MODELING EDUCATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Transcription

1 MODLING DUCATIONAL NTRPRNURSHIP AND ITS SOCIAL CONSQUNCS: A SKIN-IN-TH-GAM APPROACH TO XPLORING TH RLATIONSHIP BTWN FR NTRPRIS AND SOCIAL POLICY Sarah Cannon sarcannon@yahoo.com ames Cannon Iowa Sae Universiy jcannon@iasae.edu Hugh Cannon Wayne Sae Universiy hugh.cannon@wayne.edu ABSTRACT This paper discusses how a simulaion game modeling he effecs of self-ineresed enrepreneurial effor in he educaional mare can help sudens undersand curren issues relaing o public policy, radiional versus nonradiional educaional programs, and socieal well-being. The model posis a sysem in which educaional enrepreneurs face a mare of sudens possessing differing levels of educaional preparaion. Self-ineresed managers can rade off specializaion and scale educaional sraegies o maximize he value of heir oucomes, in he process, deermining he amoun and disribuion of educaional achievemen in he social sysem. The debriefing process enables an insrucor o draw on sudens personal experience wih he simulaion ( sin in he game ), giving sudens an appreciaion of how heir decisions as educaional managers impac social welfare. The game also provides an opporuniy for sudens o apply he principles of mareing and managerial accouning as hey relae o educaional enerprises, hus developing heir abiliy o ransfer generalizable nowledge from one applicaion o anoher. INTRODUCTION One of he major concerns of modern educaional policy is how educaional managers deploy socieal resources for opimal educaional achievemen. Looing specifically a he Unied Saes, effors have largely fallen shor. For insance, he no child lef behind iniiaive was plagued by uninended consequences, such as he sysemaic exclusion of disadvanaged sudens from educaional insiuions ha have he flexibiliy of selecing applicans by heir level of educaional preparaion (Lacireno-Paque, Holyoe, Moser, & Henig, 2002). Disadvanaged sudens hose who, generally for socioeconomic reasons, are poorly prepared for educaional performance consume more educaional resources per uni of learning han highly-prepared sudens because heir schools mus compensae for heir lac of preparaion. This pus educaional insiuions who serve hem a a financial disadvanage (Ladd, 2002; Ladd & Walsch, 2002). If he mandae is o educae all people wihin a given populaion group, insiuions ha do no have he abiliy o selec sudens are lef wih a disproporionaely large number of disadvanaged sudens, who are no prepared for educaional achievemen. Tradiional public schools (TPS) enrollmen crieria are ypically defined by geographic area, leaving heir educaional managers wihou conrol over suden admissions. Their budges also end o be funded, in par, hrough local propery axes. This creaes a paricularly difficul problem for sudens from low socioeconomic saus (SS) neighborhoods. Given local funding, heir schools end o have lower budges, hus puing sudens a an educaional disadvanage (Ladd, 2002; Sirin, 2005). Disadvanaged sudens increase he cos of educaion, puing addiional srain on already low budges, hus creaing a downward educaional spiral. Given he reasoning oulined above, we should no be surprised ha much of he policy dialog has cenered around wheher educaion ough o be relegaed o geographically based TPS and/or non-radiional public schools (NPS) wih more flexible enrollmen crieria Page Developmens in Business Simulaion and xperienial Learning, volume 41, 2014

2 (Lacireno-Paque, e al., 2002; Garcia, McIlroy, & Barber 2008; Dee & Fu, 2004; Harvey, 2012; Ni, 2012). Nor should we be surprised ha he conroversy is inense, since boh alernaives have significan advanages and disadvanages. On one hand, he TPS concep ensures ha opporunisic educaional managers do no exclude disadvanaged sudens in an effor o increase overall school performance, hus preserving disadvanaged sudens opporuniy for educaion (Darling-Hammond, 1994). On he oher hand, insiuions wih more flexible enrollmen crieria have opporuniies o increase educaional efficiency by specializing in addressing he needs of paricular suden groups, hus delivering greaer educaional achievemen han TPSs for he resources hey have expended (Levin, 2012). Flexibiliy should harness he power of compeiion o mae opimal use of budgeed resources if educaional insiuions are rewarded for he efficiency wih which hey educae he sudens hey are serving. For insance, a school migh specialize in addressing he needs of poorly prepared sudens, developing a program ha addresses he issues in prior preparaion as well as hose relaing o he educaional maerial iself. Unforunaely, given he fac ha disadvanaged sudens cos more o educae, he same compeiion may moivae insiuions o pursue sraegies ha exclude hese sudens, hus subvering public objecives (Ladd, 2002). ven in he absence of discriminaory enrollmen