Get Lost 2

May 2, 2008

And now for another installment in our weekly Lost discussion. (If you don’t care about Lost, just skip to the other posts).

A central theme in Lost has been the ambiguity about whether events occur as a matter of luck or as the result of a supernatural plan.  It’s true that it would have to be incredible luck, but up until the most recent episode everything (or almost everything) could be explained without resorting to the supernatural.

Now the ambiguity is dissolving and it is becoming very clear that supernatural explanations are required.  The most obvious sign of this is the introduction of dead people as characters who talk to multiple people, carry things, etc…  In other words, we can no longer hold onto the possibility that the appearance of a dead person is simply the delusion of a single living person.  The show has largely foreclosed the possibility of psychological explanations.

I think this takes some of the fun out of the show since a central mystery is being resolved.  It’s true that we still have to discover the nature and purpose of these supernatural forces, but that’s a much less interesting puzzle.  Once we get into the supernatural, the rules could be whatever they want them to be.


More Political Donations from Academia

May 2, 2008

A little more detail on the data I gathered for my earlier post about political contributions from university employees…

The dollars involved are not trivial.  From the top ten ranked universities I examined, more than $2.2 million was donated to candidates and supporting organizations during the 2008 election cycle alone.  Harvard led the pack with more than a half million dollars in contributions.  The results for all ten are here:

Political Contributions During 2008 Election Cycle
  Dollars Number of Donations
Princeton $151,433 208
Harvard $502,234 539
Yale $218,656 258
Stanford $292,660 461
Penn $197,038 273
Cal Tech $28,581 41
MIT $17,430 31
Duke $139,236 239
Columbia $397,231 510
Chicago $293,580 414
     
Total $2,238,079 2974

Reading First Disappoints

May 1, 2008

A new study released today by the U.S. Department of Education finds that Reading First, the phonics based federally-funded reading program, failed to yield improvements in reading comprehension.  The study doesn’t demonstrate that it is ineffective to emphasize phonics; only that it was ineffective to adopt this particular program.  That could be because there are problems with the design or implementation of Reading First.  Or it could be because the control group was also receiving phonics instruction without the particular elements of Reading First.  And it is possible that phonics is less effective than some people thought.

Whatever the explanation, this well-designed study undermines confidence that instructional reform, like Reading First, can alone transform the educational system


Political Donations from Academia

May 1, 2008

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that academics give more money to Democrats than Republicans.  But when you actually examine the political donations data, it is shocking to see just how uniformly one-sided the contributions are. 

I obtained information on political donations from the Open Secrets web site, which gets its data from federal filings.  I then identified the top ten ranked universities according to US News and World Report.  I searched Open Secrets for all political contributions during the 2008 election cycle for people who listed these top 10 universities as their employer.  Here is what I found:

Distribution of Political Donations During 2008 Election Cycle
  Dollar Value # of Donations
   % Dem % Dem
Princeton 81% 88%
Harvard 92% 94%
Yale 94% 94%
Stanford 84% 90%
Penn 86% 90%
Cal Tech 94% 88%
MIT 93% 94%
Duke 81% 84%
Columbia 78% 91%
Chicago 96% 96%
     
Total 87% 91%

Almost nine out of every ten political contributions from employees of these universities went to Democratic candidates or supporting organizations.  There was almost no variation across institutions.  Among these top universities it didn’t matter whether it was a technical institution or not; it didn’t matter what region it was in.  Academics overwhelmingly donate to Democrats. 

I also examined how much was given to Obama relative to Clinton.  Here, too, academics are clearly further to the Left, as can be seen in the table below.  Almost three-quarters of contributions to those two candidates went to Obama.  Compare this to a relatively even split among primary voters and delegates.

