This is a sad post for me to write, since it's probably going to be my last here for a while.
As Andy mentioned in an incredibly kind post over at Eduwonk, today is my last day at Education Sector. In a few weeks I'll be starting a new job at the New America Foundation, where I'll be leading their Early Education Initiative and also contributing to their work on federal education policy. This is an exciting opportunity for me to work with some great people on an issue I care a lot about.
At the same time, I'm sad to be leaving Education Sector: It's not often you get an opportunity to be a part of creating an incredibly successful and dynamic organization from the time it's just a spark in someone's eye, and I've really enjoyed and grown incredibly during the last two years I've been here. I'll particularly miss the incredible staff I've had the opportunity to learn from and work with here--especially Andy Rotherham. As Andy mentioned, he and I have worked together for almost seven years. I'm very grateful that he saw potential in me back then and for the incredible professional opportunities he's given me since then. He's a great policy thinker and entreprenuer, but he's also a great boss, mentor and friend.
I've also really enjoyed blogging here at the Quick and the Ed. I've enjoyed the back and forth with various folks, and I know I'm a better writer and thinker for it. While I won't be blogging here any more, I'm not entirely going to be gone from the blogosphere. You'll find me posting from time to time at the New America Foundation's Higher Ed Watch blog, and as Andy mentioned, I'll be guest-blogging for him at Eduwonk later this summer. And you may occassionally find updates on my doings at my boyfriend's blog, which, if you're not already reading, you should be.
So: Good-bye for now, but just for now, and don't be a stranger.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Are Men More Cleverer Than Women?
A new study just released in the UK claims that intelligence gaps do innately exist between the sexes, with men scoring an average of 5 points higher on IQ tests than women, and outnumbering women more than 5 to 1 in the “genius” category. The researchers found this interesting, given that "this is against a background of women dramatically overtaking men in educational attainment and making very rapid advances in terms of occupational achievement."
How revolutionary: scientists once again amazing themselves, Arthur Jensen style, by proving that white, upper class males perform best on a test designed by white, upper class males. Who defines intelligence? How exactly are we measuring it? The issue of intelligence test-bias has been debated for decades, with no agreed upon resolution. Although tests today are surely a great deal less biased then those of say, 1984, I dare say that what an IQ test is best at is measuring how well a person performs on IQ tests, and we should be weary in generalizing the results to represent the mental capacity of an entire race or gender.
How revolutionary: scientists once again amazing themselves, Arthur Jensen style, by proving that white, upper class males perform best on a test designed by white, upper class males. Who defines intelligence? How exactly are we measuring it? The issue of intelligence test-bias has been debated for decades, with no agreed upon resolution. Although tests today are surely a great deal less biased then those of say, 1984, I dare say that what an IQ test is best at is measuring how well a person performs on IQ tests, and we should be weary in generalizing the results to represent the mental capacity of an entire race or gender.
Voucher Use in Washington Wins No Praise from Students
The title of this entry is a wordplay off Cato’s Adam Schaeffer's latest post, where he criticizes the NY Times and Washington Post coverage of the recent DC voucher program study, arguing the media outlets made too much of the report’s conclusion that voucher students fared no better than public school counterparts in the first year of the DC program, while downplaying the news that parents of voucher recipients were happier with schools than a control group. In calling the parental support a “wild success,” Schaeffer misses a key aspect of the analysis.
Compared to a control group, parents of students enrolled in the voucher program gave higher grades to their child’s school and believed the school had less violence. James Forman Jr. argues that parental satisfaction, if it matters in voucher program success, should be factored in public school accountability. Still, to hold up parental support as evidence of success here is pretty superficial, especially when we consider who made up the control group in the study. The authorizing legislation mandated the “strongest possible research design for determining the effectiveness of the program,” so the
Moreover, who is the best judge of violence and overall school quality—parents, or the students themselves? On violence, students reported no statistically significant difference between public and private schools. In other words, the people who actually witness and experience violence, the students themselves, reported no increases in seeing weapons; being offered drugs; or being victims of theft, physical assault, or bullying. On school quality, the only sub-group who noticed a difference was the lowest performing students. They rated private schools worse, not better, than traditional public schools.
Honestly, there’s not really that much to be excited about here one way or the other. The voucher law passed, it’s being implemented and studied, and one year’s worth of data probably isn’t enough time delay to evaluate its effectiveness. While I’m a little less optimistic about the program than Schaeffer (who makes the mighty claim that, “all scientific assessments of choice programs show positive gains, and nearly all of those studies show statistically significant gains”), I’ll wait for more evidence before jumping ship or onto the bandwagon.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
What can TPS reports teach us about education?