crieria, evidence suggess ha disadvanaged sudens who are given he choice of charer school enrollmen end o prefer low-performance TPS. Presumably, one of he major moivaions is ha sudens are more comforable woring wih oher sudens who possess similar bacgrounds (Ni, 2012). This de-faco exclusion of disadvanaged sudens is no difficul o undersand. If hese sudens cos more o educae, and a school mainains high educaional sandards, bu does no inves in he remedial programs or insrucion from which hese coss arise, i follows ha disadvanaged sudens will end o drop ou due o sheer frusraion. In conras, insiuions wih inflexible enrollmen crieria do no exclude disadvanaged sudens, bu heir inabiliy o specialize ends o decrease heir educaional efficiency, poenially discouraging managers whose compensaion is based on efficiency. The principle underlying he discussion of TPS and NPS ceners on rewards, no organizaional srucure and adminisraion. The purpose of enrollmen flexibiliy is o faciliae specializaion, and hence, he developmen of programs ha are more effecive in addressing he needs of a paricular ype of suden (Bidwell & Kasarda, 1975) wihou excluding disadvanaged sudens. This, in urn, suggess educaional managers should be rewarded whose innovaions creae greaer educaional achievemen per level of resources consumed (Ladd, 2002). If his can be done, i opens he door o compeiion hrough which managers are moivaed o ever more producive innovaions. The resoluion of he TPS-NPS conflic, hen, would be o creae incenives ha promoe innovaion wihou biasing he sysem agains disadvanaged sudens. While his is no mean as i is no impossible. Is accomplishmen depends on boh he poliical undersanding needed o design appropriae incenives and he managemen experise needed o exploi hem hrough innovaive educaional programs. The purpose of his paper will be o explore he impac of educaional srucure (TPS versus NPS) and incenives by informing he discussion of educaional policy wih personal experience. The experience is delivered hrough paricipaion in a simulaion game in which players ae he role of educaional managers who creae schools, compee for sudens, and deliver educaion o heir sudens hrough he expendiure of scarce resources. Players will receive feedbac on heir educaional efficiency and effeciveness, boh a he school level (where i provides a basis for financial rewards) and he conribuion of heir educaional effeciveness a he socieal level (where i provides a basis for socieal welfare). The pos-game debriefing will lin he school and socieal perspecives, helping players undersand he public dialog regarding educaional policy and srucure. This cass our insiuional level simulaion in he larger conex of he socieal objecives he educaional managers are inended o serve. SW f j, j1 SW = Socieal welfare a ime quaion 1 = The magniude of educaion achieved by individual j a ime = The oal populaion of individuals a ime wihin sociey who are candidaes for educaion. f( ) = A funcional form ha generaes a posiive socieal welfare value for individuals j who receive a paricular level of educaion, and ha generaes a negaive social welfare value for individuals j who receive a paricular level of educaion i ha falls below he hreshold required for hem o economically susain hemselves. Page Developmens in Business Simulaion and xperienial Learning, volume 41, 2014 (1)

3 SOCITY S PRSPCTIV As a firs sep, le us consider he educaional problem from sociey s perspecive. Socieal welfare increases wih boh he number of people who are educaed and magniude of educaion received. Boh are imporan. If he sysem raises he average educaion level by focusing solely on high-performance sudens, he average will oversae socieal welfare by discouning he imporance of lowperformance sudens who will be lef wihou he economic or social advanages of educaion. Conversely, if he disribuion excludes addiional educaion for high-performance sudens in favor of a more uniform disribuion of basic educaion, he average will undersae poenial welfare by failing o exploi he conribuions available from highly gifed individuals who, given he requisie level of educaion, migh mae ransformaive conribuions from which everyone would receive disproporionae benefis. While we migh argue ha a disribuion conaining individuals wih paricularly high levels of educaion migh benefi he overall suden populaion, he opposie is rue for a disribuion conaining individuals wih paricularly low levels. Low levels of educaion creae social coss ha go beyond he lower sandard of living experienced by he educaionally disadvanaged hemselves. These are refleced in he cos o sociey as a whole of welfare and oher social programs designed o assis (among oher people) hose who do no have sufficien educaion o secure employmen by which hey can suppor hemselves in our sociey. We can model hese socieal facors hrough he