Doing Isn’t the Same As Knowing

January 25, 2009

I spent a few days with students at Amherst College last week discussing education policy.  In general those students were very impressive and had excellent questions and insights to offer.  One smart student raised an issue that I’ve heard numerous times and would like to address here:  Can one really make claims about education policy without having some experience as a teacher or administrator?

The argument goes something like this — Teaching is a complicated and challenging task with many nuances.  People who make proposals for education without having experienced those complications and challenges of teaching run a serious risk of missing important nuances.  Without the benefit of direct experience their proposals may well fail or backfire.  So, we need to be sure to consult educators when making policy proposals.

This argument amounts to giving educators intellectual veto power over policy proposals.  But arguing “you just don’t understand the issues because you haven’t been a teacher” isn’t very compelling. 

First, direct experience has limited usefulness for policy-making.  Policies apply to broad populations, but experience is necessarily limited to particular places, times, and circumstances.  You almost certainly cannot generalize from particular experiences to general policies.

Second, direct experience is almost universal.  Just about everyone has spent a large portion of their life in schools and/or sending children through schools.  The problem isn’t that people are unfamiliar with schools.  The problem is that everyone is so familiar with schools that they wrongly think they know everything about them from their direct experiences, even though those experiences have necessarily been limited by time, place, and circumstance.

Third, our direct experience creates interests that may well distort our policy views.  People who work for schools obviously have interests as employees that may be distinct from the interests of children, parents, or taxpayers.  But parents also have direct experiences that can distort their interests.   For example, if they have a child in GT, they may push for more emphasis on gifted and talented programs.

The antidote to these distortions of direct experience is consideration of systematic data.  We may never be able to fully check the biases that result from our direct experiences, but systematic data extends our knowledge beyond the limited and distorted information derived from those experiences.  And systematic knowledge can be shared among people of different experiences so that they can reference a common set of information to consider desirable policies.  To know things about education policy we should put the focus on systematic data and try to de-emphasize our experiences.

To help the student consider the limitations of experience, I asked her if we should let soldiers have an effective veto over military policy.  Why do we normally have a civilian secretary of defense?  Why have 4 of the last 5 presidents lacked any serious military experience and nevertheless been viewed as legitimate commanders-in-chief?  I know some people think we ought to defer to military personnel on military policy, but I think that view is as mistaken as deferring to educators on education policy. 

And should we defer to doctors in the making of health policy?  How about deferring to construction workers in the making of transportation policy?  Or how about deferring to bankers in the development of financial regulations?  The people who do something aren’t necessarily the people who know what should be done.  Doing isn’t the same as knowing.

7 Comments | politics, teacher quality | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Only Bubba Hog Can Save Us

January 24, 2009

With another SEC home game loss the Arkansas Razorback basketball season is going down hill fast.  I fear that the only thing that can save us is the return of Bubba Hog, who has been absent this season.  Here you can see what the team has been missing:

1 Comment | college sports | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Get Lost 7

January 23, 2009

First let me gloat.  I was right on target in predicting that time travel would be the central feature of Lost’s plot over the last two seasons.

That being said, it is important not to get lost (so to speak) in trying to figure out the details of how time travel works.  Lost is no more about the mechanics of time travel than Star Trek is about the mechanics of dilithium crystals.  These are just plot devices that create tensions and constraints with which the characters interact.

So, now that I’ve predicted the technical theme of the plot, let me suggest what I expect the substantive theme to be going forward.  It will all be about finding one’s constant, and a constant is just a metaphor for the attachments that one has in this world that give our life meaning and purpose.  In some sense we are all adrift in time and space, as are the Losties, and search for people and things to which we can tether ourselves. 

Daniel has Desmond as his constant.  Desmond has Penny.  John Locke has his compass (likely among other things).  My guess is that we will learn about everyone’s search for a constant over the next two seasons.  For Benjamin Linus my guess is that Annie is his constant.  For Sawyer it will be Kate. 

