Split Thread Does compulsory schooling equate to slavery? (Split from: "Liberal Fallacies" thread)

[Belz...]

Then your argument is with Pinker.

Tut tut. You're being inconsistent now. "You" is personal, remember ?

 

[jimbob]

Then your argument is with Pinker. What sociobiologist or ethologist would have asserted otherwise? What else could "all human behavioral traits are heritable" possibly mean?

Even highly heritable traits seem to be less than 50% determined by genetics.

So it is a bit irrelevant to the discussion about education.

 

[Border Reiver]

I have a basic question on tax funds for public schools. Mr. Kirkpatrick seems to believe that it is wrong for only public schools to receive public funds, because it is unfair to the parents who do not wish to send their children to public schools, but what about those who have no children in school at all?

This is a very basic question regarding what among those things a state regards as a public good, that state is entitled to charge non-users for. I have heard it brought up from time to time by taxpayers who believe that, lacking educable children, they should pay no education taxes at all. Others chime in that they should not pay for other public services they do not directly use. The usual response, which I think has some merit, is that society in general benefits from the provision of certain services, and that billing for services only to those who use them would deny such services to the poor.

So, I would be interested in how Mr. Kirkpatrick resolves this issue. If it is unfair for the parents of home schooled children to pay school taxes, is it also unfair for me to pay school taxes now that my children have grown up? How about other taxes for things I do not use, or for things I do not like? Should only those who use government services be the ones who pay for them?

Thanks for this non-accusatory and thoughtful expression of the issues. Not("good to have" = "good for government to supply or subsidize"). The "public goods" argument makes sense and may yield decent policy conclusions when the "good" is easy to define, broad consensus can be reached on the wisdom of subsidization (or direct provision), and performance of producers is easy to monitor. National defense, roads, crime control, and environmental protection come to mind. Neither "easy to define" nor "easy to monitor" characterize the education industry. What is "education"? How much does any teacher contribute to any particular student's performance? Cartel defenders are always reminding us that schools have to deal with the children of abusive and/or neglectful and/or retarded parents.

If education is not easy to define or easy to monitor for government - why would it be any easier for private industry?

In the case of education, there would appear to be a broad, general consensus on what society wants to see (literacy, numeracy, mathematical problem solving, introduction to scientific principles and knowledge, etc.) Where the dispute often lies in the specifics.

I don't recall using "fair" in this discussion. More materialistically, policies that restrict tax subsidies to institutions operated by government employees yield less benefit to students and society at large than would policies that empower parents to determine for their own children which institution (if any) shall receive the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy.

Lets use inequitable then. although your position is somewhat confusing, you advocate the option to direct the educational tax subsidy to whatever instiution the parent determines. All well and good, although there is no good public policy decision as to why this should be undertaken.

Where is the accountability in the private instiutions for their use of public monies? Who monitors? In the case of fraudulent delivery of services, say the owner/operator of Bob's Discount School decides to abscond with the fees after they have been collected and take off to somewhere else - what now happens to the students? Do they lose their year of education? Do their parents get more cash and we taxpayers hope that they select a more steady organization this time? The potential for abuse and waste of allocating public monies to a contractor through an unregulated third party is bad resource management - period.

When a good or service is as vaguely defined as "education" and policy restricts subsidies to one supplier of education services, regulatory capture and corruption are inevitable. See Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, Hirschliefer, "Anarchy and its Breakdown" (Journal of Political Economy), and Prendergast, "The Market for Yes Men" (American Economic Review).

The definition of "education" is going to be just as vague and ill-defined if the private sector takes over.

I do not believe that society as a whole benefits from a State (government, generally) role in the education industry beyond the role that it plays in the lawn care industry or the kitchen utensil industry: an original assignment of title and a stable system of contract law where non-State actors may resolve contract disputes. The current legal environment in which the education industry operates is far from that. Society has a large investment in the current institutional structure. Revolutionary change imposes large costs in lost information. Incremental change makes more sense than revolutionary change. Within the current framework of tax support of schools, government operation of schools, accreditation of schools by quasi-independent accreditation agencies, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and compulsory attendance laws, I support most expansions of educational options for children and parents: vouchers, subsidized homeschooling, charter schools (with any accredited post-secondary institution authorized to create a charter school), "virtual" enrollment in on-line accredited schools, mandatory (for government school districts) credit-by-exam for all courses required for graduation, and (my preference) Parent Performance Contracting.

This doesn't address Bruto's question.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

*snipped for brevity*

I support most expansions of educational options for children and parents: vouchers 1, subsidized homeschooling 2, charter schools (with any accredited3 post-secondary institution authorized to create a charter school), "virtual" enrollment in on-line accredited 3 schools 4, mandatory (for government school districts) credit-by-exam for all courses required for graduation 2, and (my preference) Parent Performance Contracting 5.

Ad 1: Issued by who? And who controls that the money is actually spent on education?
Ad 2 :Who ensures the homeschooling acutally teaches what current society demands from highschool graduates?
Ad 3:Accredited according to who? Who sets the standards? Who controls the standards?
Ad 4: WHo is going to check wether these Online schools actually deliver what they claim, rather than becoming diploma mills with someone else doing the tests for the students?
Ad 5: Anyone who has ever worked in schools knows that you're lucky if 5% of the parents is willing and able to actually donate time to help out due to the fact that most parents work full time. This system seems to assume that not only will parents suddenly become enough of an expert in high school subject that the can teach, but that they can make the time to do so. In both aspects it resembles fantasy far more than reality.

If anything this system would grossly bloat the number of civil servants needed to suddenly oversee a fragmented and utterly random series of tiny schools in order to ensure that any form of useful education is occurring.

 

[RandFan]

I would support targeted vouchers for poor students. However, I would require that students attend a school that is secular and meets state standards.

I would support homeschooling and online training if students were required to take semi-finals and finals administered by a third party, and, that these finals be taken on-site at a state run learning center or public school using a closed computer network or using paper tests.

Parental control only works when the parents are motivated to be involved. Studies that show that parental control is effective are like the studies that show that people who graduate medical school are on average more competent than those who never even finish high school. It's not the medical school that makes people competent anymore than the NBA makes people tall or even great ball players. It's genetics and environment.

You have to keep in mind diminishing returns. If for some reason everyone was required to graduate medical school it would not mean that the level of competency would rise significantly anymore than a program that stresses or requires parental involvement will cause most parents to be involved.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And private industry would be unable to provide educational services without a definition of "education" either.
Other than attempting to poison the well against state involvement in education, all your statement means is that the body responsible for the provision of a service needs to know what is to be provided, and from that can make decisions on how it can be provided.

Quite true. In a minimally-regulated, unsubsidized market in education services, the providers and customers would operationally define "education" at the time of purchase, with the purchase.

Given that in a democracy such as the US, Canada, the UK, etc. there is often considerable public input on policy, and the way and means to achieve policy goals this does not exclude interested parties from making their views known. Government does not act in a vacuum, nor is separate from the society that it serves.

True again. Now imagine democratic control of restaurants and grocery stores. Would we conduct a nationwide vote on the menu that all restaurants offer? Just imagine the glorious religious wars we could have between Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and secular omnivores. How 'bout democratic control over the shoe industry? What would be the outcome of a State-wide vote on the one size and style of shoes that children in each one-year age cohort must wear? Brains are more variable than feet.
Earlier ...

The "public goods" argument makes sense and may yield decent policy conclusions when the "good" is easy to define, (added: choices are simple), broad consensus can be reached on the wisdom of subsidization (or direct provision), and performance of producers is easy to monitor. National defense, roads, crime control, and environmental protection come to mind. Neither "easy to define" nor "easy to monitor" characterize the education industry.

 

[Border Reiver]

Quite true. In a minimally-regulated, unsubsidized market in education services, the providers and customers would operationally define "education" at the time of purchase, with the purchase.

No education would not be defined at the time of purchase, it would need to be defined as part of the business plan of the organization offering the service.

True again. Now imagine democratic control of restaurants and grocery stores. Would we conduct a nationwide vote on the menu that all restaurants offer? Just imagine the glorious religious wars we could have between Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and secular omnivores. How 'bout democratic control over the shoe industry? What would be the outcome of a State-wide vote on the one size and style of shoes that children in each one-year age cohort must wear? Brains are more variable than feet.
Earlier ...