following seps. For simpliciy, we will assume ha he funcion ha convers individuals level of educaion ino socieal welfare is consan across individuals. Tha is, individuals wih idenical levels of educaion conribue o or derac from sociey a an idenical rae. This of course, is no he case. However, i is rue in he saisical sense when our unis of analysis are relaively large groups of people. quaion (1) will use individuals o represen all individuals in he populaion wih he same level of educaion. I begins by posiing a socieal welfare funcion, saing socieal welfare as a funcion of educaion. Consisen wih our earlier reasoning, we are assuming ha here is a level of educaion above which he socieal welfare funcion yields posiive socieal welfare and below which here exiss a negaive level of socieal welfare. We assume ha all educaion has a posiive effec. However, when i fails o reach he educaional hreshold, he deficien populaion creaes coss for sociey as a whole This is represened in quaion (2), where he socieal welfare funcion aes wo separae forms, depending on wheher he level of educaion is above or below he educaional hreshold. Noe ha socieal welfare migh be defined any number of differen ways, including everyhing from issues relaing o crime, he deerioraion of neighborhoods and infrasrucure, healh-relaed coss, and governmenal declining ax base o economic well-being. The primary connecion o educaion appears o be indirec: ducaion creaes human capial; human capial increases income; and income increases socieal well-being (Lochner, 2004). However, raher han grapple wih he problems associaed wih he various definiions of socieal welfare, our model will avoid hem by using income as a proxy. I will focus solely on he economic social welfare conribued by educaed individuals. The brea ha signals he educaional hreshold, where > in quaion (2), occurs when he educaional level is high enough ha individuals are able o find sufficien employmen o economically suppor hemselves. When individuals fall below his hreshold, sociey seps in wih welfare and oher suppor programs ha consume socieal resources. For simpliciy, we assume ha all individuals who fall below he hreshold reduce socieal welfare a a consan rae per individual. Inuiively, he consan level of social welfare consumpion can be inerpreed as a level of socieal resources required o enable an individual o subsis. This is expressed in quaion (3). DUCATION OPRATIONS Now, le us shif our perspecive from sociey o he individual educaional insiuion, whose educaional aciviies ulimaely deermine how effecive he sociey SW j1 f f H L for all for all Page Developmens in Business Simulaion and xperienial Learning, volume 41, 2014 quaion 2 = A level of educaion (hreshold) above which an individual yields posiive socieal welfare, below or equal o which yields negaive socieal welfare. f H ( ) = A funcional form ha generaes posiive socieal welfare based on he level of educaion received. f L ( ) = A funcional form ha generaes negaive socieal welfare (social drain) based on he level of educaion received. (2)

4 will be in educaing is ciizens. We assume ha even radiional public schools (TPS) are subjec o enrepreneurial aciviies. ducaional managers respond o performance crieria and oher incenives in he same manner as oher managers, seeing rewards hrough innovaion and superior performance (achievemen and efficiency). The linage beween social policy and acual educaion is vesed in he educaional managers and he incenive sysems (performance crieria and oher incenives) sociey esablishes for hem. We assume ha educaional achievemen, in quaion (1), will ulimaely be a produc of he incenive sysems driving he educaional process managers are ased wih implemening. ducaing an individual requires resources provided by sociey o educaional managers. The level of educaion an individual achieves hrough a given quaniy of resources is posiively associaed wih he individual s inelligence, he individual s abiliy o apply, or leverage, one s inelligence in he educaional process (social grooming), and he naure of he educaional process iself. While inelligence clearly varies by individual, we assume ha i is randomly disribued across populaion groups. Tha is, we will rea i as an exogenous endowmen ha canno be changed hrough educaion. In conras, social grooming is exogenous o he individual, bu i is endogenous wih respec o educaional managers, who may develop programs ha will change i over ime. Social grooming grows ou of concep of social capial, as i has been applied in educaion. Social capial can be broadly defined in he educaional conex as he value added o educaional ransacions by he social influences ha faciliae he educaional process (Dia & Singh, 2002). These grow ou of he wor by Coleman (1988), who posied hree forms of social capial: (1) obligaions and expecaions, (2) informaion