Not everyone will find their constant.  Not everyone will keep theirs.  In the end, the people without constants will truly be lost.

UPDATED to add a few random thoughts:

1) Never be the whiny guy on Lost, like Neal, ‘cuz the whiny guy is always toast.

2) Marvin Candle, aka Pierre Chang, has a a baby at the beginning of the episode.  Perhaps they could reproduce on the island before the “incident” caused by the negatively charged exotic material.  Also, perhaps Miles is the baby, who sort of resembles Pierre Chang.  This would help explain his special powers and comfort with the island.

3) Dead people who visit the living always give good advice.  Anna Lucia told Hurley to avoid getting arrested, but he did anyway.  That was a mistake.

4) Sun was clearly manipulating Kate and probably against what Ben wants.

5) Ms. Hawking may well be Daniel’s mom.

5 Comments | Lost | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

January 20, 2009

I have a plan to get the economy going again — click our heels together three times.

Look, the economy will eventually get better. People will claim that whatever policies are adopted are responsible for that recovery regardless of whether those policies had any effects and even if they were harmful. We’ll never be able to sort out the causal relationships.

Did the New Deal bring us out of the Depression? Many economists doubt it, but decades of Democratic dominance in American politics were built on that claim. Times were awful, the New Deal involved a lot of activity, and eventually the economy got better. But if the New Deal didn’t deserve any of the credit or was actually harmful, then giving it credit led to decades of faulty policy prescriptions.

I fear we are about to make the same mistake. Before all is said and done we will spend trillions on various schemes and eventually the economy will get better. Are we going to wrongly credit the huge government spending?

That’s why I say that I am going to click my heels together three times to fix the problem. When things eventually get better I am going to claim that heel-clicking really did the “magic” of the recovery. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

And if things don’t get better soon enough I am going to say that I didn’t click heels enough. It should have been six times.

2 Comments | economics | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

A Modest Proposal

January 19, 2009

As we at JPGB have been arguing for many months and in many posts, giant federal bailouts are unlikely to have any beneficial effects and may well do harm.  (See for example here, here, and here.)  But if we have to have a new $800 billion stimulus package on top of the already adopted  $700 billion financial bailout on top of the trillions in implied or explicit loan guarantees via the federal takeovers of Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Bank of America, Citi, etc…, there might be a smarter way to do it.

So I would like to offer my modest proposal for the new $800 billion stiumuls package — voucherize it.  Give every man, woman, and child in the US a check good for an equal portion of the $800 billion.  With 300 million people that works out to about $2,667 dollars.  A family of four would get a total of $10,667. 

If it’s true that the federal government needs to tax, borrow, or print the money to stimulate the economy (a theory that makes no sense to me), can’t we at least empower everybody to use the money in the way they think best rather than the way that a bunch of log-rolling, pork-eating, back-slapping politicians think best? 

If schools really need to be rebuilt, let local communities pass a bond referendum and raise their taxes,whose cost could be defrayed by the extra cash we just put in everybody’s pockets.  If the community thinks that they need better roads instead of better school buildings, they could direct their bailout voucher funds in that direction.  If banks really need more capital, then they can earn the deposits from these bailout vouchers.  If the consumer needs more resources to keep spending, the bailout voucher puts cash in their pocket.  If people are having trouble paying their mortgages, the bailout voucher eases their burden.

Rather than having the priorities set in Washington, the bailout voucher lets the priorities of the stimulus package be determined by everybody.  Do we have any reason to believe that Washington knows best which schools need to be remodeled or which bridges need to be built or which mortgages should be refinanced?

Much of the intellectual work over the next four years is going to be to reshape dumb policy ideas that are going to get passed even though they shouldn’t.  Let’s start by urging that the stimulus package be voucherized.

