Build a Better Business

From the letters page of The West: "Some advice for companies like Pacific Brands on how to save money at the top and keep jobs at the bottom end. Make all your senior executives and CEOs women and get rid of the men. That will cut your wages bill by half." (28 Feb 09)

On the front page of The West, same edition: "It was revealed that the chief executive of Melbourne-based clothing manufacturer Pacific Brands had her salary doubled to $1.86 million when she was appointed as the company considered sacking thousands of workers."

Oops! Looks as though even a woman can be accused of being a money-grabbing, heartless chief executive...

Power corrupts, money corrupts absolutely!

On the other hand... still on that same front page: 'Mr Li resigned in disgust seven months later, telling Mr Johnston in an email that he would not trade his "integrity, pride, loyalty and dignity" for "material benefit".'

Perhaps that is really what we need: integrity, pride, loyalty and dignity. So where are the other honest executives when you need them?!

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Good for the State as a Whole

"Big power bills are only the start" trumpets the headline (The West, 25 Feb 09). Robert Taylor points out, in his opinion piece, that "WA residential electricity prices have not increased since 1997-98." Let's assume that Taylor is correct.

Why was Western Power -- the big, all-in-one, power provider -- split into four?

• The loss-making networks -- remote communities, Aboriginal communities, dispersed rural groups -- can all go to Horizon Power. The federal government can be embarrassed into funding most of those, so WA can pay less.
• The metro delivery service -- the ones charging the consumers -- will have their charges fixed. So consumers -- ie voters -- will pay no more.
• All losses will be passed to Verve. That gives us an excuse to allow private enterprise into power generation: surely private enterprise will not make those huge losses!
• Then we up the price of electricity to consumers. And the extra money is passed on to the generators. Too late to help Verve -- but certainly a bonus -- an expected bonus -- for the new, private enterprise, electricity generators.

So it's a blatant market bias, to allow private enterprise to move into electricity generation.

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Then there's the line from Robert Taylor: "that's got to be good for the State as a whole."

Good for the State as a whole! Good how? No, not to worry, I can answer that one...

Domestic electricity consumers -- households -- pay more for electricity. Businesses pay less for electricity. Businesses make more profit, shareholders -- here, interstate, overseas -- make more money. Some of that money is spent in WA. So WA businesses get a small increase in their business. Which allows them to hire extra staff... who can now afford to pay for those increased electricity bills.

Whoop-de-do! We pay more for electicity in the hope that we will get a job so that we can afford to pay for our electricity!

Here's a better idea:

Raise electricity charges by 10% instead of 25%. Raise electricity charges to industry by the same amount. Use the profits to pay Verve to upgrade their power stations. Use whatever tricks would be expected from private enterprise, to reduce costs in Verve. If this is "not possible" -- sack the current directors and hire people who know what they're doing.

Every time we divide and recombine, we get promises of savings and actual losses. Let's stick with what we have -- and actually make it work.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

But it's Less than 10km Away!

Here it comes again: suggestions that schools could be "amalgamated" in order to save money. Oh, sorry, not just to save money... Okay, amalgamation would "save costs" and "result in significant savings" but it would also "provide better quality education and help cope with teacher shortages." ("Don't close small schools, say parents", The West, 24 Feb 09)

Who are these educational experts who know what makes for "better quality education"? The WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCIWA), of course. Who better to drive the education of your young children? CCIWA is the representative group for employers. These are the same employers who also want the right to hire -- and fire -- as required, to suit their own day to day profit requirements.

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

The West provides an example: White Gum Valley Primary School has just 165 students and is "less than 10km" from Winterfold PS, with "only" 224 pupils. The article is written by Bethany Hiatt, whose journalistic research skills are apparently close to zero.

Okay, I'm about to launch into a separate tirade. If your only interest is in school amalgamations, skip the following section...

Did The West do any research at all?!

Here are the journalistic weasel words: "according to the department's website". So Hiatt tries to pass off any factual problems as being due to the department's website. I quickly found a DET website with the student numbers.

Does it matter -- to Hiatt, or to the sense of the article -- that those student numbers include almost 20% as "pre-compulsory students"? That is, pre-schoolers... Will those pre-schoolers also get a better education by being crammed in with more fellow students? Quite the opposite, I would expect. (Being neither an educational expert nor an employer representative group, I cannot be sure.)

Does it really matter that the student numbers are from the end of last year? In the sense of the article, no. In the sense of a journalist doing more than hack work -- it would be nice if there were some indication of actual journalistic research... Did Hiatt ask the school principals, what are enrolment numbers this year? Did she look further at the DET site, to find that White Gum Valley PS had less students in 2008 than in 2007?

Then there's the distance, from one school to the next...

"Less than 10km", according to Hiatt. Five minutes on the web and I found that you can walk or drive, from one school to the next, in 2km. Two km, ten km, what does it matter? Nothing much for the article. (Though I will get back to that distance.) In terms of journalism -- that is an enormous difference!

Did the "journalist" take the time to check distances? Or did she just take some random figure...

