Saving Milwaukee’s Best

Milwaukee is home to America’s most vibrant school-choice program: More than 20,000 students participate, almost all of them minorities. They have made academic gains and boast higher graduation rates than their peers in public schools. They even save money for taxpayers. Inevitably, Democrats in the state capital are trying to eviscerate the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.They’ve wanted to gut school choice for years, at the behest of teacher-union patrons who believe education should be a government monopoly. Until recently, Republicans have stood in the way. That changed following last year’s elections. Now, for the first time since the advent of school choice in Milwaukee two decades ago, Madison is a one-party capital. The governor, Jim Doyle, is a Democrat. Members of his party control both the state assembly and the state senate. School choice is in their crosshairs.Last week, the legislature’s Joint Finance Committee approved a series of auditing, accrediting, and instructional requirements that will force successful voucher schools to shift resources away from classrooms and into administration. Several schools will have to comply with new bilingual-education mandates, even though many immigrant parents choose those schools precisely because they emphasize the rapid acquisition of English instead of native-language maintenance.Lawmakers also propose to strip funding for school choice. With the value of each voucher reduced, private schools will see their payments fall. Meanwhile, public schools will watch their budgets increase by hundreds of dollars per student. This is on top of what is already a startling financial asymmetry: Taxpayers currently hand over $13,468 per student to Milwaukee Public Schools, compared to just $6,607 per student in the school-choice program. In 2008 alone, school choice saved the public almost $32 million, according to Robert M. Costrel of the University of Arkansas. Since 1994, the figure is $180 million. The savings would be even larger if more students used vouchers.At the National Press Club last week, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said that he opposed school choice: “Let me explain why. Vouchers usually serve 1 to 2 percent of the children in a community. . . . But I don’t want to save 1 or 2 percent of children and let 98, 99 percent down.” It was a bizarre statement: Why not simply let more than 1 or 2 percent enjoy the benefits of school choice? In Milwaukee, they actually do. It’s the largest urban school-choice program in the country, dwarfing the size of the one in Washington, D.C., whose de-funding by congressional Democrats has drawn so much criticism. Roughly one in five of Milwaukee’s school-age children receive vouchers. All of them must fall below an income threshold. Researchers say that the program is beginning to show systemic effects. In other words, it doesn’t merely help its participants. It also gives a lift to non-voucher students because the pressure of competition has forced public schools to improve.Sometimes onerous regulations are at least well-intentioned blunders. Not these. The enemies of school choice in Madison know exactly what they’re doing. In the name of “accountability,” they attack the quality of voucher schools with deadly precision. The goal is to make them as mediocre as the public schools they routinely outperform — and to leave parents, once again, without a choice.

Ways to Increase Sales Volume

Convert nonusers to your product(s)

Enter new market segments after proper analysis of the market

Attract competitors’ customers

Have consumers use the product on more occasions (Orange Juice, It's not just for breakfast anymore!)

Have consumers use more of the product on each occasion

Have consumers use the product in new ways (Post-It note art projects!)

Strategies for Sustaining Rapid Market Growth

Improve product quality, add new features, and improve styling

Add new models and flanker products

Enter new market segments

Increase distribution coverage

Shift from product-awareness advertising to product-preference advertising

Lower prices to attract the next layer of price-sensitive buyers

Market Opportunity Analysis (MOA)

Questions companies need to ask before expanding into new markets…


Can the benefits involved in the opportunity be articulated convincingly to a defined target market?

Can the target market be located and reached with cost-effective media and trade channels?

Does the company possess or have access to the critical capabilities and resources needed to deliver the customer benefits?

Can the company deliver the benefits better than any actual or potential competitors?

Will the financial rate of return meet or exceed the company’s required threshold for investment?

Effective Leadership

Was Martin Luther King, Jr an effective leader? The question seems unintelligent since the outcome of history can been seen all around us in the fruitful labors of the Civil Rights movement. Clearly, King was an effective leader by the definition of accomplishing racial equality for black Americans through his actions, speeches and writings such as The Letter from a Birmingham Jail. One could go on to enumerate all the accomplishments of Dr. King throughout his life, but this analysis will focus on specific instances of leadership in order to gauge the degree of effectiveness of his proclaimed mission:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. (American Rhetoric, 2009)

Born into a family which had a tradition of pastors, and after completing his education, King began to assume different leadership positions. King recognized the opportunities before his race and was convinced that the injustice that was subject to blacks would not stand for long. After the early success of the Montgomery Bus Boycott which began when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, King became the leader of the Civil Rights movement. King was deeply inspired by Jesus and Gandhi. He became utterly convinced of the power of love to transform the racial hatred and bitterness that was at the root of segregation. This power which originated from Jesus himself in the Sermon on the Mount tells Christians to love your enemies:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. (NAB, 2002)