(edited to correct typos)

4 Comments | economics | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Man On Wire

January 18, 2009

I just saw the excellent documentary Man on Wire last weekend about Philippe Petit’s daring tight-rope walk between the two towers of the World Trade Center in 1974.  Petit, a Parisian street performer, juggler, and high-wire artist, obsessed for six years on his dream to rig a wire between the roofs of the two buildings almost 1/4 mile above the street and walk across it.  With the elaborate planning of a bank heist, he studied the towers, devised a method to rig the wire, and sneak his team and equipment into place.  And then he did it.  And it was spectacular. 

We are drawn to people with the vision, determination, and skill to accomplish great things.  Petit is a Howard Roark… or a Howard Hughes.  But like Roark and Hughes, Petit also comes off as crazy and narcissistic.  Does great achievement require some amount of insanity?  The right amount of obsessive compulsive disorder might help provide the focus and drive to do something extraordinary.

And like Roark and Hughes, people might doubt the true worth of Petit’s accomplishments.  In the movie he’s asked why he went to all this effort to walk on a tight-rope between the twin towers.  “There is no why,” he replies.  At other times he would answer: “When I see three oranges, I juggle; when I see two towers, I walk.”

3 Comments | random pop culture | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Greg Nails the School Stimulus Proposal

January 18, 2009

Think we should spend $100 billion as part of the new “stimulus” (read: pork) plan on school buildings?  Greg Forster’s piece on Pajamas Media will convince you otherwise.

3 Comments | money myth | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Get Lost in Time

January 17, 2009

Richard meets Ben for the first time in the jungle. ("The Man Behind the Curtain")Richard learns that the majority of the survivors have left the camp. ("Through the Looking Glass")

The Ageless Richard Alpert

Our Get Lost feature would normally appear on Friday, but it has encountered “negatively charged exotic matter” and was moved in time to today (Saturday).  Similarly, when Ben moved the Island, I suspect he moved it in time, not space.  The question is when is the Island, not where. 

There are several clues to support the view that time travel is a central to understanding the mysteries of the Island.  To find the island Charles Widmore required the services of time-travel scientist, Daniel Faraday.  People who approach (or leave) the island incorrectly are dislocated in time, as was Desmond and several of the freighter’s crew.  The rocket fired from the freighter obviously time travelled before it reached the island.  The Island is hidden by time, not space.

Even off the Island, Ms. Hawking is able to predict the future, suggesting time travel.  Miles is able to speak with the dead; perhaps he travels back in time.  When Ben is transported to the Tunisian desert he asks the hotel clerk what year it is. 

Back on the Island we know that Desmond could glimpse the future (time travel).  And Richard does not age (more time travel). 

Here’s my best guess of how time loops and travel will help resolve the mysteries:  Under Lost rules one cannot really change Fate because the world auto-corrects for any attempt to change it (as Ms. Hawking suggests).  The plot of Lost will be resolved by showing the futile attempts to change Fate loop back into the same time-line. 

I think the time-line begins with the Black Rock, which carrying metals from a slave-operated mine, is attracted to the exotic material of the Island and hurled upon its mountain-side.  The survivors of the Black Rock include Charles Widmore and someone from the Hanso family.  Widmore was in charge, but over time there are schisms among the Black Rock survivors and Charles is forced to move the Island in time and is teleported off the island and to modern times. 

The Others, including Richard, are the descendents of the Adam and Eve skeletons, which I suspect are two of the survivors of Flight 815 who looped back in time.  They stop being able to reproduce for some reason, perhaps related to the arrival of the Black Rock and Charles’ moving of the Island.  Time stops moving forward for the Others, which is why they can’t age but also can’t reproduce.

Hanso clashes with these Others and eventually brings in Dharma to study and exploit the Island’s time-travel properties.  Widmore desperately wants to get back to the Island to reclaim what was his.  The Others recruit Ben to get rid of the Hanso led Dharma group and to re-start time for them by discovering how to reproduce.

The Losties are drawn to the Island as part of the auto-correction for whatever changes the Dharma experiments have produced.   All of these efforts are doomed to failure since changing Fate is impossible.  Locke is cured of his paralysis and Rose is cured of cancer only because they have moved back in time, but eventually Fate will auto-correct and their ailments will return.

