The Way of the Future: The Guide on the Side?

January 1, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Over at VoxEU, Lisa Barrow, Elizabeth Debraggio and Cecilia  Rouse present a random assignment study showing that computer aided math instruction led to significantly higher scores for participating students.

We need more research on this, but it seems to back the notion that the schools of tomorrow may look very different from those of today. I’ll wager that mixed models of technology delivered instruction, where a smaller number of highly skilled teachers serve as “guides on the side” rather than a “sage on the stage” ultimately becomes more prevalent.

Of course, that’s only a guess, but ultimately greater experimentation with different delivery methods will point new ways forward.


Separated at Birth?

December 31, 2008

madonna


Arkansas Beats Oklahoma

December 31, 2008

Arkansas basketball was expected to finish last in the SEC this year.  But they are off to a 10-1 start and beat #4 ranked Oklahoma last night.  Keep an eye on Arkansas point guard Courtney Fortson.  Woo pig sooiiee!


Samuel Huntington (1927-2008)

December 30, 2008

I returned from vacation to learn that one of my graduate advisors, Samuel Huntington, passed away on Christmas eve.  Huntington was the type of broad intellectual that has become a vanishing breed in academia.  He had a knack for identifying the big themes that were worthy of our attention and had the courage to make bold arguments while always remaining respectful of those with whom he disagreed. 

Now we are mostly left with academics who dwell on the latest methodological technique rather than what is substantively important.  Just pick up a recent copy of the American Political Science Review and you will search in vain for anything important, useful, and accessible. 

And the public intellectuals who still attempt to ask the big questions too often give answers that have all the depth of a self-help book.  Has Thomas Friedman ever made an argument that was not already the bland conventional wisdom of the Rotary Club in a small midwestern town? 

Josef Joffe said it best: “But who will embark on projects of this kind of sweep, breath and depth? Or write as elegantly as Sam has done?  That’s over in American academia, as is that fabulous confluence between America’s rise to world power and the influx of some of Europe’s greatest minds, courtesy of Adolf Hitler. Never before has there been such a perfect match between the demand for and the supply of great talent. One hates to think what would happen to a young Sam today. He might still graduate from Yale at age 18, but would he have become a Harvard professor at age 23? With that independence of mind, that contrarian spirit, that relentless search for conventional notions to be slain? Would a young Sam still be able to ask the Big Questions? And sin against so many idols demanding fealty to contemporary standards of correctness?”

Huntington’s passing isn’t just the personal loss of a wonderful man, teacher, and scholar.  It also marks the end of an era.


AFT and UAW – More Alike Than You’d Think

December 30, 2008

aft uaw1

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Lots of people are picking up on the temper tantrum about alleged “demonizing of teachers” begun by a Randi Weingarten speech and continued in Bob Herbert’s column on the speech.

Even that notorious right-winger Eduwonk points out that Weingarten and Herbert are hitting a straw man. I think the real problem is not that school reformers demonize teachers but that defenders of the government school monopoly angelize them. When we reformers insist that teachers should be treated as, you know, human beings, who respond to incentives and all that, rather than as some sort of perfect angelic beings who would never ever allow things like absolute job protection to affect their performance, it drives people like Weingarten and Herbert nuts.

guardian-angel

A typical teacher, as seen by Randi Weingarten

But what I’d like to pick up on is the question of whether the troubles of the government school system are comparable to the troubles of the auto industry.

Of the alleged demonizing of teachers, Herbert had written:

It reminded me of the way autoworkers have been vilified and blamed by so many for the problems plaguing the Big Three automakers.

Eduwonk points out Herbert’s hypocrisy (though he delicately avoids using that word) on this point, because elsewhere in the column, Herbert praises Weingarten for expressing a willingness to make concessions on issues like tenure and pay scales. Union recalcitrance on these types of reform, Eduwonk points out, is precisely why the auto industry is in so much trouble, and Weingarten has been driven to make noises in favor of reform because a similar dynamic has been at work in the government school system.

On the other hand, Joanne Jacobs thinks the comparison between the AFT and the UAW is inapt:

 I don’t think skilled teachers and unskilled auto workers have much in common.  Auto unions pushed up costs, especially for retirees, making U.S. cars uncompetitive.  In education, the problem isn’t excessive pay, it’s the fact that salaries aren’t linked to teacher effectiveness, the difficulty of their jobs or the market demand for their skills.