Split of Clinton and Obama Donations 
  Dollar Value # of Donations
   % Obama % Obama
Princeton 75% 83%
Harvard 68% 74%
Yale 70% 77%
Stanford 73% 72%
Penn 84% 83%
Cal Tech 74% 85%
MIT 92% 96%
Duke 76% 85%
Columbia 56% 63%
Chicago 97% 95%
     
Total 74% 78%

I also did a small test to see if these patterns were unique to elite institutions.  I collected the information for the University of Oklahoma, which is ranked 108th (according to USNRW) and is located in a solidly Republican state.  The results are basically the same.  93% of all dollars contributed from U of OK employees go to Democrats and Obama gets 97% of the contributions to him or Clinton.

Obviously, academics are free to donate to whomever they prefer.  And I have no problem with an institution, especially a private one, being lopsided in its political preferences (which we are imperfectly measuring via campaign contributions). 

But I do find these results troubling in two ways.  First, if universities are going to lack balance in the perspectives that are represented on campus, they should be open and honest to prospective students and donors about that imbalance.  Like Christian colleges, they should declare their focus and priorities up front rather than pretending that they are inclusive of all views.

Second, I am troubled by the lack of diversity across institutions.  If the process by which we train, hire, and tenure academics is intellectually open and healthy, we should expect that at least some universities would contain a relatively even divide of political views and some would even be lopsided toward the Republicans.  The fact that we do not see this should make us worry about whether higher education is being hindered by an ideological cartel.  Not every unit or every college has to be balanced, but higher education as a whole should have greater ideological diversity if it is going to contribute to the intellectual progress of the country.


New Special Ed Voucher Study

April 29, 2008

Marcus Winters and I have a new study out today on the effects of special education vouchers in Florida on the academic achievement of disabled students who remain in public schools.  As we write in an op-ed in this morning’s Washington Times: “we found that those students with relatively mild disabilities —the vast majority of special-education students in the state and across the nation — made larger academic gains when the number of private options nearby increased. Students with more severe disabilities were neither helped not harmed by the addition of McKay scholarship-receiving private schools near their public school.” The findings are based on an analysis of individual student data using a fixed effects model.

The results of this analysis of Florida’s special education voucher program have important implications for the four other states (Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, and Utah) that have similar programs.  It also suggests ways that federal legislation governing special education, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), could be reformed.  We have two more op-eds coming out this week in the The Wash Times that will explore these issues.

Lastly, this new study speaks to the general question of whether expanded choice and competition improve achievement in public schools.  Like the bulk of previous research, including Belfield and Levin, ChakrabartiGreene and Forster, Hoxby, Rouse, et al , and West and Peterson (as a partial list), the new study finds that student achievement in public schools improves as vouchers expand the set of private options.

UPDATE

There is also an editorial endorsing continuation of the voucher program in DC in the Washington Post and another embracing vouchers in the Wall Street Journal


Get Lost

April 26, 2008

Eduwonk may have his Friday Fish Porn for end of week entertainment.  This blog has “Get Lost” — an end of week comment on the latest developments in the TV show Lost.

If you haven’t been following the show, just forget about it.  There are too many details to catch up on unless you are willing to sit there and watch past episodes online or scan Lostpedia.

For the rest of you fellow nerds… The main questions raised in the most recent episode, “The Shape of Things to Come,” are 1) What are the Rules and how did the murder of Alex represent a change in those rules? 2) Why can’t Ben kill Widmore? and 3) Why did the Morse code communication from the freighter say the doctor was fine when he was found dead?

Here are my best guesses.  The Rules could either be an informal understanding, like that they won’t go after each other and family members, or a more formal restraint, like Michael being unable to die because he still has work to do.  I’m inclined to believe that it is an informal understanding, not a hard constraint.  The competition between Widmore and Ben is long-standing and they may have developed understandings of the boundaries of that competition.  If it were a hard constraint, it is not clear how it would be possible to break it.

Second, Ben probably can’t kill Widmore (or vice-versa) because they are each other’s constant.  Killing the other would destroy oneself. 