At a Business Roundtable event today featuring rockstars Wendy Kopp, Mike Feinberg, Chris Barbic, Jon Schnur, and Tim Daly, I was most struck by a small caveat that Feinberg made when comparing his KIPP teachers’ schedules to those of average business workers. They both work 7:30-5:00 days, but the teachers are working with kids. There’s no slacking off. They can’t exactly pull a Peter Gibbons of Office Space fame. When asked by the consultants, the infamous Bobs, to describe his daily schedule, he responds:
Peter Gibbons: Well, I generally come in at least fifteen minutes late, ah, I use the side door - that way Lumbergh can't see me, heh heh - and, uh, after that I just sorta space out for about an hour.
Bob Porter: Da-uh? Space out?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah, I just stare at my desk; but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch, too. I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.
Preschool and School Choice Movement Leaders Combine Forces to Form New Pornographers-style Education Advocacy Supergroup
(No, not really, but keep reading)
Cato's Adam Schaeffer highlights a debate within the school choice community: On one side are activists pushing targeted voucher programs to help kids with specific needs--kids with disabilities (as in Florida), foster kids (Arizona), and poor kids in urban districts with crappy schools (in Wisconsin, Ohio, D.C.). On the other are those, like Schaeffer and Howard Rich (to whose WSJ column Schaeffer's piece is pegged), who actually think the whole public education system is the problem and want to replace it with a tax credit and/or voucher regime for all families. Curiously, this debate actually has a lot of similarities the debate among early childhood advocates on the merits of targeted versus universal preschool programs. And it's not the only thing these two issues have in common.
I believe that the school choice movement (in which I include the charter school movement) and the preschool movement are the two most vital movements in education today. For starters, they're both actual movements, with grassroots advocacy bases committed to moving the ball on the issues. While federal policymakers are hemmed in by the policy cage of NCLB and difficulties of its implementation, these state and local level advocates are driving real, on-the-ground change on choice and early learning.
Both are also terribly ambitious. They're questioning long-accepted relationships, roles, and responsibilities--In the case of school choice, breaking district educational monopolies and giving parents more control over their children's education; in the case of preschool broadening the understanding of public and communal responsibility to small children and their families. They're redefining the boundaries of publicly-supported education--In preschool, to include younger children; in school choice to include private, charter, and other non-traditional schools. And they're both building new institutions and infrastructure to deliver new types of education in new ways.
Both movements also rely on similar authority to make the case for their preferred reforms: A combination of arguments based on economic theory (each even has its own Nobel Prize winning economist in Milton Friedman and James Heckman!), program evaluation and effectiveness research aimed at showing their programs deliver positive results for kids and the public, and social justice arguments focused on the needs of historically underserved children. Both augment these arguments and research with savvy PR campaigns and grassroots advocacy to move the ball on their goals. And both movements have been driven by the strategic investments of committed patrons in the philanthropic world (both individuals and foundations).
And both, as their agendas advance and states start implementing their policy prescriptions, are having to deal with quality problems in the preschool programs and schools of choice that emerge.
In my experience, there's not a lot of love lost or perceived shared ground between the leading lights of the preschool and school choice movements. Conservative and libertarian choice advocates tend to hate the idea of public preschool funding, and preschool supporters have good reason to be wary of the market based on their experience with poor quality in unregulated private preschool and daycare programs. That's unfortunate, because they could learn a lot from one another and there are some natural synergies between their goals.
So, how do we get the preschool and choice movements talking? I don't think there's really much chance that they'll combine forces and form a New Pornographers-style education advocacy supergroup, but if folks were willing to lay down their biases, I think we might see some interesting conversations and collaborations emerge.
Cato's Adam Schaeffer highlights a debate within the school choice community: On one side are activists pushing targeted voucher programs to help kids with specific needs--kids with disabilities (as in Florida), foster kids (Arizona), and poor kids in urban districts with crappy schools (in Wisconsin, Ohio, D.C.). On the other are those, like Schaeffer and Howard Rich (to whose WSJ column Schaeffer's piece is pegged), who actually think the whole public education system is the problem and want to replace it with a tax credit and/or voucher regime for all families. Curiously, this debate actually has a lot of similarities the debate among early childhood advocates on the merits of targeted versus universal preschool programs. And it's not the only thing these two issues have in common.