channels, and (3) social norms. Of hese, he firs and hird help ensure ha sudens will undersand and comply wih he behaviors necessary o leverage heir inelligence behaviors such as organizing heir ime, aending class, doing homewor meeing deadlines, learning he maerial, hining criically, and in he mos advanced applicaions, learning o each hemselves. The second form of social capial, informaion channels, involves he uilizaion of social newors o gaher informaion necessary o educaional success. We inroduce he erm social grooming o address he fac ha, while he forces guiding educaional success may be social in naure, he learning iself ulimaely occurs wihin he individual. Tha is, an individual is groomed o hin feel, and ulimaely, respond o educaional simuli in ways ha improve inellecual and social abiliy, hus increasing his/her abiliy o learn. The erm social grooming is adoped o differeniae learning ha occurs hrough social capial aciviies from social capial iself. In he words of Coleman (1988), unlie oher forms of capial, social capial inheres in he srucure of he relaions beween acors and among acors. I is no lodged in he acors hemselves (p. S98). In conras, social grooming is wha lodges in he individual learner. As we have suggesed, educaional managers can improve social grooming by dedicaing a porion of sociey s resources o remediaing social grooming deficiencies, providing social capial o improve an individual s abiliy o apply inelligence in he learning process hrough menoring programs, paren engagemen, and so forh. Specifically, we assume ha educaional managers can increase social grooming a a decreasing rae by invesing socieal resources ino such programs. In oher words, we assume ha grooming sudens for applicaion of he mos basic elemens of he learning process (organizing one s ime, aending class, doing homewor meeing deadlines, ec.) is less expensive han grooming sudens for higher-level processes (learning he maerial, hining criically, and in he mos advanced applicaions, learning o each oneself). The funcional form ha describes he conversion of levels of inelligence, social grooming, and socieal resources ino educaion is deermined by educaional managers hrough heir decisions regarding he design and implemenaion of an educaional process. The efficiency of a process in convering sociey s resources ino educaion is negaively correlaed wih he sandard deviaion of social grooming wihin each program s suden body. Inuiively, his implies ha a manager can creae economies of scope by cusomizing a learning environmen o caer o a paricular level of social grooming. For insance, we have noed ha sudens from disadvanaged bacgrounds ofen ransfer from charer schools bac o neighborhood TPS, even hough he TPS offer an inferior educaion (Ni, 2012). Presumably, his reflecs a endency of he superior schools o address heir beer-prepared SW f H D w D j, 1 j, j, j1 QUATION 3 D j = An indicaor variable equal o 1 when he educaion level of individual j is sufficienly high ha individual j yields posiive social welfare a ime, and equal o 0 oherwise. w = A consan rae of social welfare consumed by individuals whose educaion level falls below he educaional hreshold above which he individual conribues o social welfare. Page Developmens in Business Simulaion and xperienial Learning, volume 41, 2014 (3)

5 sudens, leaving less-prepared sudens confused and uncomforable. This problem could be addressed by a school ha focused on he specific problems of sudens wih similar ypes and levels of educaional deficiency. Furhermore, he efficiency of an educaional program is also a funcion of he size of he manager s suden body. Tha is, here exis economies of scale hrough coss ha increase a a decreasing rae relaive o he number of sudens. xamples may include coss of physical faciliies, educaion equipmen, and adminisraive saff. There are also diseconomies of scale in individual class size and eacher class load. As such, we assume ha he efficiency of educaion gained per socieal resource invesmen in educaion increases a a decreasing rae in he number of sudens enrolled in an educaional program. Assume ha he quaniy of resources required o educae an individual varies from zero o infiniy. We can represen he effec of an educaional program, including m a I 1 C 1 Page Developmens in Business Simulaion and xperienial Learning, volume 41, 2014 resource invesmens in social grooming and educaional processes, hrough quaions (4) and (5), respecively. In quaion (4), educaional insiuion s reurn on an invesmen in social grooming of a suden, depends on he suden s inelligence, I, muliplied by a response parameer, a, indicaing he degree o which differen levels of inelligence leverage he invesmen in social grooming. Noe ha he impac of social grooming expendiures are adjused by a roo, m, of he beginning level of social grooming, -1. This