You've ignored the part of my earlier statement that these democratic societies have come to a rather broad based consensus on what we are looking for the educational system to deliver.

If you wish to enagage in absurdities - imagine the private industry military:

a. Units switching sides in battle because the other side offered more money.
b. Opposing commanders coming to private agreements to "go easy" on their opponents to prolong the war to ensure longer contracts.
c. Reminding employers that, if the contract isn't extended, etc. that the now unemployed soldiers are no longer bound by those pesky rules such as "don't plunder the locals."

Imagining that a modern functioning, democratic society would engage in the absurdity of legislating footwear or restaurant menus in the manner described goes far beyond the experience of humanity.

Imagining the effects of a "private industry military" is a whole lot easier with the examples of the condottiere and the landsknects.

Now, lets drop the arguments ad absurdium

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

*snipped for brevity*
I support most expansions of educational options for children and parents: vouchers ¹, subsidized homeschooling ², charter schools (with any accredited³ post-secondary institution authorized to create a charter school), "virtual" enrollment in on-line accredited ³ schools ⁴, mandatory (for government school districts) credit-by-exam for all courses required for graduation ², and (my preference) Parent Performance Contracting ⁵.

1. Issued by who? And who controls that the money is actually spent on education?
2. Who ensures the homeschooling acutally teaches what current society demands from highschool graduates?
3. Accredited according to who? Who sets the standards? Who controls the standards?
4. WHo is going to check wether these Online schools actually deliver what they claim, rather than becoming diploma mills with someone else doing the tests for the students?
5. Anyone who has ever worked in schools knows that you're lucky if 5% of the parents is willing and able to actually donate time to help out due to the fact that most parents work full time. This system seems to assume that not only will parents suddenly become enough of an expert in high school subject that the can teach, but that they can make the time to do so. In both aspects it resembles fantasy far more than reality.

If anything this system would grossly bloat the number of civil servants needed to suddenly oversee a fragmented and utterly random series of tiny schools in order to ensure that any form of useful education is occurring.

1. Whichever agency subsidizes the cartel's schools in each State. Hawaii, with a single, State-wide school district subsidized through the State general fund, would present few problems (aside from its union-dominated politics). For many current inmates of the cartel's schools "education" is not taking place now. The choice is not between flawed human parents and altruistic genius government-employed angels but between flawed parents and flawed State employees.
2. Whoever writes legislation would determine the mechanism. Who currently enforces educational neglect statutes?
3. Current accreditation agencies. No problem.
4. Who monitors online "public" schools today? Who monitors oncology labs? Who monitors meat processors? All you really need is reliable ID and an examination facility (unused classroom). The British National University doesn't seem to consider this obstacle insurmountable.
5. Parents' current indifference and time allocation priorities are a product of the current institutional environment. What's the point of concern if the only result of beating one's head against a bureaucratic wall is an indented skull fracture?

We disagree about the resources required to monitor performance under Parent Performance Contracting. All PPC requires is standardized tests of reading vocabulary and reading comprehension (any language) and Math, and an examination facility. This is a lot simpler than the current system.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I would support targeted vouchers for poor students.¹ However, I would require that students attend a school that is secular² and meets state standards³.

I would support homeschooling and online training if students were required to take semi-finals and finals administered by a third party⁴, and, that these finals be taken on-site at a state run learning center or public school⁵ using a closed computer network or using paper tests.

Parental control only works when the parents are motivated to be involved. Studies that show that parental control is effective are like the studies that show that people who graduate medical school are on average more competent than those who never even finish high school. It's not the medical school that makes people competent anymore than the NBA makes people tall or even great ball players. It's genetics and environment.⁶
You have to keep in mind diminishing returns. If for some reason everyone was required to graduate medical school it would not mean that the level of competency would rise significantly anymore than a program that stresses or requires parental involvement will cause most parents to be involved.

1. Why this restriction? If voucher-subsidized competitive markets in education services raise performance and lower costs (they do), why choke the competition? What's the point of giving schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel any special consideration?
2. Why this restriction?
3. Do government schools have to meet State standards? What happens to any school that does not meet State standards?
4. Add "subsidized" to "homeschooling" and we agree. I don't worry much about unsubsidized homeschooling. Subsidization implies either monitoring or fraud.
5. Why this restriction?
6. There's an interesting discussion to be had here. It's hard to design properly controlled experiments in social policy in a free society.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Tut tut. You're being inconsistent now. "You" is personal, remember ?

I don't treat friends and enemies the same. Do you? Jimbob and I are almost at the "du" stage.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

No education would not be defined at the time of purchase, it would need to be defined as part of the business plan of the organization offering the service.

Funny. I don't recall doing that when I was a tutor. Parents heard that I delivered the goods and I took students where I found them and taught what I could. It worked. Music teachers and AP-History prep coaches don't need formal job descriptions, either.

You've ignored the part of my earlier statement that these democratic societies have come to a rather broad based consensus on what we are looking for the educational system to deliver.

They have to. The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". Society loses in the consequent compression of individual differences. Brains vary more than feet.

 

[Border Reiver]

Having taken a look at the "Parent Performance Contracting and while an interesting idea, it offers few to no advantages over the present system, and greatly increases the opportunities for wastage of public resources and potential for harm to the student.

First, the students must still undertake standardized tests, this system uses "age level" vice the grade level presently in use. The grade level, while related to age, is not tied to age. In the present system exceptional students can be pushed ahead faster, and those children with difficulties can be moved slower, while an age based system would allow this, the potential gap between the age of the student and the level at which they perform could be every increasing. If a student can perform at a grade 12 level at age 12, why would you base your testing on age, vice performance level?

Second, PPC is narrowly focussed on reading (comprehension and vocab) and Math so that the parents/guardians can recieve the grant, which would not encourage other fields of study, as continued reciept of the stipend is soley based on Math and Language - ie. if you've got say $2,500 riding on little Timmy getting a mark of x on his math test, why are you letting him study history or civics? He doesn't need that in order to do well on the math test!

Third, PPC rests on the concept that educational funding is based on an amount of money being allocated for every child in the district every year, regardless of their actual participation in the system. Continuing to offer the students or parents the stipend after their graduation would have the effect of increasing costs to the school board/Dept of Education, as they would now have to budget for persons who otherwise would not be able to draw on public monies.

While I understand that what you have proposed there is to provoke discussion, I do not think that it offers significant advantages over the present system in its present form.

 

[Border Reiver]

Funny. I don't recall doing that when I was a tutor. Parents heard that I delivered the goods and I took students where I found them and taught what I could. It worked. Music teachers and AP-History prep coaches don't need formal job descriptions, either.

What you've decribed here is a pre-existing business plan. You offered broad-based tutorial services, that was your business plan. Others undoubtedly were more specialized, so if you wanted your child to get more focussed tutoring in Math you went to the specialist in Math - not the person who taught piano. The decision to offer specialized or more general services is a business plan.

And I'm sure that if a parent asked you would have been able to present a list of subjects that you were capable of tutoring in.

They have to. The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education".

And the definition that has been adopted is one reached by a lengthy process public input.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Having taken a look at the "Parent Performance Contracting and while an interesting idea, it offers few to no advantages over the present system, and greatly increases the opportunities for wastage of public resources and potential for harm to the student....

Seems to me the opposite is the case. Parent Performance Contracting reduces facility requirements. If the PPC per-pupil budget is less than district's per-pupil budget, either the district keeps the difference, the State spends the money on additional services elsewhere, or the taxpayers save.

If a student can perform at a grade 12 level at age 12, why would you base your testing on age, vice performance level?

PPC creates incentives to out-perform the cartel's schools. "Age-level" expectations use either a national norm or district-level median as a standard against which to measure performance.

Second, PPC is narrowly focussed on reading (comprehension and vocab) and Math so that the parents/guardians can recieve the grant, which would not encourage other fields of study, as continued reciept of the stipend is soley based on Math and Language - ie. if you've got say $2,500 riding on little Timmy getting a mark of x on his math test, why are you letting him study history or civics? He doesn't need that in order to do well on the math test!

The same objection applies to any definition of "education". A minimal definition (Math and reading) leaves room for whatever other pursuits that parents and children might value. I see no advantage in compressing all possible interests into a few categories.

