Swedish Education Irony Alert!

April 4, 2012

Meet the two coolest things ever made in Sweden.

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

In the new issue of NR, the invaluable Kevin Williamson profiles Massachussetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren. He writes that in a book they co-wrote, Warren and her daughter “offer an array of policy prescriptions ranging from the mild (decoupling public-school assignments from geography) to the Swedish (subsidizing stay-at-home parents)…”

Oops! It’s actually “decoupling public-school assignments from geography” that’s the Swedish idea here. Sweden has had a national system of universal school vouchers since 1993. They’ve even developed economically sustainable for-profit school companies. It’s so successful that about a year ago the Social Democratic Party, which I’m tempted to describe as Sweden’s socialist party but will instead describe as its more socialist party, decided not to try to kick the for-profit schools out of the system.

Williamson does have a number of good words for Warren, including this nugget, which ed reformers will particularly enjoy reading:

Warren taught public school briefly and then quit rather than go through the obligatory, despair-inducing credentialing rigmarole (a fact that speaks better of her than almost anything else you’ll learn).


Head Start, A Case Study in the Unreliability of Government Research

March 13, 2012

The Department of Health and Human Resources is up to its old tricks of delaying research whose results are likely to undermine their darling program, Head Start.  A group of five U.S. Senators sent a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius last week demanding an explanation for why the latest round of results of the congressionally-mandated study have not been released four years after data collection was complete and one year after the report was scheduled to be released.

In 2010 I told you about how the Department of Health and Human Services delayed the release of the previous round of disappointing research results about the lasting effects of Head Start.  When the extremely high quality study, involving a random-assignment design on a representative sample of all Head Start programs nationwide, was finally released three years after the data collection was complete, it found that students randomly assigned to Head Start performed no better on cognitive measures by the end of kindergarten and first grade.

Despite these null results, HHS issued a statement that in typical Orwellian fashion declared the program a huge success.  Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Carmen Nazario was quoted in the statement concluding that “Head Start has been changing lives for the better since its inception.” And Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was quoted declaring that “research clearly shows that Head Start positively impacts the school readiness of low-income children”

If the government’s proclivity to delay the release of politically undesirable results and to manipulate — actually, completely distort – the findings is not enough to engender skepticism among reporters, researchers, and policymakers, I have no idea what will.  But I continue to see reporters, researchers, and policymakers invoke government research as authoritative without the least bit of critical scrutiny.

This uncritical acceptance of government press releases as gospel by reporters is particularly disgraceful.  I understand that reporters are miserably paid and stretched beyond their limit as staffs are reduced, but the heart of a reporter’s responsibility is to challenge the powerful.  And there is no one more powerful than the government.  They are so powerful that they can delay the release of research and declare that up is down when the results do come out.


Here’s Why Victory Looks Like This

March 7, 2012

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Jay points to the way Democrats and progressives are now saying all the same things we’ve been saying for a decade, but acting like they thought of them, and remarks that this is What Victory Looks Like.

He’s right, and here’s why. To large extent, you have to let people “steal” your ideas in order to get victory. It’s not just a price we need to be willing to pay if necessary. It’s always necessary.

Major reform of a cultural system has to start with ideas and practices germinating outside the core institutions of that system. If major reform were welcome inside the core institutions, it wouldn’t be necessary in the first place. The incubators of reform can’t be seen as fringe groups – this is why organized libertarianism has had much less influence than its intellectual seriousness and devotion of financial resources might lead you to expect. But the reform incubators are never going to be inside the core, either. You need something that’s a happy medium between credibility and independence.

Now, for a long time in America, the Democratic party and the progressive ideological movement have been the “core” institutions governing education. When you ask the American people whom they trust to do the right thing about education, they overwhelmingly say Democrats and progressives. That makes them the core.

The key to victory is to get the core groups to adopt the ideas that incubated in institutions outside the core. The greatest challenge is that the core groups want to defend their “core” turf against outsiders. They want to keep control of the core, and they can’t do that if they admit that outsiders have superior ideas. The solution is to get the core groups to co-opt (i.e. steal) the ideas and pretend they thought of them.