represens he fac ha insiuions experience diminishing reurns on invesmens in higher levels of social grooming. If m were equal o 2.0, and a suden had no social grooming (a level of 1.0), he invesmen would have full, or maximum, effeciveness (1.0-2 =1.0). If a suden had s grooming level of 2.0, he same invesmen would be only 25% as effecive (2.0-2 =.25). This creaes sraegic ension for he educaional manager, who mus decide how much o inves p 1/ n a I b d 1 C 1 1 = Social grooming level of individual j wihin educaional manager s populaion of sudens afer he social grooming process (a ime ) on a scale where an absence of social grooming would be defined as 1.0. = Resources devoed o socially grooming individual j wihin educaional manager s populaion C j,, of sudens for ime period-ending I = Inelligence level of individual j wihin educaional manager s populaion of sudens a = Social grooming response parameer ha describes he effec of inelligence on social grooming invesmen efficiency m = Parameer ha describes he slope of he concave funcion convering resources devoed o social grooming ino social grooming = The magniude of educaion achieved by individual j wihin educaional manager s populaion afer he educaional process (a ime ) = Resources devoed o educaing individual j wihin educaional manager s populaion of C j,, sudens for ime period-ending QUATIONS 4 AND 5 = Social grooming level argeed by educaional manager s educaional sraegy = The oal number of sudens comprising he populaion managed by educaion manager a ime a = ducaion response parameer ha describes he effec of inelligence on educaional invesmen efficiency b = Social grooming response parameer ha describes he effec of he level of social grooming on educaional invesmen efficiency d = Social grooming response parameer ha describes he magniude of he effec of he fi beween he level of a suden s social grooming and he level of social grooming educaional managers curriculum is designed o educae p = ducaional efficiency response parameer ha describes he slope of he effec of he fi beween he level of a suden s social grooming and he level of social grooming educaional managers curriculum is designed o educae n = Parameer ha describes he slope of he concave funcion convering resources devoed o educaion ino educaion (4) (5)

6 in social grooming versus educaion. The lower he level of social grooming possessed by incoming sudens, he more aracive social grooming would become, whereas beer groomed sudens would call for a greaer invesmen in educaion. Looing a quaion (5), we again see he leveraging effec of inelligence, where a deermines he impac of I on he effec of educaional expendiures. We also see he leveraging effec creaed by social grooming, where b deermines he degree o which -1 increases he efficiency of he educaional budge. Third, we see how focusing he curriculum on a paricular level of social grooming affecs efficiency. The absolue difference beween a suden s level of grooming and he level argeed by he program, -1 -,, indicaes he program s degree of focus, where he larger he number, he lower he focus. The parameer p represens he relaive impac of small versus large variaions in sudens social grooming, while d deermines how imporan hese are in deermining educaional efficiency. Finally, parameer n deermines he effec of economies of scale on efficiency, where values beween 0 and 1 indicae economies of scale whose magniude decreases wih increasing enrollmens. SOCITAL RSOURCS AND MANAGR S INCNTIVS As discussed earlier, sociey endows educaional managers wih a discree quaniy of resources ha can be used o increase social grooming and/or educae individuals wihin heir educaional program. The resources endowed can be consrued as a discree budge ha an educaional manager can allocae o social grooming and/or educaional processes as depiced by equaion (6). Alhough here are counless possible approaches o esablishing an educaional manager s socieal resource endowmen, for simpliciy, we consider an approach where he socieal resource endowmen is based on a fla per suden rae (v). This is described hrough quaion (7). Consider an incenive sysem where educaional managers personal compensaion is a funcion of he number of sudens educaed and he magniude of he change in educaional level of sudens enrolled in heir program. quaion (8) illusraes an incenive funcion ha compensaes managers based on he number of sudens who gain educaion and on he overall aggregae increase in educaion wihin he suden body. The median measure addresses he need for broad educaional achievemen, whereas he oal change encompasses poenially large changes in he educaional level of a poenially limied number of sudens wihin he suden body. Given his incenive sysem, educaional managers objecive is o maximize boh he breadh (across he suden body) and he overall educaional increase