Getting STEAM Rolled

As others have already pointed out, there are two obvious concerns about the financial projections for the newly adopted STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) magnet program.  One is the assumption for a net increase of 94 K-5 Open Enrollment students.  Two is the long payback, in the red the first 10 years, partly to amortize over $2 million in facility (re-opening Olson elementary) costs.

In year 12, the district projects a positive cash flow of about $1.5 million, largely from that Open Enrollment increase, both residents who return and non-residents who sign up.  But there are problems with this analysis.  That new money obviously comes from neighboring districts, a zero sum game meaning for Minnesota in total, nothing has changed.  We will be spending just as much overall at the state level as before.  The additional expenses in running STEAM are real and local, however. 

We sometimes see this phenomenon in business where one department saves a dollar by in effect spending two dollars of another department's budget, sometimes all unknowing.  Chief FInancial Officers usually spot these loopholes and close them.  The District (and its Financial Advisory Commisssion) could and should similarly be more forthcoming from a taxpayer's overall point of view.

The other problem is that this STEAM model assumes that the other districts will not offer programs of their own, especially when they see that they are losing students to Robbinsdale.  Assuming STEAM proves as popular as hoped, what is to prevent, say, the Osseo Schools from doing the same, maybe better?  There are no secrets to this.  Indeed, the District plans on replicating at least portions of it for use at its other non-magnet schools later on.

Few businesses today will underwrite projects with over a 5 year payback, let alone 10.  Too many things can change.  It is quite possible that the Board, Superintendent and Cabinet will be all new faces ten years from now.  The economy?  Anybody's guess.

This is not to say that STEAM isn't still worth doing.  Just don't expect it to be profitable.

Comments

[The Big Stink]

What the district is doing is providing a 'boutique' offering for those who have soured on the traditional fare. This isn't wrong, but it is dicey. The larger point you make is valid - if we're stealing "business" from other districts, where are the other districts passing along the costs from their losses?

In the end, it's all water from the same well.

[J. Ewing]

you have hinted at an answer to my fundamental question which is, what will the district be doing differently than what they do in the other schools, as regards their instructional model? If they know how to teach these subjects in a radically better manner sufficient to attract new business, why don't they simply use this whizbang instructional model in all of their schools right now?

[Hiram]

"The other problem is that this STEAM model assumes that the other districts will not offer programs of their own, especially when they see that they are losing students to Robbinsdale."

That's the downside of competition, especially when you assume competition results in a zero sum game. That is, someone's gain is always someone else's loss. But those who defend the role of competition in economic systems often argue that competition isn't necessarily a zero sum game, that it can make each competitor better resulting in an overall gain in economic results, however we define results in any given situation.

In any event, the reality for school districts in Minnesota today, under open enrollment as it currently stands, is that they must at the very least maintain stable student populations. And if that means beggaring our neighbors so be it.

[Hiram]

"Few businesses today will underwrite projects with over a 5 year payback, let alone 10. Too many things can change."

That's because business today is a recessionary frame of mind. They aren't focused on the future. Instead, they see success in terms of penny pinching and day to day survival. This is why business in America is failing.

The question isn't whether business is selling off the future in order to maintain a comfortable present for the managerial classes; it clearly is. The question is whether business should, and if that's a policy that should be emulated by entities in our society that aren't institutionally restricted to short term thinking.

[J. Ewing]

Put my question another way: If you don't know how to teach this stuff markedly better than you are doing now, how do you expect to compete and turn a "profit"?

[Give2Attain]

Hiram,
With technology and other things changing at a break neck speed, I don't think the recessionary frame of mind has anything to do with it.

Isn't this Global Competition a rockin good time...

[Hiram]

Breakneck speed? The one product at which American industry excels at producing is excuses. Such a pity there isn't much of a market for them.

[Give2Attain]

I did not say we were creating or driving the change. However we sure get to ride the wave with the rest of the world.

And I don't know... It seems to me the USA is still creating a lot of new stuff that is used all around the world.

[Hiram]

We are creating new stuff, but so is the rest of the world. The comparative advantage we had for a long time is disappearing or has in fact disappeared. And although we create new stuff, we aren't making nearly enough of the stuff we create here.

[Give2Attain]

You know my view on that... The US consumers decided a long time ago that low priced high quality goods were more important than good high paying American jobs.

Businesses therefore need to produce goods as inexpensively as possible. Given this reality the $30/hr manufacturing jobs went overseas where it only costs $2/hr. Most companies that did not make the change are sleeping with the fishes...

So are we willing to start buying American again, even if it costs more?

[Give2Attain]

Some of my work on the Soap Box

http://give2attain.blogspot.com/2011/04/made-in-america-really.html

And a different perspective. He seems to want to raise the cost of doing the same work in the USA. Which seems counter productive to me.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/28/opinion/osterman-jobs-inequality/index.html?iref=allsearch