But teachers’ unions have pushed up costs – dramatically. In the past 40 years, the cost of the government school system per student has much more than doubled (even after inflation) while outcomes are flat across the board. And this has mainly been caused by a dramatic increase in the number of teachers hired per student – a policy that benefits only the unions.

It’s true that high salaries aren’t the main issue in schools, although teacher salaries are in fact surprisingly high. The disconnect between teacher pay and teacher performance is much more important. But the UAW has the same problem! Their pay scales don’t reward performance, either.

The source of Jacobs’ confusion is her mistaken view that auto workers are “unskilled.” Farm workers are unskilled, but not auto workers. The distinction she’s reaching for is the one between white-collar or “professional” work and blue-collar work. But some blue-collar work is skilled and some is unskilled, and auto workers are in the former category. This matters because with skilled blue-collar workers, as with white-collar workers, there’s a dramatic increase in the importance of incentives as compared with unskilled labor.

In fact, a lot of smart people have been arguing (scroll down to the Dec. 26 post) that exorbitant salaries and benefits aren’t nearly as much of a problem in the auto industry as union work rules – including poor performance due to absolute job protection, pay scales that don’t reward performance, and rigid job descriptions that make process modernization impossible.

Sound familiar?

(Edited)


Matthew Miller: There’s got to be a pony in there somewhere!

December 29, 2008

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Matthew Miller writes in the New York Times the federal government should provide a massive new infusion of cash for K-12 schools, but with a group of beneficent strings attached. This time, we’re bound to get it right.

<Insert Einstein’s now cliched definition of insanity about here>


Goldwater Institute Prevails in Corporate Welfare Ruling

December 23, 2008

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Yeeeee Ha…Jester’s dead! Great News from the Goldwater Institute, congratulations to Clint, Carrie Ann and the clients!

Appeals Court Voids CityNorth Subsidy

Court says $97.4 million subsidy violates Arizona ConstitutionPhoenix–Today the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of the Goldwater Institute, deciding the $97.4 million taxpayer subsidy given to the developer of the CityNorth shopping mall by the City of Phoenix is unconstitutional.

“Santa got a head start on Christmas this year,” said Goldwater Institute litigation director Clint Bolick. “This ruling is an early present for the citizens of Phoenix.”

In 2007, the City of Phoenix provided the subsidy to the Klutznick Company for its CityNorth retail center in north Phoenix, despite a constitutional prohibition on corporate subsidies in Arizona. The Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation filed suit in July 2007 claiming the agreement violated the Arizona Constitution’s Gift Clause.

Today the three-member Appeals Court agreed. In an opinion written by Judge Patrick Irvine, joined by Judge Winthrop and Judge Hall, the court said, “We think these payments are exactly what the Gift Clause was intended to prohibit.”

The Goldwater Institute represented six small business owners in the lawsuit: Meyer Turken, owner of Turken Industrial Properties, a small real estate development and management company; Kenneth D. Cheuvront, owner of Cheuvront Wine and Cheese Cafe and Cheuvront Construction; Zul Gilliani, who owns an ice cream shop at Paradise Valley Mall; James Iannuzo, who owns Sign-a-Rama; Kathy Rowe who owns Music Together; and Justin Shafer, owner of Hava Java.

“This ruling vindicates this important provision of the Arizona Constitution,” added Bolick. “No longer will cities and towns be able to give away our tax dollars to pay private businesses to pursue a profit. At a time of tight budgets, those tax dollars should be paying for essential services, not for corporate subsidies.”

 


How a Physics Textbook Changed My Life

December 23, 2008

books

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Jay Matthews argues that most textbooks don’t serve enough of an educational function to be worth using:

Textbooks still make good dictionaries, with glossaries at the back. They also reassure parents, who don’t get to see teachers in action but are comforted, in a perverse way, that their kids’ schoolbooks seem just as dry and predictable as theirs were. But like the newspapers that have been my life, textbooks are creeping slowly toward obsolescence.

(HT Joanne Jacobs)

I can’t tell whether Matthews thinks textbooks are becoming obsolete simply because books themselves are becoming obsolete – he talks about how some teachers are starting to “write” their own textbooks for their classes by using the internet to gather material, etc. – but it sure looks like he thinks there’ s something especially obsolete about the textbook.