derived from he discree socieal resource endowmen. TRADITIONAL AND NON- TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS Tradiional public schools (TPS) differ from nonradiional public schools (NPS) in he flexibiliy of heir admission policies. A TPS sysem is usually required o supply an educaional opion for any suden wihin is geographic boundaries (Lacireno-Paque, e. al., 2002). In conras, while local laws ofen do no permi NPS o recrui a paricular suden populaion; NPS can sill manipulae heir suden body by using enrance exams. If an NPS can demonsrae hrough an enrance exam ha a suden is unprepared for he lowes level academic class ha he NPS offers, hen he NPS can legally urn ha suden away (Lacireno-Paque, e. al., 2002). Because academic success posiively correlaes wih social grooming, NPS educaional managers can effecively creae a lower limi on he disribuion of social grooming wihin he populaion of sudens ( ) o avoid admiing sudens who are paricularly cosly o educae and/or are no wellsuied o he school s curriculum. As such, his paper proposes a simulaion where NPS managers have he flexibiliy o esablish admission policies wih a lower limi MIN of social grooming. This enables paricipans aing he role of NPS educaional managers, o explore he quaions 6 and 7, j1 C, C j1 C Socieal Resources budge consrain (6) C v C Socieal Resources endowmen = Socieal resources endowed o educaional manager for period-ending v = ndowmen of socieal resources per enrolled suden (7) Page Developmens in Business Simulaion and xperienial Learning, volume 41, 2014

7 possibiliy of creaing specialized programs ha address a paricular level of social grooming as a means of improving educaional efficiency. In conras wih NPS educaional managers, TPS managers do no have he flexibiliy o esablish admission policies ha exclude sudens wih a paricular level of social grooming. However, hey can sill specialize hrough heir choice of curriculum. When sudens have a choice beween educaional opions and sudens desire o enroll in a program ha is well-suied o heir level of social grooming, hey will naurally selec he TPS program if i is bes suied o heir needs. To illusrae, consider an educaion mare consising of wo educaional programs, one NPS and one TPS. The manager of he NPS program esablishes a mid-level social grooming minimum admission requiremen and a curriculum argeing highlevel social grooming sudens. The manager of he TPS program canno influence he ype of suden enrolling heir program hrough admission requiremens. However, he TPS manager can dissuade mid- and high-level social grooming sudens from choosing his/her program by esablishing a curriculum argeing low-level social grooming sudens. By doing so, he TPS program enjoys economies of scope derived from a relaively homogeneous populaion of low-level social grooming sudens, effecively specializing is program. DVLOPING TH SIMULATION GAM The objecive of our game is for educaional managers o develop programs ha will maximize social welfare (SW) hrough heir educaional impac, subjec o heir budge consrain (equaion 6) wihin a compeiive mare consising of a discree number of sudens (). Managers of TPS mus mae hree decisions: Firs, hey mus decide wha level of social grooming heir curriculum is argeing ; second, hey mus decide wha porion of heir,,,,, q w j j1 quaion 8 Page Developmens in Business Simulaion and xperienial Learning, volume 41, 2014 Compensaion funcion socieal resource endowmen is devoed o he social C j, j1 grooming process ; and hird, hey mus decide wha porion of heir socieal resource endowmen is C j, j1 devoed o he educaional process. Managers of NPS face one addiional decision, ha of MIN admission policy. Table 1 describes he decision variables faced by radiional and non-radiional public school managers: (see Table 1 on he page 154) As discussed earlier, compeiion for sudens arises when sudens may choose from more han one educaional program opion and sudens desire o enroll in a program well-suied o heir level of social grooming. quaion (9) reflecs sudens enrollmen decision funcion wihin his compeiive environmen: (See equaion 9 on pg 155) The suden enrollmen funcion (9) indicaes ha he number of sudens included in educaional manager s populaion ( ) is limied o sudens meeing he minimum MIN social grooming admission requiremen and o sudens whose level of social grooming is bes mached wih he curriculum offered by manager relaive o all oher curricula available. DBRIFING The simulaion game debriefing should address hree issues: Assessmens of educaional efficiency, compensaion, and social welfare derived from educaional effeciveness (Δ ). ducaional efficiency reflecs he ~ = Compensaion earned by educaional manager for educaion produced in period-ending = Median change in educaional level of individuals wihin educaional manager s populaion, of sudens for period-ending = Change in educaional level of individual j wihin educaional manager s populaion of j,, sudens for period-ending q = ducaional managers compensaion rae per median change in educaional level w = ducaional managers compensaion rae per oal change in educaional level (8)

8 efficien use of limied resources in achieving educaional effeciveness. The change in he level of educaional effeciveness per uni of resources endowed provides a summary measure of educaional efficiency, C. In addiion, he debriefing should also include informaion abou sources of educaional efficiency such as emporal rends associaing changes in educaional efficiency wih changes in economies of scope, he fi beween sudens social grooming and he educaional j j 1,, 1 curriculum. By so doing, he debriefing calls paricipans aenion o he benefis derived from early invesmens in social grooming and admission policy. The second par of he debriefing should call aenion o educaional manager compensaion. Compensaion is parially deermined by educaional efficiency insomuch ha managers use heir limied resources o generae he mos educaional effeciveness possible (equaion 8). However, compensaion also reflecs he breadh and magniude of educaional effeciveness achieved. As such, compensaion provides paricipans wih feedbac regarding he breadh and scale of heir educaion program. Comparing compensaion wih educaional efficiency allows paricipans o realize he radeoffs hey made beween he scale and efficiency of heir educaional program. Finally, as discussed early in he paper, sociey endows educaional managers wih resources wih he inen of maximizing social welfare hrough educaional effeciveness. Recall ha sudens achieving levels of educaion above he educaional hreshold conribue o social welfare, while hose whose educaional level is below he hreshold consume social welfare. We propose ha he final componen of he debriefing include a discussion of social welfare (SW), boh ha generaed by each paricipan and ha generaed in aggregae across all paricipans. The debriefing should specifically address he proporions of sudens ha achieve educaional levels above and below he educaional hreshold. This illusraes how paricular educaional sraegies influence boh he overall increase in and disribuion of conribuors o social welfare. By so doing, he paricipans can realize he full impac of heir educaional program choices on accomplishing sociey s educaional objecive. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of our proposed simulaion is capured in he ile of his paper: Modeling ducaional nrepreneurship and Is Social Consequences: A Sin-inhe-Game Approach o xploring he Relaionship beween Free nerprise and Social Policy. I is no mean o be a poliical saemen, bu raher, a ool for helping saeholders in he shaping of our public school sysem o become more aware of how flexible/inflexible enrollmen policies shape he sraegies employed by educaional managers. As educaional managers in he simulaed school managemen mare, paricipans will have sin in he game in ha hey will experience he pressures of limied resources, he rewards of educaional success, and he exhilaraion of exploring alernaive mehods of achieving ha success. One of he obvious problems wih his, or any simulaion, is ha he validiy of he simulaion iself is a funcion of is underlying assumpions. One of he criical assumpions in our proposed simulaion is ha of economies of scope increased educaional efficiency hrough argeing sudens wih a specific level of social grooming. One migh argue ha educaion includes encouraging sudens wih differing socioeconomic bacgrounds o learn o respec each oher hrough daily ineracion. Insomuch as social grooming is correlaed wih socioeconomic condiions, educaional programs ha specialize in paricular levels of social grooming may offer limied opporuniies o encourage sudens o respec socioeconomic diversiy. The lieraure has expressed Decision Variable: Descripion: School Type: Level of social grooming educaional manager s curriculum is designed o educae TPS and NPS j1 C j, TABL 1 PARTICIPANT DCISION VARIABLS Resources devoed o socially grooming individuals wihin educaional manager s populaion of sudens TPS and NPS j1 C j MIN, Resources devoed o educaing individuals wihin educaional manager s populaion of sudens Admission requiremens policy in erms of minimum level of social grooming Page Developmens in Business Simulaion and xperienial Learning, volume 41, 2014 TPS and NPS NPS only

9 concern ha charer schools encourage self-segregaion o he derimen of eaching respec for socioeconomic diversiy (Ni, 2012). An addiional problem wih simulaion is is abiliy o adequaely reflec all variables ha influence oucomes. This paper focuses on how educaional managers can design programs ha specialize in meeing specific social grooming needs, independen of he roles of inelligence and learning disabiliies in educaional effeciveness. In pracice, i may be difficul o deermine if sudens are sruggling academically because hey lac social grooming, because hey lac inelligence, or because of some oher obsacle, such as a learning disabiliy (Lindsay, 2007). We recognize he need for fuure simulaions o design radeoffs ha may exis beween economies of scope and scale along inelligence, learning disabiliies, and oher poenially dimensions of educaional effeciveness. To avoid discriminaion, some saes place legal resricions on admission requiremens available o NPS educaional managers. As such, we recognize he need for policy research o deermine he feasibiliy of creaing an educaional mare predicaed on he heoreical assumpions proposed in his paper. For example, fuure researchers may wan o explore he role ha sae legislaure plays in he conflic beween economies of scope and suden diversiy. As menioned earlier, sociey benefis from schools ha maximize educaion among as many members of a populaion as possible. Principles of economics sugges ha specializaion is he bes way o do his. However, mos saes also ry o encourage suden diversiy, a goal ha may conflic wih economies of scope. The simulaion described in his paper focuses on how educaional managers migh rade off economies of scope and scale o design an educaional program ha maximizes educaional effeciveness. Specifically, managers mus balance he allocaion of heir resources beween educaion and social grooming programs ha will improve he sudens abiliy o learn. This paper does no describe exacly wha a social grooming program migh enail. I would necessarily include a process designed o remediae any holes in he sudens abiliy o learn efficienly. Such a process migh include eaching sudy and ime managemen sills. I would also liely incorporae processes designed o beer uilize aspecs of social capial as i is described in j j1 MIN quaion 9 Page Developmens in Business Simulaion and xperienial Learning, volume 41, 2014 ; `~ he educaion lieraure, paricularly by increasing he expecaion of coninued educaion, discussing fuure careers, and faciliaing posiive social ineracions beween sudens who reinforce each oher s commimen o educaional success. Fuure research migh explore wha ind of grooming program or combinaion of programs is mos liely o appeal o a paricular suden populaion. RFRNCS Bidwell, Charles. & ohn D. Kasarda. (1975). School Disric Organizaion and Suden Achievemen. American Sociological Review, 40:1 (February), Coleman, ames S. (1988). Social Capial in he Creaion of Human Capial. American ournal of Sociology, 94:supplemen, S95-S120. Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1994). Performance-Based Assessmen and ducaional quiy. Harvard ducaional Review, 64:1 (Spring), Dee, Thomas S. & Helen Fu. (2004). Do Charer Schools Sim Sudens or Drain Resources? conomics of ducaion Review, 23:3 (une), Dia, Sandra L. and Kusum Singh (2002). Applicaions of Social Capial in ducaional Lieraure: A Criical Synhesis. Review of ducaional Research, 72:1 (Spring), Garcia, David R., Lee McIlroy, & Rebecca T. Barber. (2008). Saring Behind: A Comparaive Analysis of he Academic Sanding of Sudens nering Charer Schools. Social Science Quarerly, 89:1 (March), Harvey, ames. (2012). Privaizaion: A Drain on Public Schools. ducaional Leadership, 69:4 (December/ anuary), Lacireno-Paque, Naalie, Thomas T. Holyoe, Michele Moser, & effrey R. Henig. (2002). Creaming Versus Cropping: Charer School nrollmen Pracices in Response o Mare Incenives. ducaional valuaion and Policy Analysis, 24:2 (Summer), Ladd, Helen F. (2002). School Vouchers: A Criical View. ournal of conomic Perspecives. 16:4 (Fall), Ladd, Helen F. & Randall P. Walsch. (2002). Implemening Value-Added Measures of School ffeciveness: Suden nrollmen funcion MIN = Lower limi of social grooming suden admied in educaional manager s program (equal o zero for TPS) = Operaor indicaing coningen on crieria are me ~ = All educaional programs no managed by manager (9)

10 Geing Incenives Righ. conomics of ducaion Review 21:1 (February), Levin, Henry M. (2012). Some conomic Guidelines for Design of a Charer School Disric. conomics of ducaion Review, 31:2 (April), Lindsay, Geoff. (2007). ducaional Psychology and he ffeciveness of Inclusion ducaion/mainsreaming. Briish ournal of ducaional Psychology, 77:1 (March), Lochner, Lance. (2004). ducaion, Wor and Crime: A Human Capial Approach. Inernaional conomic Review, 45:3 (Augus), Ni, Yongmei. (2012). The Soring ffec of Charer Schools on Suden Composiion in Tradiional Public Schools. ducaional Policy, 26:2 (March), Sirin, Selcu R. (2005). Socioeconomic Saus and Academic Achievemen: A Mea-Analyic Review of Research. Review of ducaional Research, 75:3 (Fall), Page Developmens in Business Simulaion and xperienial Learning, volume 41, 2014