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.


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:


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.


Quantifying the Popcorn

January 23, 2009

scores-on-doors

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

No time to write a lengthy discussion of it (why did I waste all that time this morning composing a post on something as useless as education policy?) but don’t miss the fascinating article in today’s Wall Street Journal on the history of, and debates over the merits of, the practice of movie critics assigning stars, letter grades, or “thumbs” to movies as a quick and easily accessible, yet frustratingly reductive, indication of their judgment on a movie.

Among other things, the article asks some prominent movie critics to give a star ranking to the practice of ranking movies by stars. One gives the practice four stars (“It helps the reader, and it helps us”) while another gives it one and a half (“It’s not necessary to film criticism but it’s not something that undermines it”). Some people quoted in the article are actively hostile to the practice, though.

The article is by “The Numbers Guy,” Carl Bialik, who apparently has a blog under that title at the Journal‘s website. Who knew? On the blog he has a follow-up to the story with more quotes and tidbits, including one critic who complains that he doesn’t know how to give an accurate ranking to a movie that he hated, yet enjoyed watching for its awfulness:

“The toughest one for me was Gran Torino, which I think is a terrible film but nonetheless found immensely entertaining in its awfulness,” Las Vegas Weekly film critic Mike D’Angelo told me about his 100-point grading system on his personal Web site. “I wound up giving it 34/100, which includes like 20 bonus points for camp value.”


Jeb for National School Grades

January 23, 2009

BUSH EDUCATION SUMMIT

“Everybody do the FCAT! Yeah!”

HT Orlando Sentinel

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

This morning, Jeb Bush comes out for a national school grading system on NRO.

What he’s proposing is a federal grade A to F for each school, based on both performance level and improvement – kind of the way Florida schools are graded under the A+ system (though Jeb doesn’t propose federal sanctions for poorly performing schools, just a grading system). He justifies the move on grounds that the NCLB system encourages states to lower standards.

Jeb doesn’t discuss this in the article, but readers of JBGB know that a clash has been brewing between Florida’s A+ program and NCLB. Florida, which has had success with the A+ program (where improvement in performance is a factor alongside performance level), is going to run into the 2014 “everybody must be proficient” wall along with everyone else.

No doubt our own Matt Ladner, chronicler of the looming conflict in the posts linked above, will have more to say about this (hopefully including some more classy artistic illustrations), but just to put my own two cents in, I’m not clear on why there needs to be a national grade.

For that matter, I’m not even convinced we need a national test, since that sacrifices the merits of interstate competition. At both the state and federal levels, the test is being developed and implemented by a bureaucracy that is heavily colonized by the defenders of the status quo and thus will be looking for opportunities to dumb down the test or manipulate the scoring to make schools look better. But if one state dumbs down while another (under political pressure from reformers) stays the course and makes real improvement, that creates pressure on the dumb state to get with it.

The impetus for a single national test, it seems to me, is because federal rewards and punishments create an incentive to dumb down. If we’re not going to have rewards and punishments based on the scores, what’s the need for a single national test? Why not just require each state to maintain a transparent testing system of its own devising – or, if that’s not good enough, require each state to purchase and use one of the major privately developed national tests?

But we can leave that aside. Let’s stipulate the case for a national test. Still, if you’re not going to hold schools accountable with rewards and penalties, then why issue grades along with the test scores? Why not just give a test and report the results numerically, and let private organizations put together their own grading systems? That way people can decide for themselves what aspects of performance measurement matter most, rather than turning the job over to a federal bureaucracy that has an incentive to make schools look better.


Son of Super Chart!

January 22, 2009

The only good bug is a DEAD bug!

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Readers will recall Super Chart! showing that teacher quality makes a huge difference in student outcomes, while certification status does not. Drawn from the same Brookings study comes Son of Super Chart, showing that you can pretty much tell who your bad teachers are after a couple of years based on student learning gains.

This isn’t rocket science: invite ineffective teachers to do something else with their professional careers other than damaging the prospects of children. Give highly effective teachers more students and more money.

Now that we’ve sorted out this whole education crisis thing, I’ll look forward to reading Jay’s take on the season premiere of Lost.

scan0001


Marcus Winters on School Choice Savings

January 21, 2009

savings

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Since we’re on a money kick this week, let’s combine that theme with education (this blog is still about education, right?) and note that our friend Marcus Winters has an article on NRO today on how vouchers save money.

For those looking to dig deeper, here’s an analysis of the fiscal impact of every school choice program from 1990 through 2006. Every program was at least fiscally neutral, and most saved money.


My Bogus Journey through Airport Security

January 21, 2009

sesame-street-homeland-security

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Last week I was on the road, and coming through airport security on my way home Friday I was selected for special scrutiny. It was a truly disheartening experience.

Not because I mind being scrutinized, but because of the amazingly incompetent way it was done. If I’d been carrying any contraband, it would have been ridiculously easy to evade security.

We shouldn’t be surprised, I suppose. Look at the irrationality of the way they screen the general population. They scan our shoes separately because years ago some guy snuck in a bomb in his shoes. I guess there’s no other part of our clothing we could ever use to sneak in a bomb! And they strictly control the liquids we’re allowed to bring on. Unless those liquids are contained in a baby bottle or prescription vial, in which case they’ll be waved through without inspection.

