

·        “When it comes to monetary policy, there is far less space for the Federal Reserve to maneuver than last time [when the nation faced an economic downturn in 2008]. Interest rates remain near scratch [zero]. The Federal Reserve already has trillions of dollars of assets on its books, bought as part of its policy of “quantitative easing” to depress the value of the dollar and spur investors to make riskier bets. There is still a lot that the Fed could do during a downturn, including buying up more assets.”[3]

(Same day steps)

1.     Teacher hands out the newsletter for the day.  Students are given time to read the newsletter while attendance is taken and other administrative items are handled. (seven minutes)

2.     Teacher asks students if they have any clarifying questions regarding the newsletter.  (five minutes)

3.     Teacher asks students to take out their work from the previous night’s assignment.  They are to also to take out a sheet of paper.  With their work, students are given two questions to answer – this is a quiz.  The questions are:  Should a nation follow a “beggar thy neighbor” policy or a “nurturing” policy in their foreign trade?  And why?  They are to answer in a paragraph or two (no more than half a page effort).  Student answers are collected.  (fifteen minutes)

4.     Teacher projects on the overhead or board insight indicating the role states are assuming in trying to solicit foreign investments or manufacturing facilities from other countries or other states.  The teacher asks students:  what should their state do regarding getting companies to move their manufacturing and other facilities to their state or to get investors to fund their state’s economic environment?  Students engage in an initial exchange of ideas.  (seven minutes)

5.     Teacher tells students that the class is going to prepare two debates.  One will be over whether their state should or should not rely on a “right-to-work” status they either currently have or should begin the process to attain (changing their laws to acquire the status).  The other debate is whether the state should engage in an aggressive tax incentive strategy – yes or no. Each debate will entail three groups.  One group will argue the affirmative position; a second group will argue the negative position; and a third group will be a panel of interrogators.  Teacher asks students to indicate which group they will individually like to be assigned.  Students indicate their choice by raising their hands when the group is mentioned.  Teacher asks students to indicate their choice – they, individually, can only be in one group – on a sheet of paper coming around the room (perhaps one sheet for each row to expedite this step).  (seven minutes)

6.     Teacher tells students that starting with the next class period, they are going to prepare a communication effort – the result of the debates – to a selected public official(s) – the governor, members of the legislature, a cabinet member, or some other official who deals with economic development.  This will be the action element of this unit.  Since the topic is international in scope, realistically, this area of concern offers little effective action outlets.  Yet, citizens can make their positions known to governmental decision-makers.  On the ninth and tenth days of this unit, students will prepare a letter to such an official indicating their position given the results of their debates assignment.  Students should review their notes overnight and be prepared to engage in research during the next class period. (rest of class period)

Assignment:

Given their likely role in the debate preparation effort, students begin doing initial research.  Such research should consider the standard debate format they have been exposed to during the instruction of this course.  At this point, the students, it is assumed, have been instructed on what the various elements of a debate are.  They are point of stasis, initial argument, rebuttal, and follow-ups.  These debates will also an interrogation element.

          That is the end of the seventh lesson.

---

[1] Ibid.

[2] Annie Lowry, “The U. S. Isn’t Prepared for the Next Recession,” The Atlantic Monthly, October 31, 2017, accessed November 2, 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/10/next-recession-prepared/544391/ .

[3] Ibid.

TWO APPROACHES TO FOREIGN TRADE

And now, day (lesson) six.  For those who follow this blog, they know that it has been about reporting the development, in real time, of a unit of study.  The unit is a two-week instructional plan designed as the last unit of a senior level, American government class.  To date, the plan has students look at the history of this nation’s foreign trade, specifically how government policy since World War II has attempted to reinvigorate the economies of war torn industrial nations, and to spur industrial developments in lesser developed nations.

          In general, some criticize this historical path in that its policy choices have left the US in a disadvantaged position.  By liberalizing foreign trade policy, the nation has lost its dominant position in foreign trade and, as a consequence, has lost millions of manufacturing jobs.  Hence, the main thrust of the unit:  foreign trade and how that trade has affected job availability.