Third, the mystery of why the freighter reports that the doctor is fine is probably not a time travel issue, since the only time travel we’ve seen with the freighter is of one’s consciousness, not body.  My guess is that it is Sayid controlling the radio and who is falsely saying that the doctor is fine.  We know that he is the only one who was able to get the radio on the freighter working again.  He may have been lying to cover that he attacked the doctor.

Tune in next week.


School Violence Declining

April 25, 2008

At least according to a post by Eduwonkette it is.  Citing data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey on trends over the last 15 years in Chicago, she reports that carrying a weapon in school has declined, engaging in fights has declined, and feeling unsafe at school has declined.  She concludes: “the long-term trends are generally positive, but the overall levels of violence are astoundingly high.”  This helps put the bullying issue in some perspective.

And Eduwonkette may need some more tutoring with Photoshop.  My head is tiny relative to the body she pasted me on.  But I look kind of like David Byrne in his big suit (if his big suit was a blue vest).  Pretty cool.


The NYT Bully

April 24, 2008

A month ago the New York Times (NYT) carried on its front page the story of “a boy the bullies love to beat up, repeatedly.”  The story was heart-breaking and appealed to everyone who’s been bullied or worried about their children being bullied — that is, almost everyone.  The piece led to appearances on CNN and the Today Show by the boy, Billy Wolfe, countless articles in papers around the country, a flood of sympathetic letters to the NYT, and outrage in the blogosphere.

Billy Wolfe lives in my town, Fayetteville, Arkansas, and some of the incidents described in the article occurred at a school my children attend (although Billy is older and is now at the high school).  The story didn’t fit with what I know about Fayetteville schools. 

Sure enough, a little more than a week after the NYT article, the Northwest Arkansas Times (NAT) disclosed the existence of a police report on Billy Wolfe that suggests that he may have been the bully, or at least played a significant part in instigating the assaults.  The NAT reporting on the police report contains allegations that Billy harassed a student confined to a wheelchair with muscular dystrophy by sneaking up behind him and screaming to aggravate the disabled boy’s sensitivity to noise, by bouncing a rubber ball against the disabled boy’s head, and by calling him “stupid” and a “retard.”  The police report provides further context on the assaults described in the NYT.  One allegedly occurred after Billy called a boy who had just moved from Germany and whose mother had just died of cancer a “”gay [expletive ] German” and then called his “deceased mother a vulgar name. ”  Another incident allegedly occurred after Billy pushed another student.  Billy was accused of picking on other kids, stealing, and intimidating those that he picked on against telling the teacher.

But the NYT article by Dan Barry makes no mention of the police report or the details contained in it.  Nor did Dan Barry’s reporting uncover any of the information from the interviews contained in the Northwest Arkansas Times article.  Instead, Barry simply writes, “It remains unclear why Billy became a target…”  He also declares, “[Billy] has received a few suspensions for misbehavior, though none for bullying.”  It seems the NYT reporter either somehow missed the existence of the police report or decided not to include its contents in his piece.  Either way, it is very sloppy reporting.  I sent an email to the Public Editor of the NYT asking if Barry had seen the police report, and, if he had seen it, why he chose not to include it in his article.  Other than a form letter I’ve received no reply.

Of course, regardless of what Billy may have said to other students, it is wrong for them to hit him.  Furthermore, even if Billy has been a bully of others doesn’t mean that he is not himself being bullied.  And Fayetteville schools deserve some blame for not being on top of this situation better.  But the more complicated picture that emerges after learning of the information in the Nothwest Arkansas Times but excluded from the NYT, is one that looks like school fighting and conflict and not necessarily bullying.  Bullying implies a relatively clear hierarchy of victim and assailant.

