Toyota gives up on stupid Americans. They can't even be bought off with huge government subsidies because our workers are that inept. Yikes.
Posted by armand at July 8, 2005 10:58 AM | TrackBack | Posted to EconomicsThe factory will cost $800 million to build, with the federal and provincial governments kicking in $125 million of that to help cover research, training and infrastructure costs.
Several U.S. states were reportedly prepared to offer more than double that amount of subsidy. But Fedchun said much of that extra money would have been eaten away by higher training costs than are necessary for the Woodstock project.
He said Nissan and Honda have encountered difficulties getting new plants up to full production in recent years in Mississippi and Alabama due to an untrained - and often illiterate - workforce. In Alabama, trainers had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech plant equipment.
Hi...
I don't think I'd go so far as to say that all of the workforce of the USA are operating at some intellectual deficit, but, I would go on and say that the USA with its lack of a cohesive state to state federally assisted educational system, will go on to deprive itself of opportunity by not offering an educated, socially assisted workforce.
Any true capitalist understands the connection between socialism and capitalism is very close. Without decent social programs, education, health care and federal pension, society fails to thrive, takes more sick days and generally fails to produce as well as societies that are privy to strong social programs.
As a Woodstock resident, I am grateful for the interest Toyota has taken in our community, but fail to see where the infrastructure will come from. We in Woodstock have limited water resources, and a manufacturer of this calibre will require massive infrastructure supports in terms of water, landfill and more. With a small taxbase at hand we could be in for massive tax increases on the municipal level in order to finance the long term objectives of this company.
Right, throwing money at education without assessing progress and accountability would really work in the Southeastern US, just like it's worked in Washington, DC. I find it strange that you're so in favor of accountability for the progress of the Bush administration in Iraq (which, let's be honest, is moving at light speed compared to the progress of a constitution for the EU), but when it comes to accountability for teachers in schools, you don't want to obstruct their creativity by forcing them to prepare students for tests, even if it means most students in the Southeastern US won't have the skills to go to a university or work for Toyota because they have lousy teachers who can't be fired because there's no way to measure the progress of their students. And then the next generation of teachers comes from the same schools and repeats the cycle.
Jim - Thanks for your insights from the area.
Morris - Dear brother, my problem isn't with accountability. I would hope that we would always expect the government to be accountable for its actions in every policy area. Isn't accountability to the citizenry part of what democracy is all about at its core? My problem is with No Child Left Behind which I think 1) lowers standards in certain areas and 2) contributes in many disturbing ways to "teaching to the test" syndrome - which often actually detracts from learning the skills necessary to succeed in the current economy and a variety of intellectual environments. And of course even if you like it - the president and the Republicans don't fund it properly, so it can't meet all the questionable goals that it seeks to. Beyond that, your pot-shots at the Southeast are entirely unnecessary - as you and I both know there are some amazing public schools down there. Though there are also some perfectly abysmal ones, and if you don't think that some of the problems with the abysmal ones (for example, low teacher salaries, lack of air conditioning) require money you are just being silly. And as to what the EU constitution has to do with anything ... haven't a clue what you are getting at.
Posted by: Armand at July 9, 2005 01:09 PM | PERMALINKOf course, one wonders why Toyota didn't just go for a state with a more educated workforce. Of course, we can guess the answer(s) - they would have to pay higher salaries, deal with unions, or pay more taxes.
The biggest problem with a discussion like this is that education is an incredibly local enterprise. Some southeastern states like Louisiana and North Carolina have extensive testing programs. In fact, North Carolina is considered a leader along with Texas in accountability.
What we need is an effective national system of education. Of course, the liklihood of nationalization making things better is slim, so realistically we're probably better off with state-based reforms.
One hope at the high school level is the AP program from the College Board. This program is growing by leaps and bounds precisely because it provides solid course content that is evaluated via rigorous but sensible testing.
The sad thing is that I doubt the AP program would be nearly as successful as it is if politicians were in charge. The fact that it is the product of content experts and teachers themselves working together is what produces quality outcomes.
Cheers,
Zack
Posted by: Zack at July 10, 2005 12:51 PM | PERMALINKThe states with the more educated workforces (what, the northeast, California? Michigan? I'm guessing here, so correct me if you have data...) probably also have higher taxes, more regulation and a more crowded infrastructure. That's the whole point of putting the factories in Alabama, South Carolina, and West Virginia (etc etc).
And I have very mixed feelings about the whole AP thing. Having been through the program myself, and as an educator watching other young people go through it, the good aspects are balanced by some (unintended) negative consequences, chief among them the delivery of 18 year old juniors to college campuses. IB has the same problem.
Side note: Mercedes put their first plant outside of Germany in Brazil. Maybe Toyota will start looking there instead of Alabama.
Zack,
I think you make a good point in that it isn't about whether or not testing is a good idea, but rather it's about what kind of skills should be tested, who should decide what kind of skills should be tested, and by whom and how will they be evaluated.
Binky,
You bring up another good point regarding development and maturity, and whose needs are served by children starting college so early. It's too bad that emotional intelligence is ignored in schools, because that would be another way to evaluate a child applying to college as to whether it's the appropriate choice for them at that time.
Bro,
Can you tell me what part of NCLB lowers standards, how it does it, and in what areas they're lowered? I can't find that in the NCLB legislation, so I'm curious as to the particular mechanism. On you second, I don't see how anyone really would mind teaching to the test if they agreed what was on the test was important. That what teachers do, right, they make up tests to see if they're students have learned what they're trying to teach them? So isn't the important concept here not whether they should teach a certain area of knowlege that can be evaluated by a test, but what it is that is important for students to learn.
You can probably tell from this and previous posts that I believe in teaching children about emotions and social skills, and I of course recognize that this isn't measured by the current test. The few teachers who may incorporate this into their curricullums will be distracted a couple of months each year by teaching to the current test. So the important thing for me to do is to encourage a test that looks like what I think it should look like. Maybe you think there should be more Buffy related items, so you can encourage that. But I see NCLB as a way to move the debate to what it is that students need to learn, and away from possibility that students won't learn anything at all.
I agree that it needs to be funded enough to evaluate students' and teachers' progress.
As to the EU constitution, your recent comments were quite derisive and skeptical, "Of course they don't even have a constitution yet. But presuming they get around to writing one eventually...." when the oh-so-advance Europeans have been planning one for more than ten years without any success.