          For this sixth lesson, the focus shifts to other countries, but, before describing this topic, a word on data that indicate more recent years have been a bit contrary to the general history just reviewed.  The turning point for this reversal was the onset of the Great Recession.  Apparently, to combat the detrimental effects of the downturn that began in 2008, the Federal Reserve initiated a policy known as quantitative easing.  Central to this policy was to devalue the dollar.

          How?  The FED bought government and other securities (IOUs, such as bonds, and stock ownership certificates) and, by so doing, increased the money supply.  This, in turn, puts more dollars into circulation and lowers the value of a buck.  As such, this makes, as has already been pointed out in these lessons, American goods cheaper in other countries.  Of course, cheaper goods enjoy higher demand.  All this can’t help but improve economic conditions and, as more recent data indicate, that is what has happened.

          To instruct students on this development, this sixth lesson’s newsletter reflects this and is identified below.  The information is taken from a FED publication and it reports on the improved economic developments from 2013 to 2016.  One word of caution:  the economic improvements are relative to its initiating year, 2013, not to the economic conditions facing the American middle-class in the 1960s.  Since the ‘60s there has been an enormous shifting of income and wealth to the very top economic classes.

          In terms of the actions and policies of other nations, the main topic of this lesson, the point is that other nations can be classified as using one of two approaches in dealing with foreign trade.  One approach can be summarized as “beggar thy neighbor” and is implemented by mostly Asian countries such as China.  The other approach is followed by European countries and reflect a nurturing strategy that does not negate market forces.

          Previous posting identified two insights that reflect this distinction.  They are the original thirteenth and fourteenth insights and based on the work of Edward Aldin.[1] In shorten form, they are:

Often in American discourse concerning international trade, it is portrayed as a zero-sum competition.  Unfortunately, this has been accomplished by nations, especially China and Japan, ascribing to “beggar thy neighbor” strategies.[2]

And

In counter distinction to the distorting policies utilized by Asian countries and identified in the [above] insight, European countries use more pro-market strategies.  They rely mostly on nurturing their businesses and training their workforces.  This approach is particularly seen in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Iceland).[3]

One can add Germany to this list of countries.  These insights will be further addressed below as the lesson plan incorporates them into the instruction.

          Here is that lesson plan.

LESSON ON FOREIGN COUNTRIES’ FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES

Objective:

Given a list of foreign trade policy elements, the student will be able to correctly identify whether the elements represent a “nurturing” policy strategy or a “beggar thy neighbor” policy.

Lesson steps:

Pre-lesson.  See previous posting, “Setting the Problem,” October, 17, 2017, for this element’s description.  In this sixth lesson, the “newsletter” will be provided by the teacher – this gives the newsletter group a break for the day.  The factoids in this newsletter is provided by the FED and, as can be seen, is a bit longer list of facts.  This will alter the plan from how the newsletter has been presented in the previous lessons.  The factoids are as follows:

·        Between 2013 and 2016, median family income grew 10 percent, and mean family income grew 14 percent.

·        Families throughout the income distribution experienced gains in average real incomes between 2013 and 2016, reversing the trend from 2010 to 2013, when real incomes fell or remained stagnant for all but the top of the income distribution.

·        Families at the top of the income distribution saw larger gains in income between 2013 and 2016 than other families, consistent with widening income inequality.

·        Families without a high school diploma and nonwhite and Hispanic families experienced larger proportional gains in incomes than other families between 2013 and 2016, although more-educated families and white non-Hispanic families continue to have higher incomes than other families.

·        Families near the bottom of the income and wealth distribution experienced large gains in mean and median net worth after experiencing large declines between 2010 and 2013.

·        Families without a college education and nonwhite and Hispanic families experienced larger proportional increases in net worth than other types of families, although more-educated families and white non-Hispanic families continue to have higher wealth than other families.

·        Homeownership rates decreased between 2013 and 2016 to 63.7 percent, continuing a decline from their peak of 69.1 percent in 2004. For families that own a home, mean net housing values (value of a home minus outstanding mortgages) rose. 

·        Retirement plan participation and retirement account asset values rose between 2013 and 2016 for families across the income distribution, with the largest proportional increases in participation occurring among families in the bottom half of the income distribution.