But a newspaper article about conflict and some fighting in a small school district in Arkansas wouldn’t have been front page news in the NYT.  Perhaps that’s why Dan Barry preferred his Lifetime Channel movie-version over the more complicated version that the facts seem to support.  Perhaps it wasn’t ambition but laziness that distorted Barry’s article.  Finding the police report and collecting all of the interviews found in the NW AR Times article would have required — uhm — reporting.  It was much easier to take the story that the Wolfes’ attorney was peddling.  And yes, the Wolfes are suing some of the other students and are planning to sue the school district.  Barry’s article may read like a plaintiff’s brief because there actually is a plaintiff’s brief out there.

Others in the blogosphere have covered this story very well.  In particular, see my Manhattan Institute colleague, Walter Olson’s post at Overlawyered.com.  Blogger Scott Greenfield is quoted there with a pretty harsh assessment:

…what is the New York Times thinking? To have its knees cut off by its Northwest Arkansas namesake is humiliating, but to be shown up as deceptive fundamentally undermines its credibility. Without credibility, the Times is just a dog-trainers best friend and a tree’s worst nightmare. …

 The failure of the New York Times to present a full and accurate account of the Billy Wolfe story is disgraceful and unacceptable. … If you’re going to put an article on the front page with a big picture, don’t blow it. The Times did. They should be ashamed.

Unfortunately, the Fayetteville School District is inexperienced with handing national reporters and they are handcuffed in responding to accusations because of student privacy issues and a pending lawsuit.  Dan Barry from the NYT was able to ride roughshod over a small town school district.  Maybe the Gray Lady is the most obvious bully here. 


More on Proximity and Power

April 22, 2008

 

Some folks wanted to see more data on my earlier post, Proximity and Power.  In that post I described how Jonathan Butcher and I have actually measured the distance between interest group state headquarters and state capitol buildings.  Our argument is that interest groups want to inflate the perception of their power  by having offices that are very close to the capitol. 

The groups that we normally think are the most powerful are, in fact, the ones regularly closest to the state capitol.  The teacher union excels at proximity, followed by the Trial Lawyers, AARP, and AFL-CIO.  I’m somehow reminded of the MOD Squad in the movie Thank You for Smoking.

I’ve reproduced the results for those four organizations below for each state. The rank is among the 25 most powerful interest groups as identified by Fortune Magazine.  The teacher union is a prince among princes.

