Reply #45: My understanding of the term 'race to the bottom' is a comment on unregulated market forces.

[RandomThoughts]

That term was used years ago in comments on the effects of unregulated market forces. If profit motive is the driving factor, then the effect is a race to the bottom where the system that treats society the worst is most profitable. So the worse a company pollutes, the more profitable it is. The lower the wage for workers, regardless of what survival wage is, the more profitable it is. The more monopolies and economics of scale are created, the more profitable a business is.

Then in a need to compete to stay in business, other companies have to also treat workers, environment, society, and anything else worse and worse, leading to a race to the bottom in society.


So in theory, a race to the top system should be one that does not use the profit motive as the factor for excellence. If it is about ideology of profit, or creating profit, the name of the program is Orwellian. If something like profit is given, for reaching non profit goals, like excellence in education, then market forces can be used for race to top not bottom.

It is possible that schools that show excellence in many diverse areas are promoted, and those that fail in many areas are downgraded. However that should not be because of how many dollars a school gets, but because of the level of development of many areas, how to learn, how to think, information retention, and even opportunity to diverse exposure of many areas including things like tech, science, history, music, and arts, along with skills that are easier to test like math and reading.

In theory every child should have the opportunity to find what they enjoy and are successful at. And children with potential in areas, or likes and skills for certain areas, should not be left out of those opportunities for reasons of 'lottery of birth' or 'ability to pay'.

The system would fail if children were forced into lack of exposure schools, or schools that teach a certain class role for one group or another. If some children had a broad exposure in learning, while others had limited exposure, especially if based on there ability to pay, then that system would not seem correct.

So if charter schools is to just move people into what other people think they should learn based on some social economic factor, it would be bad, if it is because it is what the parents and children want to learn, then it would seem good, much of it depends on if it is money based, or opportunity based. And if the choices are to best find what fits for each individual, or if it is to fit certain groups into assigned roles.

So I would ask, what is the criteria for charter schools to stay in business, if it was how much money they could squeeze out of each student, it would be bad. If it was a standardized test that leads to limited teaching or limited curriculum, it would be bad. But if it is a comprehensive look at the success of students including things like opportunity exposure, and areas of learning that allow children to reach individual potentials, then it would be good.


The quote They insist running schools like a business is the solution. Is only bad if the motive is profit, the motive in most business. If a regulatory structure moves that motive to what is best for the learning of the children, then that different business goal can let competition help the system.

Competition and models that reward success are vary useful in creating better systems, the problem becomes with defining what is success. In any system regulation or structure that inhibits 'profit first' systems can use the advantages of competition and market forces to help find better ways to solve problems. So I have to think the question has to be seen as what is the intent of the billionaires, and what is the measure for success that ends up rating the systems and that modifies the growth or shrinking of different schools.