I believe that the school choice movement (in which I include the charter school movement) and the preschool movement are the two most vital movements in education today. For starters, they're both actual movements, with grassroots advocacy bases committed to moving the ball on the issues. While federal policymakers are hemmed in by the policy cage of NCLB and difficulties of its implementation, these state and local level advocates are driving real, on-the-ground change on choice and early learning.
Both are also terribly ambitious. They're questioning long-accepted relationships, roles, and responsibilities--In the case of school choice, breaking district educational monopolies and giving parents more control over their children's education; in the case of preschool broadening the understanding of public and communal responsibility to small children and their families. They're redefining the boundaries of publicly-supported education--In preschool, to include younger children; in school choice to include private, charter, and other non-traditional schools. And they're both building new institutions and infrastructure to deliver new types of education in new ways.
Both movements also rely on similar authority to make the case for their preferred reforms: A combination of arguments based on economic theory (each even has its own Nobel Prize winning economist in Milton Friedman and James Heckman!), program evaluation and effectiveness research aimed at showing their programs deliver positive results for kids and the public, and social justice arguments focused on the needs of historically underserved children. Both augment these arguments and research with savvy PR campaigns and grassroots advocacy to move the ball on their goals. And both movements have been driven by the strategic investments of committed patrons in the philanthropic world (both individuals and foundations).
And both, as their agendas advance and states start implementing their policy prescriptions, are having to deal with quality problems in the preschool programs and schools of choice that emerge.
In my experience, there's not a lot of love lost or perceived shared ground between the leading lights of the preschool and school choice movements. Conservative and libertarian choice advocates tend to hate the idea of public preschool funding, and preschool supporters have good reason to be wary of the market based on their experience with poor quality in unregulated private preschool and daycare programs. That's unfortunate, because they could learn a lot from one another and there are some natural synergies between their goals.
So, how do we get the preschool and choice movements talking? I don't think there's really much chance that they'll combine forces and form a New Pornographers-style education advocacy supergroup, but if folks were willing to lay down their biases, I think we might see some interesting conversations and collaborations emerge.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Community College Transfer Problem
Give the New York Times' Sam Freedman credit for a good choice of topic today -- a program that helps community college students transfer to four-year universities. The story of Viviana Alcazar's journey from a local two-year school to a degree from Stanford also underscores the particular importance of community colleges to the nation's rapidly-growing population of Hispanic colleges students, who are more likely than both white and other minority students to attend a two-year school. That's because the states with large Hispanic populations, like California and Florida, also tend to be the states that chose to accomodate the mid-20th century surge in college enrollment by building highly-stratified higher education systems (in part because they didn't have an existing infrastructure of private schools) whereby only a small proportion of students go to presitigious four-year research universities while most go to local two-year schools. California alone has something like 1.4 million community college students, two-thirds of all the undergrads in state, public or private.
But I wish the column wasn't--like so much higher education media coverage--shot through the lens of super-elite institutions like Stanford. Two-year to four-year transfer is a huge problem in this country; while two-year transfer students tend to perform just as well in four-year colleges as students who start in four-year colleges, less than 40 percent ever transfer in the first place. In other words, the important goal isn't so much to get two-year students to transfer to Stanford as it is to get them to transfer somewhere in the four-year system, so they have a decent shot a bachelor's degree, increasing the dividing line of economic attainment in this country.
But I wish the column wasn't--like so much higher education media coverage--shot through the lens of super-elite institutions like Stanford. Two-year to four-year transfer is a huge problem in this country; while two-year transfer students tend to perform just as well in four-year colleges as students who start in four-year colleges, less than 40 percent ever transfer in the first place. In other words, the important goal isn't so much to get two-year students to transfer to Stanford as it is to get them to transfer somewhere in the four-year system, so they have a decent shot a bachelor's degree, increasing the dividing line of economic attainment in this country.
Private Colleges
Members of the Annapolis Group, comprised of about 80 liberal arts colleges including Sarah Lawrence, Oberlin, and Reed, announced yesterday they will opt out of the US News college rankings. It is the latest example of a failure to understand what the college accountability movement is all about.
The worst argument against accountability put forth by leaders of the Annapolis Group is that this is about privacy. As Thomas J. Hochstettler, President of Lewis and
Much of my colleagues' criticism centers on the perception that we can't trust the federal government with such sensitive data. Do we want Uncle Sam knowing every class our students are taking, every grade they earn, every course they drop? Critics have also noted the apparent ease with which the federal government could link data to students' Social Security numbers and, presumably, to their complete life stories.
Get Your Daily Dose of Virtual Reality
Do you have any burning but unanswered questions about virtual schools? Have you always wanted to attend one of Education Sector's awesome events but happen to live way outside the D.C. metro region? Are you going to be stuck on a really boring conference call around 3:00 P.M. this afternoon and need something to keep you amused?
Well, then, we've got a deal for you: Education Sector's first ever virtual forum on--appropriately enough--the topic of virtual schooling, this afternoon at 3:00 P.M. Join in the discussion with Education Sector's Bill Tucker, author of a recent report on virtual learning, Liz Pape, CEO of Virtual High School, and the NEA's Barb Stein. More info and registration here.
Well, then, we've got a deal for you: Education Sector's first ever virtual forum on--appropriately enough--the topic of virtual schooling, this afternoon at 3:00 P.M. Join in the discussion with Education Sector's Bill Tucker, author of a recent report on virtual learning, Liz Pape, CEO of Virtual High School, and the NEA's Barb Stein. More info and registration here.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
All About the Benjamins
I was at first appalled when I heard about Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer’s proposal to provide a cash reward for students who perform well on tests.
The plan seems a brutal affirmation of the financial incentives that seem to control this country. Is the only way to succeed in motivating our children by hanging dollar bills in front of their face? What kind of values would that teach? Like Danny said, shouldn’t we be able to instill in children the desire to learn, rather than initiating some mad goose chase for a wad of cash?
But let’s be honest with ourselves: What do we want for our economically disadvantaged students? Why do we push them to succeed? What images do we use to motivate them? The answer is, more often than not, we hope that their performance in school will allow them to obtain a scholarship to college, to continue their education, allowing them choice in the job market and in their future, choice that is provided by, you got it, money. Many adolescents (and more in poor areas where there isn’t much exposure to college, different career paths, or success in an academic sense) have a hard time visualizing abstract concepts such as their life ten years down the road, and molding their actions in the present accordingly. They do, however, have a compelling desire for the twenty dollar bill sitting on the table. Is there really a fundamental difference between pushing our students to succeed financially in the future and rewarding them with cash right now?
And it seems to work. A similar cash incentive program for teachers whose classrooms perform well on tests in Tennessee has proven a success and experiments done in the United Kingdom and Kenya have shown that cash incentive raises student achievement across the board, not just in students in the top percentile.
Of course, I am not arguing that cash incentives are a panacea by any stretch of the imagination, and if anything would act as a band-aid while larger problems with the education system are addressed. I will argue, however, that in a system where money and success are (albeit unfortunately) so synonymous, the proposal is more appropriate than it may appear at first glance.
The plan seems a brutal affirmation of the financial incentives that seem to control this country. Is the only way to succeed in motivating our children by hanging dollar bills in front of their face? What kind of values would that teach? Like Danny said, shouldn’t we be able to instill in children the desire to learn, rather than initiating some mad goose chase for a wad of cash?
But let’s be honest with ourselves: What do we want for our economically disadvantaged students? Why do we push them to succeed? What images do we use to motivate them? The answer is, more often than not, we hope that their performance in school will allow them to obtain a scholarship to college, to continue their education, allowing them choice in the job market and in their future, choice that is provided by, you got it, money. Many adolescents (and more in poor areas where there isn’t much exposure to college, different career paths, or success in an academic sense) have a hard time visualizing abstract concepts such as their life ten years down the road, and molding their actions in the present accordingly. They do, however, have a compelling desire for the twenty dollar bill sitting on the table. Is there really a fundamental difference between pushing our students to succeed financially in the future and rewarding them with cash right now?
And it seems to work. A similar cash incentive program for teachers whose classrooms perform well on tests in Tennessee has proven a success and experiments done in the United Kingdom and Kenya have shown that cash incentive raises student achievement across the board, not just in students in the top percentile.
Of course, I am not arguing that cash incentives are a panacea by any stretch of the imagination, and if anything would act as a band-aid while larger problems with the education system are addressed. I will argue, however, that in a system where money and success are (albeit unfortunately) so synonymous, the proposal is more appropriate than it may appear at first glance.
NCLB, Version 2.0
What’s better than the original No Child Left Behind act? No Child Left Behind, version 2.0!
Yes, ladies and gentleman, it has almost come that time to reauthorize the 21st century’s most controversial educational reform act. In anticipation for the looming congressional debate ahead, ETS presented its poll results at the seventh annual “Americans Speak” forum entitled, “Standards, Accountability and Flexibility: Americans Speak on NCLB Reauthorization”.
Despite the negative media attention NCLB has received in recent times, the poll showed that the public supports its reauthorization, with favorable attitudes strong among K-12 parents (48% in favor vs. 40% opposed).
But perhaps the most surprising finding of the ETS poll was the public knowledge of NCLB itself: only 32% of adults correctly identified NCLB as an education reform bill that has been signed into law.
Much of
- 28% of the American public thinks that NCLB is simply “talk”, but so far has been no action.
- 13% of the American public thinks that the President/Congress has put together NCLB proposals, but that no deal has been reached.
And for further confusion; only 47% of Americans correctly identified the NCLB plan out of a 4 answer multiple choice question.
- 26% of the American public thought that NCLB meant “making sure that students keep progressing onto the next grade level until they reach graduation.”
- 12% of the American public thought that NCLB meant “requiring all students to pass a national test in twelfth grade in order to graduate from high school and go on to college.”
- 8% of the American public thought that NCLB meant “giving parents vouchers so that their child can attend the school of their choice.”
Whether it’s misinformation of lack of information, this data demonstrates a critical need for sound, balanced, and coherent information regarding NCLB. Why?
The ETS poll showed that while only 41% of the uninformed general public looked favorably upon NCLB, 56% of the general public approved of NCLB when presented with a clear definition of the law. Understanding NCLB is half the challenge.
Despite these complications, the other results presented by ETS make it clear that Americans believe that NCLB Version 1.0 (and soon to be NCLB Version 2.0) can be utilized as an effective means to achieve a greater end goal of improving the state of American education. Perhaps the anonymously-quoted policymaker said it best:
“Version 3.0, which is down the road, will be where you start to see the big shift, whether it’s things like national standards or really new forward-looking ways to doing accountability . . . we may be in a position to really go in a new direction.”
ETS’s poll results serve as a fresh reminder that greater transparency and access to education policy information is crucial in the NCLB debate. However, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to remain a bit cautious about ETS’s own motivations within the high-stakes testing industry during a time of increasing emphasis on accountability. ETS at its core is a business, and the company retains a clear interest in promoting measures like NCLB when they can benefit from a substantial increase in the demand for state testing.
$600
Last February, I told my geometry class about their upcoming state test. I said it was a chance to show what they had learned. I explained my new Saturday tutorial program and daily review problems. Luisa interrupted me.
"Mr. Rosenthal, the TAKS test doesn't even matter this year."
We were at a large urban high school in Houston and Luisa was in tenth grade. The TAKS test would matter next year, in eleventh grade. It would determine if she graduated. But the tenth grade test wouldn’t even determine if she passed geometry.
After the test, Luisa told me she had hadn't really tried. Other students said they started guessing half way through. They were tired. The test didn't matter, not to them. But it mattered a great deal to their school and their teacher. We would be judged on their scores.
I thought of Luisa when I heard about New York's pilot program to pay students for achievement. Among other incentives, the program would pay high school students $600 for passing standardized tests. The idea is to align their short term interests with their long term interests, while alleviating poverty and making test data more meaningful. I’m not convinced.
Maybe $600 could make Luisa care, but I think she wanted to pass all along. Like all of my students, she had a natural desire for knowledge and an affinity for success. I saw it in her eyes when she learned how to find the volume of a cylinder. But she had failed TAKS four years in a row and expected to fail again. She didn’t see the point of trying, and money couldn't address the root of her indifference. I have great financial incentive to play in the NFL, but I'm not practicing my spiral.
Maybe $600 could make Luisa care, but I could have made her care too. I could have convinced her that success was possible, inspired her to work harder. I could have shown her the value of striving for excellence, even against long odds. I think the fact that we're offering $600 means we didn’t do our jobs.
Maybe $600 could make Luisa care, but at what cost? (Besides $600, of course.) What would we teach her about the purpose of education? How would we change the way she sees school?
As Edwize (somewhat sarcastically) says, it's a very cool experiment. I'm really curious, but I'm even more wary.
"Mr. Rosenthal, the TAKS test doesn't even matter this year."
We were at a large urban high school in Houston and Luisa was in tenth grade. The TAKS test would matter next year, in eleventh grade. It would determine if she graduated. But the tenth grade test wouldn’t even determine if she passed geometry.
After the test, Luisa told me she had hadn't really tried. Other students said they started guessing half way through. They were tired. The test didn't matter, not to them. But it mattered a great deal to their school and their teacher. We would be judged on their scores.
I thought of Luisa when I heard about New York's pilot program to pay students for achievement. Among other incentives, the program would pay high school students $600 for passing standardized tests. The idea is to align their short term interests with their long term interests, while alleviating poverty and making test data more meaningful. I’m not convinced.
Maybe $600 could make Luisa care, but I think she wanted to pass all along. Like all of my students, she had a natural desire for knowledge and an affinity for success. I saw it in her eyes when she learned how to find the volume of a cylinder. But she had failed TAKS four years in a row and expected to fail again. She didn’t see the point of trying, and money couldn't address the root of her indifference. I have great financial incentive to play in the NFL, but I'm not practicing my spiral.
Maybe $600 could make Luisa care, but I could have made her care too. I could have convinced her that success was possible, inspired her to work harder. I could have shown her the value of striving for excellence, even against long odds. I think the fact that we're offering $600 means we didn’t do our jobs.
Maybe $600 could make Luisa care, but at what cost? (Besides $600, of course.) What would we teach her about the purpose of education? How would we change the way she sees school?
As Edwize (somewhat sarcastically) says, it's a very cool experiment. I'm really curious, but I'm even more wary.
Pay Gaps and the Boy Crisis
Matthew Yglesias uses the NYT's groovy new salary comparison calculator to illustrate gender gaps in pay for young women, and concludes that "Most of these people are just starting out, and the men are already earning substantially more."
Indeed. As I noted here, U.S. Department of Education data show that young men are earning more than women in their first jobs out of college--even after you control for field of study.
Indeed. As I noted here, U.S. Department of Education data show that young men are earning more than women in their first jobs out of college--even after you control for field of study.
Table B. Average annual salary of 1992-93 and 1999-2000 bachelor's degree recipients who were employed full time, by undergraduate field and gender: 1994 and 2001
| Gender and undergraduate field of study | Average annual salary | |
| 1994 | 2001 | |
| Total | ||
| Male | $32,500 | $39,400 |
| Female | 27,400 | 32,600 |
Business/management | ||
| Male | 33,600 | 42,300 |
| Female | 29,900 | 39,000 |
Education | ||
| Male | 35,100 | 29,600 |
| Female | 21,900 | 28,100 |
Engineering, mathematics, and sciences1 | ||
| Male | 33,300 | 45,200 |
| Female | 27,900 | 34,200 |
Humanities and social/behavioral science | ||
| Male | 27,300 | 34,600 |
| Female | 26,500 | 29,400 |
Health, vocational/technical, and other technical/professional fields | ||
| Male | 35,400 | 38,100 |
| Female | 30,300 | 34,30 |
1Sciences include life sciences, physical sciences, and computer/information science. SOURCE:
Monday, June 18, 2007
Still More on the Progessive Solution
This back-and-forth between James Forman and Leo Casey, picking up on the conversation Sara and I started last week on the lack of progressive solutions to dysfunctional urban school systems, includes someworthwhile posts on both sides. Leo's distinctions between corruption, patronage, and incompetence are legit, and he's right to disparage silver-bullet free market solutions--although I don't think anyone here is actually arguing that point.
But I'm inclined to agree with James that the conventional progressive education agenda, at least as described by Leo, still has no plausible solution for rank bureaucratic incompetence. I started my professional career as a government bureaucrat, so my general inclination is to be suspicious of those who blame everything on nests of cubicle-dwelling civil servants. Its a cliche, and usually wrong. But in the case of DCPS, when Leo says that "A thousand mile journey begins with a single step," my first thought is that the journey that needs to happen here is a lot shorter than that, starting in the DCPS administrative offices and heading on a one-way trip out the door.
But I'm inclined to agree with James that the conventional progressive education agenda, at least as described by Leo, still has no plausible solution for rank bureaucratic incompetence. I started my professional career as a government bureaucrat, so my general inclination is to be suspicious of those who blame everything on nests of cubicle-dwelling civil servants. Its a cliche, and usually wrong. But in the case of DCPS, when Leo says that "A thousand mile journey begins with a single step," my first thought is that the journey that needs to happen here is a lot shorter than that, starting in the DCPS administrative offices and heading on a one-way trip out the door.