  Distance from Capitol (miles) Rank
  AL  
AARP

0.3

5

AFL-CIO

0.6

11

NEA/AFT

0.1

2

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.5

7

  AK  
AARP

Different City

NA

AFL-CIO

0.6

4

NEA/AFT

0.3

2

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

Different City

NA

  AZ  
AARP

1.5

2

AFL-CIO

6.9

16

NEA/AFT

3.2

11

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

8.5

19

  AR  
AARP

7.1

17

AFL-CIO

0.7

9

NEA/AFT

0.1

1

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.4

2

  CA  
AARP

0.5

4

AFL-CIO

0.2

1

NEA/AFT

0.2

2

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.6

6

  CO  
AARP

0.4

2

AFL-CIO

5.3

14

NEA/AFT

0.3

1

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.4

2

  CT  
AARP

0.3

1

AFL-CIO

7.6

15

NEA/AFT

0.3

1

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.5

4

  DE  
AARP

Different City

NA

AFL-CIO

1.0

6

NEA/AFT

0.1

1

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

Different City

NA

  FL  
AARP

0.3

6

AFL-CIO

0.2

3

NEA/AFT

0.3

6

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.1

1

  GA  
AARP

2.5

10

AFL-CIO

0.6

2

NEA/AFT

9.0

14

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.6

2

  HI  
AARP

0.3

2

AFL-CIO

1.4

9

NEA/AFT

2.6

15

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.4

4

  ID  
AARP

9.2

14

AFL-CIO

0.8

9

NEA/AFT

0.1

1

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.8

9

  IL  
AARP

1.1

13

AFL-CIO

0.1

1

NEA/AFT

0.1

3

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.4

9

  IN  
AARP

0.1

3

AFL-CIO

2.8

14

NEA/AFT

0.1

1

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.1

2

  IA  
AARP

0.4

1

AFL-CIO

1.6

7

NEA/AFT

1.3

6

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

1.2

4

  KS  
AARP

0.4

5

AFL-CIO

4.2

12

NEA/AFT

0.7

8

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.3

3

  KY  
AARP

Different City

NA

AFL-CIO

3.8

3

NEA/AFT

1.3

2

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

Different City

NA

  LA  
AARP

0.5

1

AFL-CIO

1.3

5

NEA/AFT

5.8

11

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

1.2

4

  ME  
AARP

Different City

NA

AFL-CIO

5.1

11

NEA/AFT

0.9

4

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.5

2

  MD  
AARP

Different City

NA

AFL-CIO

0.0

1

NEA/AFT

0.3

2

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

Different City

NA

  MA  
AARP

5.7

13

AFL-CIO

5.4

12

NEA/AFT

0.2

1

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

18.0

16

  MI  
AARP

0.6

6

AFL-CIO

0.4

4

NEA/AFT

0.4

4

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

5.3

11

  MN  
AARP

15.0

19

AFL-CIO

0.7

3

NEA/AFT

0.5

2

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

9.5

16

  MS  
AARP

8.1

14

AFL-CIO

0.3

1

NEA/AFT

0.5

4

AAJ (Trial Lawyers) None NA
  MO  
AARP

Different City

NA

AFL-CIO

0.1

1

NEA/AFT

2.7

10

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.3

3

  MT  
AARP

1.7

11

AFL-CIO

2.4

13

NEA/AFT

0.1

1

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

1.0

6

  NE  
AARP

0.5

4

AFL-CIO

6.3

17

NEA/AFT

0.0

1

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

1.1

10

  NV  
AARP

Different City

NA

AFL-CIO

0.7

2

NEA/AFT

Different City

NA

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.2

1

  NH  
AARP

6.6

15

AFL-CIO

0.2

2

NEA/AFT

0.6

6

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

6.4

13

  NJ  
AARP

15.0

13

AFL-CIO

0.1

4

NEA/AFT

0.5

7

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.0

2

  NM  
AARP

0.5

2

AFL-CIO

Different City

NA

NEA/AFT

2.8

6

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

Different City

NA

  NY  
AARP

2.3

8

AFL-CIO

0.6

4

NEA/AFT

8.1

17

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

Different City

NA

  NC  
AARP

0.2

1

AFL-CIO

1.1

11

NEA/AFT

0.7

7

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

2.4

12

  ND  
AARP

1.6

6

AFL-CIO

1.7

8

NEA/AFT

1.0

1

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

5.9

15

  OH  
AARP

0.1

1

AFL-CIO

0.6

11

NEA/AFT

0.4

8

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.6

11

  OK  
AARP

9.7

17

AFL-CIO

7.5

13

NEA/AFT

0.7

1

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.8

2

  OR  
AARP

Different City

NA

AFL-CIO

0.8

2

NEA/AFT

Different City

NA

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

Different City

NA

  PA  
AARP

0.3

3

AFL-CIO

0.1

2

NEA/AFT

0.1

1

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

Different City

NA

  RI  
AARP

0.5

3

AFL-CIO

0.2

1

NEA/AFT

0.5

3

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

5.1

16

  SC  
AARP

0.0

2

AFL-CIO

5.4

16

NEA/AFT

7.4

18

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

1.1

11

  SD  
AARP

Different City

NA

AFL-CIO

Different City

NA

NEA/AFT

0.1

1

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.4

2

  TN  
AARP

0.5

2

AFL-CIO

2.7

10

NEA/AFT

0.9

4

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