If so, I must strongly demur. Matthews seems to have missed what has always been the primary function of the textbook – to compensate for the teacher’s deficiency. It’s certainly true that some teachers are so on top of their material that they can write their own textbooks, but others are so not on top of their material that they just lean on the textbook as a crutch, teaching everything straight out of the book.

Indeed, who has not heard the frequent complaint about teachers who just teach everything straight out of the book? Welll, where would we be if they couldn’t even do that?

I must confess that looking back on when I first taught my own class at the college level, the biggest weakness of my teaching in that class was that I did too much by rote out of the textbook. But I did it because, as a novice, I lacked the confidence to strike out on my own.

But I have an even more striking example to set before you. When I was in high school, I had a really brilliant physics teacher who didn’t use the textbook at all. He spent the whole class illuminating the subject matter in his own highly motivated way, bringing in unusual examples and exploring subtle nuances.

As a result, his teaching was incredibly engaging to the few students who shared his intense interest in the subject, and completely useless to the majority who did not. They needed to be walked through the basics slowly and carefully – sort of the way a textbook does.

There was one girl in my four-person lab group in that class who was completely lost. She was getting a D and had no idea what was going on. So I started helping her out with her homework.

“Just ignore the teacher,” was my main advice. “Read the textbook and learn what’s in it. Don’t pay attention to anything in class, because almost all of it isn’t going to be on the test and will just distract you from what you really need to be learning.”

She went from a D to an A.

And you know what? I’m married to that girl today.

So don’t tell me textbooks are obsolete.

As a great rumination on the science of physics once put it:

This day and age we’re living in
Gives cause for apprehension,
With speed and new invention,
And things like fourth dimension.

Yet we get a trifle weary
With Mr. Einstein’s theory.
So we must get down to earth at times,
Relax, relieve the tension.

And no matter what the progress
Or what may yet be proved
The simple facts of life are such
They cannot be removed.

You must remember this:
A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.

And when two lovers woo,
They still say, “I love you.”
On that you can rely!
No matter what the future brings
As time goes by.

Moonlight and love songs,
Never out of date.
Hearts full of passion,
Jealousy and hate.
Woman needs man,
And man must have his mate – 
That no one can deny.

It’s still the same old story,
A fight for love and glory,
A case of do or die.
The world will always welcome lovers
As time goes by.

(Copyright Warner Bros. Music, 1931)


Ford Foundation Upgraded from “Destructive” to “Useless”

December 22, 2008

generac1

The Disturbinator 4000XL, a state-of-the-art disburbance generator.

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

A while back, in his well-read takedown of the “free market” think tanks endorsing the original bailout that got us into the present mess, Jay mentioned that the donors to those think tanks probably didn’t intend for their money to be used to endorse a radical expansion of government intrusion into the economy.

I thought of that post when I opened an e-mail this morning from the Ford Foundation. The e-mail was sent to people (like myself) who work for grantmaking foundations.

To help us “think and talk about” good grantmaking, Ford is distributing a deck of “role cards” representing the roles grantmaking staff play, such as “advocate,” “talent scout,” and “disturbance generator.”

It makes you wonder what life at the Ford Foundation is like. They spend all day inventing decks of cards, apparently. 

Not only that, but being insulated from the discipline of the market, it looks like Ford isn’t up with the latest technology. As soon as I arrived at my new workplace in August, I had a state-of-the-art disturbance generator installed in the basement. But at Ford they’re still generating disturbance by hand.

I’m sure this is exactly what Henry Ford had in mind for his money when he gave it to a charitable foundation. On the other hand, given what Ford does with most of its time and money, I suppose we should be glad for every cent and every working hour that gets diverted into activities that are merely useless rather than actively destructive.


Steyn: Bailoutistan Bound

December 22, 2008

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Mark Steyn doesn’t pull any punches  in the Washington Times this morning. Money quote:

General Motors now has a market valuation about a third of Bed, Bath And Beyond, and no one says your Swash 700 Elongated Biscuit Toilet Seat Bidet is too big to fail. GM has a market capitalization of just over $2 billion. For purposes of comparison, Toyota’s market cap is $100 billion and change (the change being bigger than the whole of GM).