Public Education, so called

The task of effecting education in the U.S. is not an assignment well delegated to Government. This is demonstrated by the present, post-industrial condition of public education in the U.S. Rather, the proper role of Government may be limited to assuring that every citizen, not mere resident, has equal access and opportunity to education to the limit of one’s intellectual ability. This assurance may best be effected with productive funding, stated performance standards (not curricula), or, most preferably, open competition among schools.

"Back in the day," a teacher was expected to present competent instruction and a student was expected to assimilate the instruction presented. When a student did not understand the instruction, questioning and further or alternative instruction were had. Students who did assimilate the instruction may be called upon to assist students who did not. Substantially, the teacher’s initial presentation may have been considered about eighty to ninety percent effective with the slack being taken up with the questioning and the fellow student assistance.

Inherent in the process was an understanding and accommodation of individual learning preferences. Those considered good teachers held a class in which all students were addressed, while those considered bad teachers substantially presented instruction in their own way, take it or leave it. A good teacher would also take note of response to instruction presented and account for that response in future presentation.

Public education was founded at a local or grass roots level. Community involvement was inherent. Industrialization was applied to public education with consideration of the efficiencies of mass production. The rigid, assembly line public school system was birthed generations ago and continues to fester. While the autonomous, community public school of days gone by may rightfully be compared to a craftsman’s shop, today’s public school is just so compared with impassive mass production, including, its accouterments.

The prior day community school was an integral part of the character of the community, affecting the growth, the attitude, and the reputation of the community. The present day public school bureaucracy has smeared the distinctions among communities to one common and low threshold. Public education is no longer a prominent factor in defining a good character of a community. Worse, however, is the diminishing value of public education, though budgets continually increase.

It is, or should be, common knowledge that a principle task of post secondary educators (college) regarding entering Freshmen, is to bring the entering students up to a twelfth grade functional level. An entire industry of tutoring services has grown in the past thirty years or so, and is established on the failure of public education. It is common knowledge in business that when one presents to a general adult audience and one wants eighty percent of the audience to understand the message presented, then the presentation is best targeted to a fifth grade level. Only a few years ago the target was seventh grade.

Public education should return to local control and autonomy. Whether the definition of local is city / township, metropolitan area, or county is not clear. Be that as it may, funding may be provided at a larger geographic level; perhaps regionally in an intrastate context, with state and federal supplemental funding as may be equitable; perhaps statewide with federal supplemental funding as may be equitable. The sole purpose of state supplemental funding would be to assure equal access and opportunity to education throughout the state, while the sole purpose of federal supplemental funding would be to assure equal access and opportunity to education throughout the nation. Supplemental funding may be structured to account for economic factors that vary geographically. However structured, the objective would be to assure that the same level of educational resource is available to each student.

- - - - -

An open forum discussion was held the other week regarding public schools and their propensity to kill creativity. The gathering opened with recorded comment by Sir Ken Robinson, which should be found at TED.com. Sir Robinson’s comment was directed to a notion that schools kill creativity.

Various participants shared their personal experiences relative to a child or sibling and regarding failure of the public education system to edify. Rather, the anecdotes demonstrated public education as damaging. “Public education” seems to be generally presented in its "public relations" as focusing its efforts to uplift students. One likely typically considers that public education is neutral at worst and typically does not consider it actually damaging, though it may damage.

I presumed the forum would identify constructive steps forward to improve public education and proposed an analogy of public education having come to be a mass production bureaucracy or institution that is based on an “one size fits all” premise and that treats students as fungible raw materials, and further proposed that public education should start with a premise that each student is unique and is uniquely inherently a valuable resource. One forum participant arose in argument against the proposition, stating that public education is rigid and does not recognize the differences of each student.

Sad, is it not, when one chooses to not listen such that they may not hear. Sad, is it not, when one’s educational experience manifests its failure.

Undaunted, I continued to propose that to the extent that a “one size fits all” mandate to efficiencies may be imposed, then perhaps consideration may be had to focusing or limiting that mandate on the traditional three R’s, namely, reading, ‘ritin’, and ‘rithmatic. That is to say, focus on students being competent to survive in society with communication and transaction skills such that one not be relegated to being a ward of the state. This limitation may, then, allow accommodation of individuality. One forum participant arose in argument against, making claim that communication and transaction skills are unimportant; himself not being able to balance his checkbook and it works for him.

Dumbfounding, that anyone may propose that an ability to read a menu, for example, and that an ability to purchase goods or services are not essential skills. Have you yet noticed how clerks have predominately lost the ability to simply make change?

Another forum participant interjected that the discussion had been judgmental and punitive. This participant continued that broader understanding of alternative cultures, beliefs, or lifestyles should be undertaken, including an immersion experience of Islam in a public school.

Judgmental involves judgment, which is a process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing. Again, I presume. The conceptual purpose of a forum is to discern a present condition, to form opinion thereof, to judge desirability thereby, to identify deficiencies therein, and to make recommendation. As to punitive, on the other hand, this is inflicting, involving, or aiming at punishment. No participant was punished, however. As to public education of Islam, this ignores the court rule of "separation of church and state." That the participant intended to overturn the court rule of "separation of church and state" is doubtful. That the participant has read the Koran is also doubtful.

Quite frankly, the experience was, in itself, educational. I came away impressed. If the body of this forum fairly represents the community at large, then I am impressed by the myopia that was given voice.

Ponder then, the cause-effect relationship; generations of degrading public education and a myopic community. Ponder also, who elects who.

And, so goes the plutocracy - - -

Finance 101

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 was promoted by the Carter administration and required lending institutions to offer credit and home ownership opportunities to "underserved populations," those who would not qualify under market standard risk levels. Naturally, this led to a large number of no-money-down or poor-credit-rating mortgages and increased risk in the mortgage section of the U.S. financial market.

I noticed in 1980 that credit was relatively loose and questioned when the economy would adjust enough such that the hammer would fall on the credit market. Anyone with minimal financial knowledge should understand the fundamentals of “leverage,” the use of credit to enhance one's speculative capacity. On the one hand, when times are good, leverage multiplies return on investment. Which is to say, “I can grow my business beyond my available investment resources,” or, “I can get more house than I can afford.” On the other hand, when times go bad, leverage also multiplies the pressure or demand on one’s ability to pay. Clearly, increasing risk in the financial markets multiplies the consequences of a turn from good times to bad times. It’s Finance 101!

In 1995 the Community Reinvestment Act was liberalized under the Clinton administration to generate billions of dollars in new lending and extend basic banking to the inner cities and to distressed rural communities.

In 1999, U.S. Senate bill S900 was introduced to place controls in the financial markets and temper the Community Reinvestment Act. Senator Carl Levin (D) and others opposed the provisions of this bill that may weaken the CRA, saying the CRA was intended to modernize the financial sector of the U.S. economy.

Also in 1999, the New York Times reported on 30 September, an easing of credit by Fannie Mae to facilitate mortgage lending to unqualified borrowers. This appeared to be in response to pressure from the Clinton administration. More risk in the financial market.

In 2003, the Bush administration proposed regulatory changes regarding the financial market, including reducing the power of the administration. This proposal was reported in the New York Times. Senator Barney Frank (D) and others opposed the proposal, saying it was unnecessary. The proposal did not progress.

In 2005, U.S. Senate bill S190 was introduced by Senator Chuck Hagel (R) and co-sponsored by Senators Dole (R), Sununu (R), and McCain (R) to place some controls in the financial market. This bill was, however, killed out of committee.

It’s 2008. Did the hammer fall? Seems that the economy adjusts every generation, about forty years, give or take about five years. There may be a pattern here: Congress meddles with the market, the economy; eventually enough pressure builds; and the economy adjusts in response. Congress has not yet, unfortunately, demonstrated that it has learned to stop meddling.

Agility <=> Culture

Hopefully, food for thinking - - -

I attended the other night, an "e2e" (entrepreneur to entrepreneur) event hosted by Lakeshore Advantage (www.lakeshoreadvantage.com) in Zeeland. I am an advisor in their "Business Garden."

The speaker on this occasion was Dick DeVos. Dick presented some thoughts regarding five issues for Michigan, that he considers a priority in these days. One issue had to do with energy and prompted a fellow audience member to ask regarding automotive electric propulsion and why the “Big Three” are not further along toward effective mass implementation.

Curiously, this precipitated for me a consideration of the character of a company or entity through its life cycle, and more specifically of its agility.

Growth of an entity, specifically physical, may be anticipated as inherent to most successful entities. With physical growth, comes a variety of “overheads” to monitor and otherwise keep a handle on the status of the entity at various levels. Impersonality has demonstrated itself to typically accompany growth and may establish itself as an entity transitions to incorporate organizational bureaucracy. Some level of organizational bureaucracy may be conceded inherent in an entity of significant size, though a culture of bureaucracy may not be inevitable.

Given this presumptive framework, one may postulate an agility spectrum metering a correlation between entity “ownership” and entity agility. Privately held entities tend toward agility while publicly held entities tend toward lethargy. The arch-type publicly held entity may be supposed a government agency. There is varying scope of Ownership, both literal and cultural. Culture may be understood as manifestation of community attitude. Also, stagnant close ownership is conceded not agile.

Structurally, closely held entities tend to have owners engaged with the activities and results of the entity at a relatively heightened level. Engaged decision-making may also include a market awareness such that opportunities may be identified and captured. Close, engaged ownership may dominate an entity even when the entity acquires great size and inherent organizational bureaucracy. Further, beyond mere structural ownership and beyond mere financial investment ownership motivation, close ownership includes an attitude of ownership. Thus, a propensity toward agility.

Conversely, widely held entities tend to have generally disengaged ownership; the broader the ownership, the greater the disengagement. Disengaged owners rely upon the integrity and performance of those in position to oversee and effect operation or, as appears more common, upon an established process or system, the entity bureaucracy. This structural segregation of ownership and of financial investment from operation fosters individual attitudes of bureaucracy and thus an entity culture of bureaucracy; institutionalization! Thus, a propensity toward continuing invariably, the opposite of agility.

A culture of engagement, of ownership, may be establish even in a widely held entity, however. The level of effort and likelihood for success may be indefinable. On the one hand, in a context of present prominent U.S. social culture, one may look at a government entity, a major manufacturer, or a financial institution, for example, and project the level of effort and the likelihood for establishing a culture of engagement as immense and miniscule, respectively, unobtainable. On the other hand, in a context of an entity with personnel who are willing to shun the “me first” attitude that demonstrates itself in the likes of Enron and in reported compensation packages for executives of failing and failed business, the level of effort and the likelihood for establishing a culture of engagement may be seen as miniscule and immense, respectively, easy as pie.

An aside: The prominent “me first” attitude is, interestingly, predominantly demonstrated in the seed of “the Sixties.” The alleged love and share culture of the Sixties has grown and manifest immature selfishness, greed. Younger generations are, to their credit, not showing the same culture of greed.

Of course, these are broad statements, generalizations, and specific situations are unique to their own circumstance.

Simple and True

According to the writing of our forefathers, namely, the U.S. Constitution, government holds three primary tasks of administration, legislation, and adjudication.

The President is the administrator, the chief executive officer (CEO), to oversee and administer the day-to-day operational matters of the nation. The Congress is the legislator, the board of directors, to set the direction (medium and long term vision) and to set the boundaries in which the CEO may proceed with administration. Congress sets the rules and provides or withholds the resources with which the CEO is tasked to administer the nation. The Court is the adjudicator, the referee, to see that the Congress and the President “play nice,” resolving differences and misunderstandings by interpreting the laws of the Congress. AND, We, the People, rule over the nation by appointing our elected representatives.

Unfortunately, a popular impression has developed in which: the Court is understood to be the law maker; the President is understood to be the elected ruler of the nation; the Congress is understood to be a nanny of the people to train up the people because the people do not know what is good for them and to advocate for the people against the President, keeping the President in check; and the People are ruled by government.

Now look around at the mayhem this popular impression, this deception, has developed.

We, the People, are the rulers of the nation to keep each of the administration, the legislation, and the adjudication in check. The People have, however, demonstrated a greatly diminishing level of maturity, have abdicated the position of ruler, and have let the administration, the legislation, and the adjudication run unchecked to their own lusts of fame, fortune, and power.

We, the People, have exactly what we have allowed. One may not be deceived, the trend toward mayhem shall continue unabated until we, the People, grow up, realize our appointed position as ruler, and assume our God given right and responsibility to vote responsibly. We, the People, are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Let us exert our rights!

What is Intellectual Property

Don’t Even Think About a Patent on the Copyright of Your Brand
(Some general comments on intellectual property)


Intellectual property includes intangible assets that are tangibly expressed. Hopefully, you have created intellectual property by investing time, effort, and capital in your business and made your business unique, so you may differentiate your business in the marketplace and define a market advantage.

Generally under the law, protection is not available for your ideas or concepts. Rather, the use of an idea or concept, which is a reduction to practice or an embodiment, may be protectable. Intellectual property may broadly be grouped into three categorizes, namely, patent [your product], trademark [your identity], and copyright [expressions of creativity].

PATENT “What” you do, which may be your product, or “How” you do it, which may be your particular method or process, for example, may be appropriate for patent protection. A patent on your product may provide you an opportunity to distinguish your business in the marketplace and define a market advantage. More specifically, a valid United States patent provides the patent owner a right to exclude others from making, selling, or using in the United States, the patented invention as defined by a valid patent claim. Patents are issued country by country and offer protection only in the issuing country.

A patent does not, however, grant a right to make, sell, or use a product. Approval from the Food and Drug Administration may be required Regarding pharmaceuticals or other medical items, for example. Likewise, automotive products may be subject to National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration regulations and rules.

Generally, when patents are discussed, utility patents are commonly presumed the type of patent discussed. Utility patents are granted for any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, according to U.S. statute. A utility patent may have an enforcement period from its issue date to the twentieth anniversary of its effective filing date, provided that maintenance fees are timely paid.

There are three kinds of patents available in the U.S., namely, utility, design, and plant patents. The most common of these being utility patents and the least common being plant patents. Plant patents are granted upon application for a distinct and new variety of plant. Plant patents are not pursued often. In fact, I recall meeting only one person, a professor in Chicago, who would actually say that he regularly includes plant patents in his patent practice.

Design patents are granted under U.S. statute for any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Design patents generally do not pertain to utility, that is functional, aspects of an item and may be considered to apply somewhat strictly to the aesthetics of a product. Design patents may be enforced for fourteen years after their issue date. Maintenance fees are not presently required for a design patent.

TRADEMARK “Who” you are in the marketplace, your business or product identity, may be appropriate for trademark protection. The idea of “branding” is commonly tossed about as a relatively new concept of market advantage by attaching market value to a particular brand name. “Branding” may be considered a marketing term that may, from a strict legal perspective, merely recognize the value of establishing a trademark or acquiring a perspective that a trademark is an asset. Further, Branding may be purposely or proactively allocating market resources to a trademark such that an identified market impression is created and value is established in the trademark.

Trademarks identify a single source in the marketplace of particular goods or services. More specifically, a trademark may be any indicia, including text, a design [logo], or combinations of both. Trademark protection is rooted in tradition, known as common law, which may be said that specific conduct became accepted in society as being proper. The common law of trademark has become codified in the Federal Lanham Act of trademark statutes, as well as various States’ laws. In a “rule of thumb” perspective, trademark rights are established when a trademark is used and trademark rights follow a priority rule like “first come - first served.”

The standard of trademark infringement and thus availability of a trademark use, is “Likelihood of Confusion.” If a one trademark use is likely to be confused with another trademark use, then the trademark use may be considered to infringe and may not be usable. Some of a plethora of elements to consider include: the commercial impression of the two trademarks themselves, both visually and aurally; the goods or services with which the trademarks are used and how related the respective goods or services may be in the marketplace; the relative fame of each trademark; and the priority of each trademark, which one was used first. Also, the commercial impression of the trademarks is not to be in a side-by-side comparison, but in a disconnected relation, out in the market.

COPYRIGHT An expression of artistry, authorship, or other creativity may be appropriate for copyright protection, including, literary works, musical works (including lyrics), dramatic works (including accompanying music), choreographic works, pictorial works, graphic works, sculptural works, motion pictures, other audiovisual works, sound recordings, and architectural works. The present state of copyright law in the U.S. may be embodied as a rule of thumb that an author owns a copyright in his creation upon creation. Neither a copyright notice or copyright registration are required to own a copyright, so do not presume that you may borrow something just because it is not marked with a copyright notice. Popular impression seems to be that both notice and registration are required to establish ownership, however, so this expectation may be sufficient that one should always mark their creative work with a copyright notice as well as to proceed with registration. There are also legal implications to registering in a situation of actual infringement.

Two other prominent areas of copyright misunderstanding may include “fair use” and “work made for hire,” each of which is specifically addressed in federal statute. Fair use is rooted in a notion that some instances of copyright infringement may be excepted. The federal copyright statute identifies half a dozen specific categories of fair, excepted use that may grossly be said to fall into areas of academic use, news reporting, or research. Even when a use may reasonably fit in the specific categories of fair use, factors as to the commercial impact of the use are listed for considering whether a copying of a created work is an infringement.

Many people seem to have the concept of a “work made for hire” on its head, saying that they own a created work that they hired some one to create; they hired the work. Something to the contrary, however, a creative work made by an outside vendor or contractor is seldom a work made for hire. The point of interest in a work made for hire is that the one paying for the work is considered the author of the work.

The federal statute identifies only two categories of a work made for hire. A work made for hire is prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment. The “scope of employment” opens a can of worms as to defining that scope of employment and may often times lead to an employee’s activities at home and appearing to be off the job, being owned by their employer. Alternatively, a work made for hire may be defined by contract if the parties expressly agree in a prior writing, signed by all parties, that the work shall be considered a work made for hire AND if the work is specially ordered or commissioned as a contribution to a collective work, a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, a translation, a supplementary work, a compilation, an instructional text, a test, answer material for a test, or an atlas. These sub-categories seem to seldom apply outside of the various publishing businesses, however.

So - - how are you creative? In what you make or how you do your business? In your identity, image, or reputation? Or, do you simply have a need to express your uncontrollable creativity?