1.6

7

  TX  
AARP

1.1

12

AFL-CIO

0.4

5

NEA/AFT

0.5

7

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.2

1

  UT  
AARP

14.0

14

AFL-CIO

9.7

12

NEA/AFT

10.0

13

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

1.7

3

  VT  
AARP

0.3

2

AFL-CIO

1.1

10

NEA/AFT

1.8

12

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.2

1

  VA  
AARP

0.4

2

AFL-CIO

8.9

15

NEA/AFT

0.7

7

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.4

2

  WA  
AARP

Different City

NA

AFL-CIO

0.4

1

NEA/AFT

1.2

8

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

1.9

9

  WV  
AARP

1.9

6

AFL-CIO

1.9

6

NEA/AFT

0.7

2

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.8

3

  WI  
AARP

0.1

2

AFL-CIO

2.1

10

NEA/AFT

3.7

12

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.4

5

  WY  
AARP

0.4

3

AFL-CIO

0.6

7

NEA/AFT

0.2

1

AAJ (Trial Lawyers)

0.3

2

 

 


More Money Myth

April 20, 2008

An article in today’s LA Times illustrates how the money myth is alive and well.  The piece by Seema Mehta focuses on private fund-raising efforts in California that are seeking to off-set proposed budget cuts. 

The article, and the people quoted in it, wish to establish 1) that California spends far too little on education, which is demonstrated by the alleged fact that it spends less per pupil than almost all other states; 2) that private fund-raising is necessary to make a significant difference in remedying those perceived shortfalls; and 3) that inequities in the capacity of different communities to engage in private fund-raising is a significant contributor to inequities in student achievement between those communities. 

All three of these claims are inconsistent with the available evidence. Mehta attempts to establish the first claim that California spends far less than most states by asserting, “The state ranks 46th in the nation in per-pupil spending.”  According to the U.S. Department of Education’s most recent Digest of Education Statistics, total per pupil spending in California ranked 23rd of the 51 states and DC, not 46th.  Total per pupil spending was $9,655, trailing the national average of $10,071, but not by much.  It’s true that the cost of living is higher in California.  Perhaps it would be desirable for California to spend more.  But the claim that California woefully under-spends on education would have to be supported by systematic evidence, none of which is provided in the article — other than the false ranking.

The second claim that private fund-raising is an essential part of overcoming budget shortfalls is also inconsistent with the evidence.  In a chapter I wrote for Rick Hess’s book on education philanthropy, With the Best of Intentions, I found that total private giving to public education is a tiny portion of total spending on schools.  All giving, from the bake sale to the Gates Foundation, makes up less than one-third of 1% of total spending.  It’s basically rounding error.  This is not to say that private giving to public schools can’t do some good.  It’s just completely unrealistic to expect private funding to make-up for or significantly supplement public funding.  The taxing power of the government generates over half a trillion dollars each year for public education, which would entirely consume the net worth of the 12 richest people in the world in a single year. 

But the LA Times article suggests that private giving can (and must) make a big difference.  It cites the example of the Irvine Public Schools, which receives $3 million annually from a community foundation.  it also quotes the head of that foundation saying, “The only way to take good districts and make them great is to do private fund-raising. But it’s even more urgent now with the terrible budget cuts.”  Nowhere does the article mention that this $3 million represents less than 1% of the total spending by the district.  Numerators always feel bigger without denominators.

The third claim that inequities in private fund-raising are exacerbating inequities in student achievement pre-supposes that the private giving makes a big difference in the wealthier districts.  It also pre-supposes, contrary to the bulk of rigorous research, that variation in spending is a significant factor in explaining variation in achievement.  It’s not.  So, if private giving is a tiny portion of total spending — even in the wealthy districts — and per pupil spending does not significantly account for achievement, it’s not clear why the article would fret that inequities in giving were a problem for the achievement gap.  But the article does, quoting state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, “Parents in well-to-do communities can raise significant sums of money to augment their local schools’ budgets, while schools in low-income neighborhoods fall further behind. This is part of the reason that we have an achievement gap in California. We have an economic and moral imperative to close this gap.”

The only way the money myth will fade is if reporters and newspapers are held accountable for repeating it.