Feedspot is taking people to this post that does not exist. So I had better create a post, post haste, I guess. I like the above idea: You can have cheap and good, but that will require some time. You can have cheap and fast. If so, what you get probably won’t be particularly good. You can have fast and good, but that product is unlikely to be cheap. If we scour the goods and services in our lives, no doubt we will find exceptions. I happen to think McDonald’s Egg White Delight is cheap, fast and good. But moving away from ADHD breakfast observations, I find a kernel of truth in the idea that getting two of these characteristics together may be easy, but instances of all three together are uncommon at best. I also see a looming problem as we keep trying to find cheap and/or fast ways to get improved academic results.

This being an education blog, I thought I would connect the cheap/fast/good idea to fixing schools. Any fast, good fix will not be cheap. I don’t know that a good, cheap fix is possible. The problem lies in that word, “cheap.” How do you do “cheap” when the livelihoods of thousands and thousands of people rest in your hands? How do you do “cheap” when your buildings are aging, their floors chipping, ceilings leaking, plumbing slowly becoming unplumbed? How do you do “cheap” when access to technology has become a defining characteristic of our best districts?

Like many quick ideas that seem sound on the surface, that “pick two” option above does not help us when applied to Chicago and Detroit schools. Cheap, fast fixes will never fix those schools. I doubt any cheap or fast fix can be good. We can cut costs and trim overhead, but the problems in Chicago and Detroit will only be improved at the margins by these measures.

Returning to a theme, America needs to move away from local funding of school districts. The problem with the current funding set-up is that many districts can only make cheap fixes — and there are no cheap fixes that can be expected to turn out well. Local funding in areas where industry has fled and housing values are falling will result in falling revenues for schools — at a time when those schools require the opposite to stay competitive. Cheap and good together cannot attract the STEM teachers and pay for the technology that will give our academically-disadvantaged students the educational opportunities that they need to prepare for college and today’s work force. Fifty  years ago, lack of technology meant no overhead projector and a lack of mimeographing materials. Students could be entirely ready for college despite those nonexistent overheads and fuzzy worksheets. Now that lack of technology can translate into missed, vital practice and skills, as students without internet retrieval practice, keyboarding experience, or familiarity with modern software fall behind counterparts in more prosperous schools.

Cheap won’t work today. Between aging infrastructures and growing demand for new technology for teachers and students, cheap has become impossible for most districts to manage while still preparing students for college. I’d say fast is impossible, too, since almost all our initiatives today must ooze through layers of government intervention.

If we want good, we will have to shake up the system. Eliminating our piecemeal funding system might be one way to start. I hate to create more possible layers of bureaucracy but, without more equitable funding, I just don’t see how the kids at the bottom will ever be able to get off the bottom. Yes, we can find exceptions. Some kids can learn with a flashlight in a broom closet. But a review of college success rates between districts shows that the kids where I live are vastly more likely to finish college than those kids in Chicago.

We have to tackle that gap in success rates.