In the end both Jack, the man of science, and Locke, the man of faith, will be vindicated.  They were destined to be on that Island, as Locke suggests, but the exotic material and time-travel will provide the “scientific” explanation Jack insists must exist.  And in the very end, we’ll discover that the two skeletons in the cave — the Adam and Eve — are two of the last people remaining alive on the Island — perhaps Sawyer and Kate.  And maybe Aaron survives that time loop and is the initial leader of The Others.

The appearance of dead people, like Christian Shephard, and the whispers in the jungle will all be explained by time travel.

Who knows how exactly the writers will resolve the mysteries, but it is safe to bet that it will involve time loops and unchangeable Fate.  And in some ways the way in which the mysteries are resolved is beside the real point of the series.  The real point is the character development as they confront the tensions and mysteries that we all confront in some way.  Dwelling too much on the mystery of the plot is the same sort of mistake people make with M. Night Shyamalan movies.  They aren’t really about the twist.  They are about the issues and mysteries in life before the twist resolves them.

3 Comments | Lost | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

The Growing Charter School Consensus

January 15, 2009

A string of high quality studies is finding that students benefit academically from attending a charter school rather than a traditional public school. 

First we had a random-assignment study of Chicago charter schools by Caroline Hoxby and Jonah Rockoff that found “that students in charter schools outperformed a comparable group of lotteried-out students who remained in regular Chicago public schools by 5 to 6 percentile points in math and about 5 percentile points in reading.” 

Then Hoxby conducted a random-assignment study of charter schools in New York City and found: “that the average effect of the charter schools on math is 0.09 standard deviations for every year that a student spends in his or her charter school. The average effect on reading is 0.04 standard deviations for every year that a student spends in his or her charter school.” 

Then Kevin Booker (Mathematica), Tim Sass (Florida State), Brian Gill (Mathematica), and Ron Zimmer (Rand)used a well-designed instrumental variable analysis to see whether charter middle-schoolers who continue to charter high schools are more likely to graduate.  They are. 

And most recently a random-assignment analysis of charter schools in Massachusetts led by Tom Kane at Harvard and Josh Angrist at MIT found that charter school students accepted by lotteries significantly outperformed their counterparts in traditional public schools, unless the charter school was operated by the teacher unions.

In light of these high quality studies, it is harder to oppose charter schools on a scholarly basis.  And with the clear support of charters from the incoming Obama administration, it is getting harder to opposed charter schools on a political basis — at least at the national level.

But don’t expect to see the teacher unions waving a white flag despite their losses in research and national politics.  They don’t need facts or the support of the US Department of Education so long as they continue to dominate local school politics. 

And that is exactly why they have focused on organizing local charter schools to neutralize the threat to their grip on local school politics.  As my colleague Marcus Winters writes today in the New York Post, the unions managed to organize two successful charter schools in New York City.  The fact that union-run charter schools in Massachusetts trailed the non-union charters in performance is not of concern to the unions.  It isn’t about student achievement; it’s about keeping their hold on power even as the facts pile up against them.

3 Comments | charter schools | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

New DC Voucher Study

January 13, 2009

My colleague Pat Wolf released today a new study of the DC voucher program based on focus group interviews of families.  It found high levels of parental satisfaction with the program, even among families that returned to the public system.  People appreciated having the choices and felt more involved in their children’s education.

Of course, these satisfaction outcomes don’t usually move the debate very much.  Opponents of voucher programs tend not to be persuaded by parental reports of satisfaction because they doubt the judgment of parents.  That’s why they are skeptical about choice.  And supporters of vouchers view satisfaction outcomes as important, but they are already inclined to trust parental assessments.

But the report provides plenty of contextual information that is useful and interesting even if it is not decisive.  A new test score analysis of the DC voucher program is expected sometime this Spring.

Leave a Comment » | vouchers | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »