Cloud-y Thinking

Via This Week in Education, Time's John Cloud says:

Harvard professor Martin Feldstein used to tell students in his introductory economics class that economists agree on 99% of the issues in the field. From the nature of monopolies to the basic laws of inflation, Feldstein asserted, economists of all political stripes are in accord on the same principles. He claimed that what we read about in the popular press are the 1% of economic issues where the data support no clear-cut conclusion.

I'm pretty sure Feldstein was exaggerating the 99-1 split in economics, but I have often thought that education research shows precisely the opposite ratio of agreement to disagreement. Education experts seem to concur on almost nothing. Research in the field is so politicized and contradictory that you can find almost any study to support your view. If economics is a 99-1 science, education is a 1-99 circus.

Cloud's characterization of education research is exaggerated and, frankly, kind of obnoxious. Education is more politicized than I'd like, but I don't see how that makes it different from other fields. Alas, what a shame that education research doesn't enjoy the pristinely empirical, de-politicized, consensus-rich environment that characterizes debates over tax policy, entitlement reform, and other issues studied by economists like Martin Feldstein.

Most of Cloud's piece is about the relative efficacy of public schools vs. private schools. Conventional wisdom, along with a fair amount of research, has it that private schools are marginally better. But then the Center on Education Policy comes out with a study that suggests otherwise. Aha! says Cloud. Apparently, if education research were a "science" not a "circus" there would be no such disagreement. Moreover, CEP is allegedly an "advocacy group for public schools" (they're not), so they can't be trusted.

I reality, the tendency for education researchers to draw the differing conclusions that so frustrate Cloud stems from the fact that the things education researchers often compare are, obectively speaking, not that different from one another. When you aggregate lots of private schools together and compare them to lots of public schools, the two populations are pretty similar. The same is true when comparing public schools to charter schools, certified teachers to non-certified teachers, fourth graders nationwide in 2006 to fourth graders nationwide in 2007, etc. When actual variance is small, legitimate differences in methodology, population, etc. can put one study on the plus side of zero and the other on the minus--not because one researcher is lying for political reasons and one isn't, but because they're both trying to quantify effects that are objectively de minimis.

Apparently, this frustrates journalists who crave certainty and simple answers.

Note: Erratic blogging over the next week from me as I'm leaving tomorrow morning for the "3rd Meeting of the International [College] Rankings Expert Group" in Shanghai. I missed the first two and I hear the after-parties are insane. Assuming various electronic connections and conversions work as planned, I'll be posting pictures and random observations.

Everyone is Wrong About Vouchers

Both Ezra Klein and Megan McCardle post about vouchers today, and both are wrong, albeit in completely different ways. Megan says:

I very rarely get angry about politics. But every time I see some middle class parent prattling about vouchers "destroying" the public schools by "cherry picking" the best students, when they've made damn sure that their own precious little cherries have been plucked out of the failing school systems, I seethe with barely controllable inward rage. It is the vilest hypocrisy on display in American politics today.

Vilest? In the age of Dick Cheney, Larry Craig, et al.? More to the point--from a policy standpoint, I'm very supportive of giving parents more educational choices within a public school context. I think charter schools are clearly the right way to do this, not vouchers, but at the same time I believe that while some voucher supporters really do want to destroy public education by privatizing the schools, others really do want to help desperately disadvantaged kids get a decent education. It's not a simple issue, and if you're going to take a voucher away from a low-income mother who chose to put her child in a better private school, you'd better have a damn good alternative lined up for her. Not some hypothetical set of principles or general wish that she wasn't poor, but another, better school, today.

But to say that any well-off parent who exercises school choice by moving to the suburbs has a moral obligation to support vouchers--and is a vile hypocrite if they oppose vouchers--is silly. Voucherizing a whole city like DC wouldn't work. There aren't enough good private schools to teach all those students in the short run, and--more importantly--there wouldn't be enough in the long run. Look at how the private sector provides other services to low-income communities. Not banks, but check cashing outlets and pawn shops. Not decent grocery stores (much less Whole Foods), but convenience stores. The only sit-down restaurant in all of Ward 7 in DC is a Denny's. A Denny's. Why does anyone believe education would be any different? Particularly since--unlike with banks, grocery stores and restaurants--low-income kids don't just need parity, they need something better than what non-poor kids receive.

Well, one might respond, we there are good schools in the suburbs--lets send them there. Leaving aside the obvious massive logistical and political challenges that would entail, that's still a bad solution. Well-functioning communities need local schools that interact with and support the institutions and people around them. Why is it so hard to imagine that we could improve education for city students by building them good public schools where they live? This failure of imagination is also where Ezra falls short, when he says:

...white parents fleeing pockets of poverty is not an argument for school vouchers. What they're fleeing is the poverty -- which, at a certain density, dissolves just about any school.

No, no, no. I know lots of white, relatively affluent parents, here in DC, who are trying to figure out where to educate their young children. They're not fleeing poverty, they're fleeing bad public schools. It's not that they don't want their kids to grow up around other children of different races or income--heck, they'd like that, they're DC liberals for goodness sake. But their higher priority is a safe, quality education, which the city schools do not provide.

Moreover, this idea that poverty inevitably "dissolves" schools just isn't true. There are good charter schools in DC within walking distance of the U Street neighborhoods where the "new blogging elite"--to use Ezra's term($) for people like Megan and himself**--tend to live and socialize. Most of the children in these schools are minorities and qualify for the federal free lunch program. I challenge Ezra to spend an hour, or a day, or however long in one of those schools and then explain how poverty invariably "dissolves" anything.

The single biggest education-related failure of the contemporary left--and the folks like Ezra who write at The American Prospect are guiltier than most--is a willful refusal to recognize that while poverty matters, schools matter too, and some schools are much better than others. Since they're generally smart folks, I can only assume that this refusal is purposful and a function of the fact that they see good schools for poor children as compromising some larger narrative or effort aimed at reducing the number of poor children in the first place. For the sake of future generations, I hope they succeed, but I wish they weren't making education worse for this generation in the meantime.


**UPDATE 1: Ezra notes here that this quote was taken out of context and wasn't intended, as I state above, as a self-aggrandizing label for himself and his friends. My bad.

UPDATE 2: Dana Goldstein offers some thoughtful comments here, and points out that TAP's range of work on education is more intellectually diverse than I imply. She says:

What I would like to see is public school choice that regionalizes education in such a way as to encourage kids from more affluent families to attend high quality public magnet and public charter schools in nearby poorer neighborhoods or cities. This provides a good, close-to-home education for poor kids and integrates schools without having to wait for concentrated poverty and wealth to be wiped off the map. It also encourages average or under-performing urban schools to catch up with better specimens within their system, and provides them with models for success.

That seems reasonable.

The Dangers of Defaulting

FinAid.org has a loan default calculator on its website that calculates how much it costs to default on student loans. I calculated the default costs with my current federal loan and the results were startling. In my situation (long repayment term, low interest rate), the total cost of my loan after 12 months of non-payment would increase nearly 80 percent.

And if after defaulting I paid the minimum each month for the life of the loan, the added collection costs would mean paying off my loan until I am SEVENTY. I’d be cashing in social security checks before I paid off my student loan debt.

FinAid.org also has a calculator that looks specifically at the impact of collection costs on how long it takes to pay off student loan debt after a default. Right now, maximum collection costs—fees charged by collection agencies—are not well-defined in the federal loan program, but can be as high as 40 percent. If I defaulted and a 40 percent collection cost were added to my loan, I would have to live until 104 to pay off my loans. Well, at least student loan debt is discharged when you die.

Student Loan Debt through Rose-Colored Glasses

The College Board made news this week with the release of its latest Trends in College Prices and Trends in Student Aid reports, which showed tuition rising faster than inflation and student grant aid lagging behind. The reports also showed continued growth in student borrowing, particularly in private education loans that are not guaranteed or subsidized by the federal government. And so the trend continues—higher college prices and higher debt for students.

But how much of a burden is this growing student loan debt? If you look at the Department of Education’s student loan default rates—the percentage of students not repaying their loans—student loan debt isn’t much of a problem. The Department of Education’s reported default rates are still remarkably low. The logical conclusion from these low default rates is that students must be just fine managing their debt – or are they?

A recent Education Sector CYCT shows that some students—those with high debt, low incomes, and minority students—are at much higher risk of defaulting on their loans than overall default rates indicate. And the average time from graduation to the first default is four years—two years longer than the Department of Education follows students for its calculations. According to this Business Week article, even loan companies don’t put much stock in the Department of Education calculations and prefer to look at lifetime default rates.

If lawmakers, college officials, and the general public want an accurate picture of student loan defaults—an important indicator of how well students are handling their debt—we need default rates disaggregated by student characteristics and data that follows students over the life of their loan. While this might paint a less-rosy picture of student loan debt, it will be a far more accurate indicator of how well students are managing their debt.

Money's Worth for New Teachers

Spend your money on mentoring new teachers, says a new report by the New Teacher Center. Not surprising that a center that provides training to new teachers would issue a report saying we should provide training to new teachers... But the findings by themselves are compelling. Their cost-benefit analysis, released yesterday at a Hill briefing, finds that for every $1 spent on new teacher induction, the return to society by year 5 is an impressive $1.66. At the district level, that translates to $1.88 for every dollar invested. The report adds to a growing body of work that supports beginning teacher induction as a cost-effective strategy to improve the overall quality of the teacher workforce.

For district and state leaders thinking about this approach, which they should, the Center's report estimates a per teacher cost of about $6,600 for a program that supports 119 new teachers (total cost of $786,000 for the district program). There's a much more detailed breakdown of costs, and benefits, in the full report here.

More Good Education Labor News from NYC

It's been a good month for education labor in New York City.

First there was the announcement of an important new merit pay plan supported by both the district administration and the United Federation of Teachers. Now, as reported in the New York Times, "In the largest successful organizing drive in New York City in half a century, 28,000 child care providers will join the city’s teachers’ union as the result of an overwhelmingly pro-union vote."

This strikes me as good news all around. For the child care workers surely, who are currently paid less than $20,000 a year on average, often without health care and other benefits. But also for parents, children, and society at large. The transition to an economy where women are becoming fully engaged in the workplace has been, in historical terms, remarkably rapid. We're still catching up on the long-term ramifications, one of which is the need for a much more robust, high-quality child care infrastructure. And an important part of that is making sure that child care workers are well-supported, trained, represented, and compensated.

Godless Educrats?

The Atlantic's 150th Anniversary issue arrived at my house last week, and I've been leafing through the selection of short essays at the front about "The Future of the American Idea." The quality varies a lot--Edward O. Wilson's 400 words are a model of economy and clarity, the policiticians, not so much. One of the contributors is Tim LaHaye, minister and author of the best-selling "Left Behind" series. Given the chance to say anything he wanted about religion and America, he decided to focus his scarce resources by writing about($) ...vouchers, concluding:

Until we break the secular educational monopoly that currently expels God, Judeo-Christian moral values, and personal accountability from the halls of learning, we will continue to see academic performance decline and the costs of education increase, to the great detriment of millions of young lives. This could easily be changed if parents were empowered to spend their tax dollars at schools of their choosing—and not at schools chosen by anti-God, anti-Christian humanist educrats, like those who now control public education from kindergarten through graduate school.

It's not so much the ideas themselves that are noteworthy (other than how extreme they are), but the choice of topic. I'm guessing LaHaye has a wide range of grievances when it comes to American laws, society, and culture. I had always assumed that choice and school prayer issues were relatively far down on that totem pole, more the thing you say when you have to say something about education than a core part of the ideological agenda. But maybe I was wrong.

Least Surprising Education Headline of the Year

The Center on American Progress sponsored an event last week focused on college rankings. I was on the panel along with a representative of U.S. News & World Report, and recent late-night comedy star Paul Glastris. During the Q&A, I made a point that I try to make whenever someone gives me a chance, and sometimes even when they don't, which is that the problem of constantly-rising college costs is actually more connected to the U.S. News rankings than people commonly understand. It's well-known that colleges engage in various shenanigans to boost their rankings, like counting a $15 donation a student given by a senior as three $5 donations over the subsequent three years, in order to boost the "alumni giving rate." But that's small potatoes in terms of what drives the rankings; the big opportunities are tied to money. 10 percent of the rankings are a function of spending per student (by contrast, admissions rates are only 1.5 percent), while an even larger percentage is driven by things that cost money to buy, like small class sizes and well-paid professors.

That translates into incentives that virtually guarantee inefficiency and constantly rising costs. If a university were able to figure out how to reduce its costs by, say, 10 percent, while holding quality constant, and it chose to pass those savings along to its customers in the form of a tuition decrease, its U.S. News rankings would go down. If, on the other hand, it became 10 percent less efficient and passed the cost onto customers in the form a tuition increase (not a hard thing to do if you're a selective college), its ranking would go up. All of this stems from a deficit of reliable, comparable, institution-level measures of quality. Thus we have this crazy higher education market with no value proposition, one where cost and quality are assumed to be the same thing -- and in the sense that high-end higher education is a luxury good that primarily serves to signal your exclusive ability to acquire and pay for it, they are the same thing.

Like many higher education problems, U.S. News exacerbates this problem but didn't create it; there are a whole host of long-established values and incentives that reward institutions for raising as much money as possible and spending it with little care for efficiency.

Therefore, it comes as a surprise to absolutely no one to see this headline in the New York Times: "College Costs Rising Rapidly." Once again, average tuition and fees for public and private universities rose at more than double the rate of inflation. Higher ed folks can--and will--make whatever excuses and caveats they like about net prices, public appropriations, appropriate price deflators, etc., but the bottom line is that by whatever measure you choose--percent of GDP, median income, anything--higher education simply costs more today than it ever has before, and there is precious little evidence to show that those resources are being spent in a way that correspondingly increases benefits for the students and taxpayers who foot the bill.

UPDATE: Matt Yglesias comments here, Unfogged here.

Richard Simmons, No Child Left Behind, and Me

Via the NEA's anti-NCLB blog, we learn that Richard Simmons wants phys-ed to be included as a "multiple measure" in the reauthorized version of NCLB. Really! He even went on Letterman (Remember Letterman? Those were the days. The '80s, to be specific) to promote the plan. This is good news--not in an education policy sense, of course, but because it gives me a reason to tell my Richard Simmons story.

The year: 1993. The setting: Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Having graduated from college the previous spring, I'm taking a year off before starting grad school. Not for any good reason, mind you, I just forgot to sign up for the GRE in time to apply for the '92-'93 school year. I've got 12 months to expand my personal, cultural, an intellectual horizons before heading back to academia, but my first priority is to find a place to live, since my room in the fraternity house is spoken for. I consider moving home, but my Dad starts throwing ugly words like "rent" into the conversation. My friend Jon had just finished up at UNC-Chapel Hill, and suggests I move there for the year, on the grounds that (A) the weather is great, and (B) the social life is even better. Unable to refute this air-tight logic, I pack up everything I own, which takes up roughly 40 percent of the space in my Honda Civic hatchback, and drive south. We move into a two-bedroom apartment in a complex on the outskirts of town where the police have established a sub-station to save time and fuel expenses and the rent is $200 a month, total. We get jobs as waiters at a chain barbecue restaurant, where we work two lunches a week and Friday and Saturday nights from 6PM to midnight. The rest of the time is spent playing pickup basketball and Sega Genesis, as well as availing ourselves of the afore-mentioned social life. I become a devoted, life-long Tar Heels fan for the entirety of the 1992-93 basketball season. Life is sweet.

When we're awake in the morning, we listen to Howard Stern. I know, I know. This was, I must emphasize, Stern in his prime, before he got tired and copied and his moment as King of All Media came and went. He had a kind of rude greatness back then. Richard Simmons was a frequent guest, and he was always hilarious. One day I'm reading the sports page and I see an advertisement for some kind of Richard Simmons event, where he will be live in person at the local mall. Since my schedule is clear for, roughly, the next 175 consecutive days, we hop in the Civic and rush to meet the great man in person. Sure enough, it's a huge event in the mall atrium, with a line of people circling the fountain under the skylight with the fake plants (you know the one I'm talking about). Someone is handing out these little laminated wallet-sized cards with Richard's list of ten personal affirmations printed on both sides. They read like a verbatim transcript of future Minnesota Senator Al Franken's Stuart Smalley's "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and people like me" SNL sketch. We begin laughing uncontrollably. Again, let me remind you of the year and suggest that this sort of obnoxious behavior had not yet been definitively branded as the oh-so-typically-Gen-X conceit it surely was.

Suddenly, ringing out across the Mall atrium, we hear, in that unmistakable Simmons whine, a piercing cry: "You!"

We stop. Who, us?

"Yes, you. Come over here. Come here."

Richard is yelling at us! In the mall! It may be the greatest thing ever! We rush across the atrium, dodging various Simmons devotees as we go.

"Richard!" we say. Not sure what to say next. It's Richard Simmons!

"I saw you making fun of the personal affirmations. Tch! You should be ashamed!"

"Richard! We listen to you on Howard Stern all the time!"

"Oh! I don't know why I go back there. He's so mean. Isn't he mean?"

"Richard! You're awesome!"

"Thank you. But you you shouldn't make fun..."

And that was about it, as the people in line behind us were starting to get restless. Up to that point (heck, maybe still) my closest brush with greatness. Richard didn't stop going on Howard Stern, of course, or Letterman, or trying to make people feel better about themselves and be healthy at the same time. It's 14 years later, his NCLB proposal is silly, and we probably won't meet again. But I'm glad I met him then, I'm glad he's still doing his Richard Simmons thing now.