And let’s not forget Danielle Crittenden’s experiment wearing a full burka for a week to see what it was like. In the last of the four installments, she goes to DC’s National Airport wearing the burka and buys a one-way, same-day, refundable ticket to New York, announcing to the ticket agent that she has no luggage. She’s pulled aside for additional screening – but they never look under her burka. She could have had a bomb under there, and nobody would have known. They don’t even feel confident that they have the right to look at her face to confirm that she is the person depicted on her ID:

“Do you have to wear black?”

“No,” I replied. “But black is more traditional, more conservative. You blend more in.”

“Not here.” He laughed. “You stand out.”

The woman began telling me about her religious upbringing. It was at this point I realized my security inspection was over, and I was now conducting an Islamic tutorial: Burkas 101. Other passengers selected for secondary screening came and went. I’d been held back for a good quarter hour.

Then the female guard, growing cautious again, asked if it was “culturally okay” for me to remove my face covering. “When women like you come through, we don’t know what’s ‘correct.’ Like if I want to see that your face matches your ID, can I ask you to show me your face?”

It’s a good thing I was wearing a mask so the guard could not see my astonishment. The security agents at the airport serving the nation’s capital–bare seconds of air distance from Capitol Hill, the Pentagon, the White House–did not feel entitled to check the identities of veiled women. Clearly, they hadn’t even received any special sort of instructions about it.

I assured the security agent that it was indeed okay for a woman officer to ask a veiled woman to show her face. More than okay! I stressed again and again: So long as only women saw my face I’d have no trouble removing my mask if you wanted to check my ID!! Really, it’s fine…!

The guard nodded. “Thank you–you’ve been so helpful,” she said, rising. “We don’t want to keep you. Hey, have a great time in New York!”

And so I passed through security without ever having to show my face.

Fortunately, my ticket was refundable. Just as the friendly Delta agent had promised.

If you want to read the whole thing, here’s parts one, two, and three, along with three subsequent discussions.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, here’s my own excellent adventure:

When the guy at Dulles checking boarding passes looked at my pass, he turned around and shouted, “runner!” Then he turned back and, without a word to me, started checking the next person’s pass.

Let me pause for a moment to note that here in Milwaukee, I’ve seen people selected for extra screening, and they’re politely told that they’ve been selected for extra screening, and the process is then briefly and politely explained to them. And there was almost no line behind us, so he wasn’t rushing to accomodate a crowd.

But the more important point is that, while he was waiting for a “runner” to come and take my boarding pass, the man paid no attention to me whatsoever. My carry-on and my “personal item” (a plastic bag) were sitting on the floor. If either or both had contained contraband, I could have simply left them there and picked up the bags of my associate who was travelling with me, and my associate (who was the next person checked and who therefore knew right away that he had not been selected for additional screening) could have picked up mine. No one would have been the wiser.

Then the “runner” comes and takes my boarding pass, and the guy checking passes grunts that I’m to take my bags (not that he knows which ones are mine) and go through security.

So I take my bags over to the security line and start taking off my coat and shoes, etc. The “runner” has now handed off my boarding pass to the guy on the other side of security and is doing other things. Nobody is watching me as I fiddle with my stuff, open my bag and put my keys and cell phone inside, etc. If I’d wanted to dump something under the table, it would have been easy enough to do – I had a bulky coat that I had to take off and fiddle with, which could have been used to transfer something to the floor while I was bent over to take off my shoes, even if somebody had been watching over my shoulder, which they weren’t.

I go through security, then I’m taken aside and wanded. Then I’m sat down in a chair and my bags are brought over and placed on a table. The guard explains that he’s going to open my bags one by one and inspect them, and it’s important that I not touch my bags until the inspection is complete.

Then he picks up the first bag and moves it over to another table to open it, turning completely around so that his back is toward me as I sit there, unobserved, right next to the bags that I’m not supposed to touch.

He inspects each bag with his back toward me the entire time. Then I’m free to go.

I would feel nervous about revealing these weak points to potential terrorists, but they’re so obvious that anyone who cares to know about them already will. It’s clear that the TSA isn’t anxious to prevent people from circumventing security, and who am I to try to be more TSA than the TSA?

Airport security is a placebo. They knew it was a placebo when they tightened it after 9/11. The goal was to get people feeling like it was safe to fly, so that the economy would come unstuck and grow again. But now, they dare not admit it was a placebo. So the farce rolls on, year after year, getting ever more farcical as new and more ridiculous features are stuck onto a system that does nothing whatsoever to accomplish its ostensible core task.

It’s kind of like how we hold elections whose real outcome is determined by which side is more proficient at vote fraud and judicial manipulation. It’s a collossal lie that the smooth functioning of society requires.


Al Gore, Frozen in Time

January 20, 2009

frozen-gore

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Since we’re on an economics kick today: Craig Compeau of Fairbanks, Alaska has sponsored the creation and display of an 8 1/2 foot tall, five-ton ice sculpture of Al Gore. He has organized a local contest to guess how much colder the winter will be in 2008-09 compared to the winter of 1947-48, the year of Al Gore’s birth, with proceeds going to a local charity. This winter Fairbanks has already hit 47 degrees below zero (as in 79 degrees below the freezing point) so the guesses are going to have to be almost as low as Gore’s credibility.

The Associated Press dryly reports that the ice sculpture will be on display “through March unless it melts before then.”

(edited for typos)


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.