Back to the main issue

Are we really happy to accept CCI recommendations, that schools should be amalgamated in order to save money? Not that we know that the education department will accept the recommendations... but amalgamations have been done in the past.

Is saving money what education is all about? I hope not!

Back to that "less than 10km" distance which was mentioned in the article in The West. A primary school child could walk a kilometre to school. Add another 2km -- including a South Street crossing -- and no, I would not expect a child to walk. So an amalgamation of these two schools would require extra buses, cars, or bikes. (Would you let your primary school child ride a bike across South Street?)

When a lazy journalist throws in "less than 10km" -- it gets ridiculous. Children would (or should) never be expected to walk or ride an extra 10km to school. Still, not to worry, that 10km is just a number thrown in by a lazy journalist...

What about the educational implications?

Research, testing, bias and lies

"Deputy director-general Margery Evans said recent testing produced no evidence to suggest that the size of a school had any noticeable impact on student performance." Is that a result of poor research, inadequate measures, or outright lying?

I took the advice of a previous education minister and did a Google search on "size of school student performance". From the first few, some interesting quotes...

(Tired of reading? Accept my summary -- small schools are better and cheaper -- and skim over the dot points.)

• ...research has repeatedly found small schools to be superior to large schools on most measures and equal to them on the rest. This holds true for both elementary and secondary students of all ability levels and in all kinds of settings
• There is a very large research literature on the effect of school size on student achievement. It generally shows that students perform better in smaller elementary and middle schools while the results for high schools are mixed.
• School district consolidation is often purported to save taxpayers money. However, the current study shows that doubling the size of a school lowers student proficiency passage rates by 1%.
• Results showed greater academic achievement for African-American students from large schools than for African-American students at medium and small schools... Higher attendance rates were found for students in small schools, but no differences were found for dropout or graduation rates. Regardless of relative differences related to school size, the absolute level academic achievement was unacceptably low.
• In the now classic Big School, Small School study conducted by Roger Barker and Paul Gump (1964), small schools (100-150), in comparison with large schools (over 2,000) offer students greater opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities and to exercise leadership roles. In particular, participation in school activities, student satisfaction, number of classes taken, community employment, and participation in social organizations were all superior in small schools relative to large schools. A review of over 300 subsequent studies (Garbarino, 1980) indicated that small schools (500) also have lower incidence of crime levels and less serious student misconduct. In a review of research conducted on the relationship between school size and academic achievement (Fowler, 1992) there was found to be a negative relationship between math and verbal ability tests and elementary school size controlling for socio-economic differences (Kiesling, 1967 cited in Fowler, 1992). Additionally, smaller elementary schools particularly benefit African-American students' achievement (Summers & Wolfe, 1977 cited in Fowler, 1992).
• 4. Much school consolidation has been based on the beliefs that larger schools are less expensive to operate and have higher-quality curricula than small schools. Research has demonstrated, however, that neither of these assertions is necessarily true. 5. Academic achievement in small schools is at least equal—and often superior—to that of large schools. 6. Student attitudes toward school in general and toward particular school subjects are more positive in small schools.

Hmmm... My research indicates that smaller schools are generally better than larger schools. The two mentions of African-American students are contradictory. Other reports indicate that smaller schools are better -- and even cheaper! So why would a deputy d-g of education claim otherwise?

Perhaps we should look at property prices...

Amalgamate schools and get an immediate profit from sale of ex-school land. The extra cost of running a larger school is easily covered: tell each school to cut costs by 3%. Sounds stupid? Well, yes, but it's what's happening right now, for all schools.

The long-term costs -- of poorer education, a worse environment for our children -- well, honestly, who cares?! The politicians who close the schools today will be out on their big fat pensions before anyone can prove how badly they stuffed up. And anyway, their kids all go to private schools...

But what should we do?!

Don't close small schools, say parents. Perhaps we should listen to the parents. After all, they are the ones who are -- or should be -- closest to their children.

And the evidence -- my evidence, backed up by a quick Google... is strongly in support of smaller schools.

So, stop selling school land for reasons based on lies and bias. Think of the children and their education. And keep -- and build -- smaller schools.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Allocating Blame for Bushfire Damage

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

It's a popular topic, right now, to allocate blame for damage caused by bushfires.

(Note the phrasing: "blame for damage". Allocating blame for the bushfires occuring, that's another topic entirely.)

So, why is there so much damage from a bushfire? Too much fuel in the understorey? Too few slow, "cool" burns? Too many hot, heavy burns? Let's start with one suggestion, that we need to follow the pre-european settlement approach: regular, small burns in a patchwork pattern.

The protection of patchwork burning

For whatever reason, the original settlers -- those who arrived 10,000 years ago -- would burn a bit of bush. Several bits of bush, probably, each year. What did this achieve?

First, it cleared away some of the rubbish under the trees. So, in future years, there was less to burn. Less chance of having a major blaze that fed on fallen trees and dried out bushes.

Second, the patchwork approach acted as a series of firebreaks. Burn an area this year and it will be less likely to carry a wildfire the next year. Again, less chance of a major blaze destroying a large area.

So... say some people... that is what we should be doing today.

Under which rock have these people been hiding?!

Try this:

Go to your nearest area of bush. Consider lighting a bushfire, to burn just a few hectares. Uh oh! That few hectares will contain a couple of houses! Or fences, or sheds, or valuable livestock... Are you willing to burn -- destroy -- everything that happens to be in that few hectares of bush?

Sorry, but the patchwork approach to burning is no use. Not while we insist on living, working, building, on every hectare of Western Australian bush.

The fallacy of firebreaks

There was a brief report from Victoria, that one bush dweller could not get permission to clear a firebreak. His local council, apparently, would not allow removal of trees over a certain trunk diameter. Why is it so?

You move to a "country estate". Why? To enjoy the peace and tranquility of bush living. Wildlife and trees are a part of that life style. That's why it's become fashionable to refer to city dwellers seeking "a tree change".

To protect the trees: no-one wants to have a tree change to a bare and treeless desert, even if that's just the neighbour's yard. So councils act to protect the trees against being cut down.

Pretend that you have just bought 1,000 ha of virgin bush. Can you clear a firebreak and still leave all of the large trees? No worries, though the firebreak may need to wander a bit.

Now you subdivide and sell off 100 lots of 10 ha each. Can each of these lots have a firebreak? Well... with just 10 ha, some of those lots will have trees in awkward places. The firebreaks may be a bit harder to clear, because there is less room to let it wander around the large trees.

Then you see the chance of even more profit. You subdivide and sell lots of just one hectare. All of a sudden, a firebreak is a very large fraction of the total one hectare of land. If you avoid a tree here then you may run into your house there. Wander away from the fenceline -- to leave a beautiful grove of trees -- and your firebreak goes straight through the area where you hoped to grow fruit trees.

The smaller the block, the less room is available for a firebreak. Trees and firebreaks become mutually exclusive... Perhaps you should just take a chance, protect the trees, and do not clear a firebreak.

Hey! Your neighbour will probably clear fell his property! That should be enough to protect you... maybe...

So what has gone wrong? Well, the more people that live in the bush, the less room there is for effective firebreaks. But there are still enough flammable trees for a good, hot bushfire. As we found out from Victoria.

Consider the correct problem

There are too many people living in areas which are prone to bushfire. That is the problem.

Too many people mean that we are not able to protect ourselves by selective -- patchwork -- burning. Too many people mean that there are smaller blocks and less room for effective firebreaks.

Solutions

Okay, the obvious solution is, less people living in bushfire-prone areas. How far will we get with reducing the "bush" population? Probably, nowhere.

So we need to accept that there will be bushfires, that there will be property damage. (As an aside: the indigenous approach suited their nomadic lifestyle. When one area was worn out, littered with whatever rubbish and scraps are caused by people... You move on. And the next bushfire will clean up your previous settlement.)

We need to accept that there will be property damage. Do we need to accept that there will be loss of life? No!

Build a fireproof shelter. Every property owner should build their own shelter.

The shelter is for preserving life. Whatever is outside the shelter is expected to be destroyed. If the property owner does not accept that -- they can build a bigger shelter. Build the entire house as a fireproof shelter. Build in enough room to provide shelter for livestock. Shelter whatever is considered too precious to lose.

Or move out.

If you live in a bushfire area, there will be a bushfire. It's all very nice to be surrounded by trees, and grass, and wildlife. If you want to live through a bushfire -- build a suitable shelter. If you want to never face a bushfire that threatens your property -- live somewhere else.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Save 3% -- Cost Even More

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

The Hospital in the Home (HiH) service is to be cut. Part of the 3% savings from the Health department, apparently.

Until it was cut, I had never even heard of HiH. Still, it sounds like a good idea. Not every sick person needs full hospital care. Not everyone wants to be isolated from friends and family just because they are or have been sick or injured.

Oh well, 3% must be saved...

But wait! The Health Minister says that the HiH service will continue! "So," says Kim Hames, "we'll be making sure the services themselves stay but there will be more contracting out to Silver Chain." (The West, Anger over shake-up of hospital in home service, 18 Feb 09)

Let's follow the "logic"...

• HiH is said to save about $25 million a year. We cancel HiH and have an immediate cost of the $25 million, in hospital beds that are now required.
• But we have saved the cost of HiH. Let's pretend that that is $1 million.
• Now we pay Silver Chain to provide the HiH service. So we are back to saving that $25 million. (What do you bet, that that will be counted as part of the 3% savings!)
• Can Silver Chain provide HiH for the same $1 million cost? When you add the cost of setting up and managing a contract -- probably not. Can Silver Chain hire nurses for less than RPH? Probably not. Does this mean that the total cost of the outsourced HiH contract is higher than having it done by the Health department? Probably.

So why will HiH be stopped, to be replaced by an outsourced HiH? Because... there will be an apparent saving of $1 million... And -- when the smoke and mirrors are fully in place -- the Minister will be able to announce a $25 million savings in hospital beds. All because he was clever enough to outsource HiH...

Oh, sure, it will cost more in reality. But what politician -- or senior bureaucrat -- ever cares about reality?

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com