Third, PPC rests on the concept that educational funding is based on an amount of money being allocated for every child in the district every year, regardless of their actual participation in the system. Continuing to offer the students or parents the stipend after their graduation would have the effect of increasing costs to the school board/Dept of Education, as they would now have to budget for persons who otherwise would not be able to draw on public monies.

Depends. Since governments already spend money on the 6-18 population, PPC adds no cost (discounting migration from independent or parochial schools). This objection applies with considerable force to jurisdictions in which a substantial fraction of the 6-18 population already attends independent schools. There are two ways to address this issue: (a) start with 1st grade and add a year of eligibility each successive year (b) calibrate the stipend to the level of participation. Other countries have shifted from State-monopoly school systems to voucher-subsidized competitive markets in education services without disruption, so this cannot be an insurmountable obstacle.

While I understand that what you have proposed there is to provoke discussion, I do not think that it offers significant advantages over the present system in its present form.

I'd like to see a trial. Given the success of subsidized homeschooling in Alaska and vouchers in Chile and Sweden, I expect PPC would draw a sizable market share.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

What you've decribed here is a pre-existing business plan. You offered broad-based tutorial services, that was your business plan. Others undoubtedly were more specialized, so if you wanted your child to get more focussed tutoring in Math you went to the specialist in Math - not the person who taught piano. The decision to offer specialized or more general services is a business plan....

I tutored Math (and English, to Korean immigrants).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

This is what happens when one's arguments fail and one isn't yet ready to give up.

The discussion concerns the contribution that organized violence (the State) can make to the education industry. Why not contribute something other than vapid sniping?

 

[Border Reiver]

Seems to me the opposite is the case. Parent Performance Contracting reduces facility requirements. If the PPC per-pupil budget is less than district's per-pupil budget, either the district keeps the difference, the State spends the money on additional services elsewhere, or the taxpayers save.

However, the fixed costs of the facility are still there - heating, water, electricity, computer bandwith, etc. and since funding for schools is based on students enrolled, you've now cut their budget, but not the costs.

PPC creates incentives to out-perform the cartel's schools.

Only in two subjects. And stop using "Cartel" - the various teacher's unions don't control the school boards, or the various legislative bodies - they are the EMPLOYEES of the people that do.

"Age-level" expectations use either a national norm or district-level median as a standard against which to measure performance.

Why not use the grade level standards already in place?

The same objection applies to any definition of "education". A minimal definition (Math and reading) leaves room for whatever other pursuits that parents and children might value. I see no advantage in compressing all possible interests into a few categories.

Why just those subjects? Surely with the increasing needs for persons in various Research and Development fields sciences is something to encourage? At the public schools you have a broad based curriculum at lower grades that can be increasingly tailored to the interests and abiilties of the students as they progress - with the bonus that the student's ability/comprehension is tested.

Depends. Since governments already spend money on the 6-18 population, PPC adds no cost (discounting migration from independent or parochial schools). This objection applies with considerable force to jurisdictions in which a substantial fraction of the 6-18 population already attends independent schools. There are two ways to address this issue: (a) start with 1st grade and add a year of eligibility each successive year (b) calibrate the stipend to the level of participation. Other countries have shifted from State-monopoly school systems to voucher-subsidized competitive markets in education services without disruption, so this cannot be an insurmountable obstacle. I'd like to see a trial.

While not insurmountable, the set-up costs in monitoring, and the increased costs in bureaucracy lead me to believe that this would be ultimately less efficient than the present system for greater overall costs.

If you want a trial, convince a sufficient portion of the electoral base of Hawaii that the idea has enough merit to be tried.

Given the success of subsidized homeschooling in Alaska and vouchers in Chile and Sweden, I expect PPC would draw a sizable market share.

Homeschooling in Alaska is almost a necessity, given the widely dispersed nature of the population outside the few population centres and the substantial social and economic costs of trying compulsory centralized schooling.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

However, the fixed costs of the facility are still there - heating, water, electricity, computer bandwith, etc. and since funding for schools is based on students enrolled, you've now cut their budget, but not the costs.

There are no fixed costs; only costs that change more slowly than others. Districts can sell or rent unused land and buildings.

Only in two subjects.

I regard the stripped-down definition of "education" as a virtue. It leaves room for parents to customize curriculum. Uniformity ("equality") is a virtue to socialists, conformists, and obsessive-compulsive personalities.