Antioch R.I.P.
Antioch College announced its demise late last week. This is pretty unusual in higher education, a remarkably stable industry where institutions rise and fall but rarely drop off the board altogether. Since the last time the general public heard of Antioch was in the early '90s, when its parody-defying sexual conduct policy became a totemic example of P.C. excess, the college's downfall has inspired many people to note that there are apparently theoretical limits to hard-left ridiculousness, even in academia. Some of this commentary, like Michael Goldfarb's piece in yesterday's New York Times, has been pretty thoughtful. The rest, like the utterly predictable cackling at NROnline, not so much.
But the Antioch story also says a lot about modern higher education finance. One of the main reasons college tuition goes up so much every year is that, despite the increases, the vast majority of students still pay less than the market rate. For students attending public colleges and univerisities, that's because governments subsidize and control the price. At private institutions with selective admissions policies, tuition is below the market rate by definition (there are obviously limits to this, since selecitivity is in many ways the most important thing these institutions are selling, but there's little doubt that Yale could increase tuition or enrollment substantially without depressing demand).
The only institutions really out there on the ragged edge of the market, staying open purely with the revenue that customers are willing to pay for their services, are the relatively non-selective private colleges with small endowments. There are a lot more places like this than many people realize, particularly in the Midwest, where prior to the development of land-grant colleges and public higher education systems in the 19th century, states took a laissez-faire approach to chartering private colleges, most of which--like Antioch--had religious origins.
Some colleges are coping by becoming increasingly sophisticated at price discrimination, where instead of charging all customers the equilibrium market rate, a firm figures out how to walk up the demand curve and charge each customer the maximum amount they're willing to pay. Sports teams do this by selling courtside seats to rich people for phenomenal prices, even though the seatts are only marginally closer to the action than much cheaper seats a few rows back. Retailers do it by starting with an above-equlibrium price and then steadily dropping prices through sales. Colleges do something similar--start with very high tuition rates that only a few students pay in full, and then offer "discounts" on a case by case basis. Colleges are in a unique position to price-discriminate effectively because they--unlike sellers in a normal market--require customers to disclose incredibly detailed information about their ability to pay, in the form of financial aid forms, before they decide how much to charge them. (Erin Dillon wrote about this trend last year.)
But apparently if your enrollment drops low enough and your management is bad enough and your endowment has long since been squandered, it's possible to drive an institution like Antioch, despite a long and proud history that, in its totality, few colleges can match, into the ground. It's a shame.
But the Antioch story also says a lot about modern higher education finance. One of the main reasons college tuition goes up so much every year is that, despite the increases, the vast majority of students still pay less than the market rate. For students attending public colleges and univerisities, that's because governments subsidize and control the price. At private institutions with selective admissions policies, tuition is below the market rate by definition (there are obviously limits to this, since selecitivity is in many ways the most important thing these institutions are selling, but there's little doubt that Yale could increase tuition or enrollment substantially without depressing demand).
The only institutions really out there on the ragged edge of the market, staying open purely with the revenue that customers are willing to pay for their services, are the relatively non-selective private colleges with small endowments. There are a lot more places like this than many people realize, particularly in the Midwest, where prior to the development of land-grant colleges and public higher education systems in the 19th century, states took a laissez-faire approach to chartering private colleges, most of which--like Antioch--had religious origins.
Some colleges are coping by becoming increasingly sophisticated at price discrimination, where instead of charging all customers the equilibrium market rate, a firm figures out how to walk up the demand curve and charge each customer the maximum amount they're willing to pay. Sports teams do this by selling courtside seats to rich people for phenomenal prices, even though the seatts are only marginally closer to the action than much cheaper seats a few rows back. Retailers do it by starting with an above-equlibrium price and then steadily dropping prices through sales. Colleges do something similar--start with very high tuition rates that only a few students pay in full, and then offer "discounts" on a case by case basis. Colleges are in a unique position to price-discriminate effectively because they--unlike sellers in a normal market--require customers to disclose incredibly detailed information about their ability to pay, in the form of financial aid forms, before they decide how much to charge them. (Erin Dillon wrote about this trend last year.)
But apparently if your enrollment drops low enough and your management is bad enough and your endowment has long since been squandered, it's possible to drive an institution like Antioch, despite a long and proud history that, in its totality, few colleges can match, into the ground. It's a shame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)