·        Ownership rates and the value of direct and indirect holdings of corporate equities increased between 2013 and 2016, with the largest proportional increase in ownership among families in the bottom and upper-middle parts of the income distribution.

·        Business ownership increased from 2013 to 2016 to 13.0 percent, nearing its 2010 level. These gains were broad based, occurring throughout the income distribution, with the largest proportional gains occurring among the highest earners.

·        Overall, debt obligations fell between 2013 and 2016: Median debt declined 4 percent, and mean debt decreased 2 percent, for families with debt.

·        For the median family with debt, debt burdens also fell between 2013 and 2016: Leverage ratios, debt-to-income ratios, and payment-to-income ratios all fell. The fraction of families with payment-to-income ratios greater than 40 percent declined to 7.0 percent, the lowest level seen since 2001.

·        Some of the decline in debt can be explained by the decline in the fraction of families with home-secured debt, which fell from 42.9 percent to 41.9 percent, a decline that is comparable to the size of the drop in homeownership.

·        Between 2013 and 2016, the fraction of families with credit card debt increased. Although median and mean balances for families with credit card debt both fell 3 percent, the fraction of families that pay off credit cards every month decreased.

·        Although many measures of debt and debt obligations indicate that debt has fallen, education debt increased substantially between 2013 and 2016.

·        In 2016, 20.8 percent of families were considered credit constrained; i.e., those who reported being denied credit in the past year, as well as those who did not apply for credit for fear of being denied in the past year.[4]

(Same day steps)

1.     Teacher collects homework assignment – student notes on policy option choices. (one minute, students’ attendance will be based on homework sheets – i.e., students who did not do the assignment need to turn in a blank sheet with their names on it)

2.     Teacher hands out the newsletter for the day.  Students are given time to read the newsletter while attendance is taken and other administrative items are handled. (seven minutes)

3.     Teacher asks students if they have any clarifying questions regarding the newsletter.  Since this day’s newsletter is significantly longer, the teacher will give students more time to read and consider its content.  After about ten minutes, the teacher opens up the process for general discussion.  The teacher should make sure that students are cognizant of the dates the newsletter highlights.  This is important because the improvements the FED is reporting need to be in the context of the poor economic years from 2008 to 2013.  Those were the years of the Great Recession.  The point is that improvements reported does not mean all the damage of the recession or of the loss of manufacturing jobs, since the late ‘60s, no longer exists. (twenty minutes)

4.     In the remaining time, the teacher hands out a sheet that contains two insights which describe how foreign countries approach foreign trade and their manufacturing capabilities (originally thirteenth and fourteenth insights).  One is summarily described as “beggar thy neighbor” and is associated with Asian countries, notably Japan and China.  The other is considered a “nurturing” approach and is associated with European countries, particularly the Nordic nations and Germany.

5.     Teacher writes on the board the following strategies:  restrictive regulations, subsidizing businesses, and manipulating currencies.  For each strategy, students investigate and answer these questions:  how is this strategy done?  How does it lead to short-term advantage?  How does it pose long-term disadvantages?  How does it distort market forces?  What needs to be spelled out is:  how does a national government “nurture” domestic businesses, especially in the manufacturing sector?  What seems to be central to a nurturing approach is a strategy that avoids direct subsidy and instead focuses on creating a fertile environment of entrepreneurial factors.  Students investigate to answer these questions.  They can see internet site:  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/12/6-ways-governments-can-encourage-entrepreneurship/ to gather the needed information.   (twenty minutes)

6.     Teacher instructs students to complete this in-class assignment at home.  Students will, at the beginning of the next class period, be quizzed on the information they find. (two minutes)

Assignment:  Students finish in-class assignment.

          That ends lesson six.  The remaining class time in subsequent lessons will be taken up with preparation for and conducting a class debate and developing an action plan (mostly accomplished by the debate component).

---

[1] Edward Alden, Failure to Adjust:  How Americans Got Left Behind in the Global Economy (Rowman and Littlefield, 2017).

[2] See posting, “Restrictive or Liberalized,” September 22, 2017.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2013 to 2016: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, September, 2017, 103 no. 3, accessed November 1, 2017, https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf17.pdf.