King applied these principals along with the concrete example of Gandhi during his battle for the independence of India. According to Kevin Morrow, the Gandhi approach had caught King’s attention at a time of disillusionment and despair about love as a force for political and social change. "I became deeply fascinated by his campaigns of nonviolent resistance,” King remembers. “As I delved deeper into the philosophy of Gandhi, my skepticism concerning the power of love gradually diminished, and I came to see for the first time its potency in the area of social reform." (Examiner, 2009)

King knew about the laws of God which are just and in conformity with the natural law, and the laws of man which if not based on the natural law can be unjust. Thus, one has a duty to fight against and disobey unjust laws and King taught this to his followers.

King was a pastor, a man of God and he used the words of Jesus to rally the deeply spiritual elements of the civil rights movement. For instance during his sermon, “I’ve been To the Mountaintop,”, King uses powerful biblical language and weaves the civil rights struggle into an eternal perspective, a fight that will go on even after King is gone:

We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop and I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will, and He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over and I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight, that we as a people will get to the Promised Land. And I’m happy tonight; I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.” (King Center, 2009)

This type of powerful language coupled with the seriousness of the task at hand, allowed King to use his rhetorical skills to the greatest effect. King was a student of history, of struggle, and a man of great character. He followed the greatest practitioners of non-violent resistance in Jesus and Gandhi and effectively implemented their strategy and tactics into the civil rights battle. Additionally, King did not avoid confrontation, but sought victory unequivocally and without compromises for what was right. He also foresaw the danger to his own life, but placed his destiny into the hands of God and courageously continued to fight for justice until his assassination in 1968.

“Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation. And I want to thank God once more for allowing me to be here with you.” (King Center, 2009)

Bibliography:

"American Rhetoric: Martin Luther King, Jr. - I Have a Dream." American Rhetoric: The Power of Oratory in the United States. 4 Mar. 2009 .

Morrow, Kevin . "DC Christian Culture Examiner: In Jesus-Gandhi-King connection, Sermon on the Mount's influence comes full circle." Burlington Vermont News. 6 Mar. 2009 .

"The King Center." The King Center. 6 Mar. 2009 .

"USCCB - NAB - Matthew 5." United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 6 Mar. 2009 .

Population Control

Which of the following views by China's former leaders do you think history will prove to be true regarding China and its population?  Mao Zedong held that a large population was an asset for China.  Zhou Enlai believed that controlling the expansion of population was a pre-requisite for economic growth.  Explain why you believe one or the other to be correct.  

This is one instance where I agree with Mao.  Contrary to popular accepted thinking on the subject of family size and its relation to economic growth, I believe in a natural law and evolutionary approach to population management.  The dynamics of populations begin at the very heart of creation, and when these fundamental forces are unnaturally manipulated, the very nature of our existence is tampered with and is at risk.  When political and social engineers see a problem like the Chinese government does, they view the growing baby, the fertile mother, or the large family, as a threat to their way of life.  It is not initially a question of survival, although through the failed policies of the CCP have often made it one (for instance, the famines of the Great Leap Forward which killed 30 million), but a question of material and economic allocation of resources.  For the one-child proponents, it is a zero-sum game, with a finite and limited amount of products, services, entertainment, jobs, and other resources.  They ignore the advances made through biotechnology and medicine and their effect on the maintenance of large populations. Mao was right to assert that a growing and large population can be a tremendous asset to a country, as we are witnessing from the efficiencies of the Chinese economy, borne not through automated factories, but raw labor advantages.  However, Mao was wrong in possibly every other way in providing for his countrymen.            Thus, one of the dilemmas created through the forced restriction of the birth rates, is a rapid aging of the populace.  In the article "The Most Populous Nation Faces A Population Crises", Kahn writes about the rapidly aging Chinese population and the coming burden on the largely non-existent Chinese pension system, a shrinking labor pool, rising taxes, and increased competition for capital.  To quote Mr. Hu Augang, a Chinese economist, "We will have the social burden of a rich country, and the income of a poor country.  No country has ever faced the same circumstances before."  To remain philosophically consistent, any government that is willing to go through the type of measures China has taken to enforce control over births, will possibly use similar techniques on the aged, such as euthanasia.  If the Government thinks they have the power to destroy life at the earliest stages, what is preventing them from killing seniors who are placing a burden in a similar manner?