And stop using "Cartel" - the various teacher's unions don't control the school boards, or the various legislative bodies - they are the EMPLOYEES of the people that do.

I recommend Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation and Steuerle, et. al. Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services. Public sector unions dominate the coalition of insider interests that control the taxpayers' age 6-18 education-dedicated revenue stream. "Cartel" fits.

Why not use the grade level standards already in place?

Commercially-available standardized tests are simpler and cheaper and just as reliable.

Why just those subjects? Surely with the increasing needs for persons in various Research and Development fields sciences is something to encourage? At the public schools you have a broad based curriculum at lower grades that can be increasingly tailored to the interests and abiilties of the students as they progress - with the bonus that the student's ability/comprehension is tested.

Why suppose that State employees will out-perform parents? The evidence is against this.

While not insurmountable, the set-up costs in monitoring, and the increased costs in bureaucracy lead me to believe that this would be ultimately less efficient than the present system for greater overall costs.

Monitoring is minimally expensive. The facilities and tests already exist.

If you want a trial, convince a sufficient portion of the electoral base of Hawaii that the idea has enough merit to be tried.

It will happen somewhere else before Hawaii. Public-sector unions dominate politics here.

Homeschooling in Alaska is almost a necessity, given the widely dispersed nature of the population outside the few population centres and the substantial social and economic costs of trying compulsory centralized schooling.

Right. That was the initial rationale. Then the State authorized students in regular schools to participate. Regular districts lost enrollment to the subsidized homeschooling option. Parents provide better instruction for less money, per pupil, than conventional schools.

 

[RandFan]

1. Why this restriction? If voucher-subsidized competitive markets in education services raise performance and lower costs (they do), why choke the competition? What's the point of giving schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel any special consideration?
2. Why this restriction?
3. Do government schools have to meet State standards? What happens to any school that does not meet State standards?
4. Add "subsidized" to "homeschooling" and we agree. I don't worry much about unsubsidized homeschooling. Subsidization implies either monitoring or fraud.
5. Why this restriction?
6. There's an interesting discussion to be had here. It's hard to design properly controlled experiments in social policy in a free society.

1. As I explained, the argument is a bit like saying that the NBA makes people tall. Granting for sake of argument your assertion, the studies typically deal with motivated parents. That said, I don't accept your premise without a great deal of caveats.
2. (see #1)
3. I want an educated citizenry. Everyday poor people go into the dollar store or some other discount store and buy worthless crap that will, in the end, cost them more than good quality items. Like can openers for instance. Manufacturers and service providers have discovered that there is a lot of money to be made by selling worthless junk to poor people. Competition for whatever money poor people have has resulted in the poor getting screwed. Of course we can always blame poor people. But is that really going to help their children? Why wouldn't marketers create sub par schools for poor people? The poor (and many in the middle class) are far more interested in the cost of an item and not the quality. Besides, good marketing can make a worthless piece of plastic look like gold on a TV Advertisement. Just look at all of the worthless junk being sold via infomercials.
4. Yes. As to what happens, the state can take control or shut the school down.
5. It's been explained to you already. It's the diploma mill problem that churns out idiots like Kent Hovind who, before he was in prison, traveled the world telling people he was a PHD. If you know anything about the skills necessary to write a thesis for an institute of higher education then all you need do is read his thesis.
6. I agree with your premise but I hardly think the concept of diminishing returns as it applies to such a varied species like human beings is at all controversial.

 

[RandFan]

There are no fixed costs; only costs that change more slowly than others.

In accounting, the cost of land and buildings are "fixed costs".

In management accounting, fixed costs are defined as expenses that do not change as a function of the activity of a business, within the relevant period.

IOW: A fixed cost is one that will not fluctuate for the coming fiscal year due to increased or decreased business.

Examples that might seem to be exceptions but are not.

1. Your landlord might raise your rent during the fiscal year but that has nothing to do with the fluctuations of sales. If your landlord does raise your rent you will then have the same monthly payment for the duration of the fiscal year.
2. If sales increase sufficiently there will need to be capital investment to improve and increase capacity. Once made, the cost of capital investment will stay relatively stable in cost of maintenance, deprecation and if financed, financing cost (interest).