So you’re never going to get (very many) Democrats and progressives saying, “Why, yes, as a matter of fact the conservatives were right about education all along!” Admitting that would require them to sacrifice their status as the cultural core institutions of American education. Instead they’re going to say, “What American schools need are good, liberal, progressive ideas like choice, competition, and accountability.”

That’s what victory looks like.


What Victory Looks Like

March 7, 2012

Working on education reform can be very discouraging.  As student achievement continues to stagnate, as spending steadily climbs higher, and as policy changes only in fits and starts, reformers may be tempted to throw their hands up and declare progress impossible.  But there is progress.  It can’t be seen from day to day and it certainly hasn’t produced the outcomes we want, but there is progress.

You really notice the strides that have been made when you step back and think abut what the education reform discussion used to be like a decade ago and what it looks like today.  A decade ago when people like Greg, Matt, and I were talking about the benefits of school choice and the need to address the perverse incentives of lifetime employment tenure for ineffective teachers and salary schedules that reward endurance more than performance, we were treated like dangerous extremists.

Now the issues of choice, tenure, merit pay, testing, and accountability are a normal part of the discussion.  And most interestingly, these are parts of the normal discussion among Democrats — a party that had traditionally been too fearful of the teacher unions to treat discussion of these issues as acceptable.

Matt recently noted this remarkable development of a bipartisan consensus around reform issues.  And both Greg and I have touched on this in the past. But I was reminded of just how far the discussion has come, especially among Democrats, while watching this entire show of Morning Joe on MSNBC focused on education reform.  It featured a panel, almost all of whom were Democrats, and almost all of whom agreed about the same essential issues of education reform that Matt, Greg, and I could barely utter in polite company a decade ago.

To be sure, there is much to do before we make real progress in education.  But at least we are having a productive discussion about ideas that may bear fruit.  That’s progress.

One striking thing about the discussion on Morning Joe and among other groups of Democrats is that none of them acknowledge the change that has occurred in the last decade.  None of them acknowledge that the people who raised the same issues a decade earlier were branded (often by people like them) as right-wing radicals.  They all just act as if they had discovered these education reform ideas all on their own.

At first this annoyed me, but Greg reminded me that victory requires not caring about who takes credit.  If the Democrats for Education Reform-types want to believe that they invented ed reform, who cares as long as it helps produce progress.  And those DFER folks are making huge strides, at least in getting us to talk and think about useful reforms.  And frankly, that progress could only be achieved by having them talk about it, not us.

That’s what victory looks like — someone else who is more likely to be effective taking your ideas forward even if they do so without acknowledging you.


This Deal Is Getting Worse All the Time

February 23, 2012

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Shorter Arne Duncan: The U.S. Department of Education is not pressuring states to adopt Common Core. However, any state that takes action to resist Common Core will be immediately singled out by the Education Secretary for an extremely harsh public denunciation of its education system – which will obviously make it effectively impossible for the Department to look favorably upon that state when doling out grants and waivers for the foreseeable future.


Are Charter Schools Models of Reform for Traditional Public Schools?

January 24, 2012

Yes, answers Roland Fryer in an amazing study released this month.  Based on earlier work, he identified 5 features of charter schools that helped them produce strong results: “increased time, better human capital, more student-level differentiation, frequent use of data to inform instruction, and a culture of high expectations.”  Fryer then somehow convinced the superintendent and school board in Houston to pursue these five reforms in a serious way in 9 struggling traditional public schools.  (CORRECTION — the Houston folks report that they were eager to pursue some promising reforms and required no convincing.  They should be commended for that.)  Here, in brief, is what they did:

To increase time on task, the school day was lengthened one hour and the school year was lengthened ten days. This amounts to 21 percent more school than students in these schools obtained in the year pre-treatment and roughly the same as successful charter schools in New York City. In addition, students were strongly encouraged and even incentivized to attend classes on Saturday. In an effort to significantly alter the human capital in the nine schools, 100 percent of principals, 30 percent of other administrators, and 52 percent of teachers were removed and replaced with individuals who possessed the values and beliefs consistent with an achievement-driven mantra and, wherever possible, a demonstrated record of achievement. To enhance student-level differentiation, we supplied all sixth and ninth graders with a math tutor in a two-on-one setting and provided an extra dose of reading or math instruction to students in other grades who had previously performed below grade level. This model was adapted from the MATCH school in Boston – a charter school that largely adheres to the methods described in Dobbie and Fryer (2011b). In order to help teachers use interim data on student performance to guide and inform instructional practice, we required schools to administer interim assessments every three to four weeks and provided schools with three cumulative benchmarks assessments, as well as assistance in analyzing and presenting student performance on these assessments. Finally, to instill a culture of high expectations and college access for all students, we started by setting clear expectations for school leadership. Schools were provided with a rubric for the school and classroom environment and were expected to implement school-parent-student contracts. Specific student performance goals were set for each school and the principal was held accountable for these goals.

And the result:

In the grade/subject areas in which we implemented all five policies described in Dobbie and Fryer (2011b) – sixth and ninth grade math – the increase in student achievement is dramatic. Relative to students who attended comparison schools, sixth grade math scores increased 0.484σ (.097) in one year. In seventh and eighth grades, the treatment effect in math is 0.125σ (.065) and is statistically significant. A very similar pattern emerges in high school math: large effects in ninth grade and a more modest but statistically significant effect in tenth and eleventh grade, which suggest that two-on-one tutoring is particularly effective. The results in reading exhibit a different pattern. If anything, the reading scores demonstrate a slight decrease in middle school, though not statistically significant, and a modest increase in high school. Impacts on attendance – which are positive and statistically insignificant – are difficult to interpret given the longer school day and longer school year.

Strikingly, both the magnitude of the increase in math and the muted effect for reading are consistent with the results of successful charter schools. Taking the treatment effects at face value, treatment schools in Houston would rank third out of twelve in math and fifth out of twelve in reading among charter schools in NYC with statistically significant positive results in the sample analyzed in Dobbie and Fryer (2011b).

Using data from the National Student Clearinghouse, we investigate treatment effects on two college outcomes: whether a student enrolled in any college (extensive margin) and whether they chose a four-year college, conditional on enrolling in any college (intensive margin). Calculated at the mean, students are 6.2 percentage points less likely to attend college, though the effect is not statistically significant. Conditional on attending college, however, treatment students are 17.7 percentage points more likely to enroll in a four-year institution, relative to a mean of 46% in comparison schools – a 40% increase.

Traditional public schools can get results like a KIPP school without having to actually become KIPP schools.  They just have to imitate a few of the key features employed by KIPP and other successful charter schools.  This is incredibly encouraging news.  It means that traditional public schools are really capable of making significant progress if only they become more open to learning from successful charter schools.  They can make that progress without having to cure poverty and all other social ills (although I’m sure that would be nice too).

Of course, there are serious concerns about bringing these reforms to scale, which Fryer considers in his conclusion.  He dismisses union opposition as a serious obstacle based on the fact that the unionized school system in Denver is pursuing a similar reform strategy.  I’m not so easily convinced that unions nationwide will jump aboard a plan that involves huge turnover in staffing and significantly more hours and days per year.  Cost is another barrier to bringing this reform strategy to scale, but he notes that the marginal cost is only $1,837 per student and the rate of return on that investment would be roughly 20%.

But the most serious concerns seem to be fidelity to implementation and shortages of quality labor.  We could all be heart surgeons if we just did what heart surgeons do.  But there are only so many people capable of doing that work and not every office building can be re-organized as a hospital.  Then again, successful teaching isn’t exactly heart surgery (although it can be just about as important), so perhaps there is real hope of bringing this to scale.  We won’t know until we try it in more places with more schools.


NYT on Clint Bolick

December 26, 2011

 (Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

The New York Times has a very nice feature on Clint and the GI litigation team.  That scorpion may have to hunt and peck to type, but the sting packs a wallop!


Kim Jong Il Dies

December 19, 2011

Reports are that Kim Jong Il died of a heart attack yesterday.  I can’t be sure that Team America played no role in his passing, but I can hope that it did.  As I wrote in nominating Fasi Zaka for an Al Copeland Humanitarian Award:

…there is another essential element in the arsenal of liberty — ridicule.  Tyrants of all stripes, in addition to being monstrously cruel and evil, are also almost always laughably, pathetically, and outrageously ridiculous.

Charlie Chaplin realized this when he mocked Hitler in  The Great Dictator.  In Dr. Strangelove, Stanley Kubrick portrayed the communist leader as a weepy drunk and the war-mongering general as a paranoid suffering from ED.  South Park has portrayed Osama Bin Laden as the slapstick LooneyTunes villain, Wile E. Coyote.  The Daily Show and Colbert Report make their living off of puncturing the pomposity of politicians.  Humor may not be the best weapon against tyrants, crooks, fools, and all other kinds of politicians, but it is a very important one.

Who knows?  Maybe spot-on ridicule weighs heavily on the heart of vicious tyrants.


Christopher Hitchens Dies

December 16, 2011

I was sad to hear that Christopher Hitchens had died.  He may have gotten many things wrong, but he got the one big thing of his era right — the danger posed by radical Islam to human freedom and dignity.  Check out the video above for a sample.

All of us are deeply flawed and make many mistakes.  But great intellectuals and leaders get the big things of their time right and focus their energy on that big thing.  Abraham Lincoln made many mistakes, but he recognized the evils of slavery and the threat it posed to our Union.  Franklin Roosevelt made more than his share of blunders with the economy, but he recognized the threat posed by fascism and did everything he could to defeat it.  And of course, Christopher Hitchens’ role model, George Orwell, was mistaken about many things but he correctly identified the evils of Communism and the Totalitarianism it brings.

Hitchens was a great man in the tradition of these other great men.  May his warnings about Islamic Radicalism be heeded.

(edited for typos)


The Feds and Data

December 6, 2011

 

Look out! The feds have come to collect you!

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

 Today’s NYT features an op-ed by stand-up guy Rick Hess and pathetically failed charter school founder Linda Darling-Hammond, bemoaning federal micromanagement of schools and also suggesting four things the federal government should be doing in education. Neal replies with a step-by-step critique of the four suggestions. I’m with Neal on most of the issues, but I think Neal underestimates the legitimacy and usefulness of federal data collection.

Neal is correct that much of what Hess and Darling-Hammond ask for under the rubric of “transparency” is unrealistic. But he also writes: “There is precious little evidence Washington can force real transparency. NCLB is exhibit A.” However, he only goes on to discuss the AYP reports. NCLB also required, for the first time, every state to administer the NAEP. That was a huge transformative change. All those state-by-state comparisons everyone has been doing for the last decade, which pop up ubiquitously in education dialogue and have created a lot of real pressure for reform, come directly out of NCLB’s requirement that every state do NAEP.

Neal himself, in the same post, cites a national analysis of NAEP data to argue that NCLB hasn’t lifted scores. I agree! But it was only NCLB’s requirement that every state do NAEP that allowed Neal, myself, and others to know that.

Neal and I have already tangoed on the federalism question enough times before. Short version: I’d prefer to get the feds completely out of education, but since we can’t have that, I’m content to have them ask for basic data collection in return for the funding rather than have them not ask.

Neal is also largely right on the second point in the Hess/Darling-Hammond article; test score disparities shouldn’t be made into civil rights cases. But there are other, more legitimate ways to get at federal civil rights issues. For example, I believe that special education systems that systematically create false diagnoses are a legitimate federal civil rights issue, and if the feds were interested it would be relatively straightforward to create simple auditing systems that would discourage these abuses.

And on the last two items, Neal is bang on. Except insofar as data collection counts as research (see above), government shouldn’t fund studies. It should fund . . . data collection that allows the rest of us to do studies! And the whole competitive grant thing – well, setting up Arne Duncan, Suuuuuuuuuuuuper Geeeeeeeeeeeeenius as a one-man national legislature is just not good mojo.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 959 other followers