I ran across this site recently called the Becker-Posner Blog. It’s a blog run by Gary Becker, an economist and Nobel laureate, and Richard Posner, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Imagine a couple of guys like that having a blog, of all things!
Anyway, in an entry from 2005, Gary Becker had this to say about how to improve the education system in America, and I thought it was interesting enough to post here for discussion:
My thoughts on this are as follows: it is my belief that the current system, which rewards schools for good test scores by its students is highly ineffective. It does not encourage schools to spend money on better teachers, teacher training, or equipment. It encourages only extra preparation for tests, which rarely require “smart” skills. That is, most, if not all, of these tests, such as the MCAS in Massachusetts, require the ability to add and subtract, and maybe the knowledge of a few geometric rules (though generally, these laws are even provided), as well as the ability to write at length about a passage, or search for key words in a passage that give away its meaning. Such skills are not really helpful, nor do they build intellect; it is my opinion personally that it would be much more important for such tests to concentrate on abilities such as interpretation of history, which I believe is a vital skill, one that demonstrates actual intelligence and knowledge.
But what is more important is that no single test can determine whether or not a school is doing a good job educating its students. More so, a good education, in my experience, depends more on one’s parents than school. Parents that place a high value on education are more likely to take part in their child’s education, to help their children out, and to pressure their child’s school to improve its standards and curriculum as well. In most cases, children with parents who value education go to better schools, and receive more education outside of school.
So the question then becomes how can the government make parents care more? As is often the case, the answer lies, in my opinion, in economic stimulus. That is, instead of of offering schools money if they improve their students’ test scores, why not offer money to parents of students who do well in the form of tax breaks? First of all, this eliminates the need for tests, since the need to compare schools across the country disappears. Instead, students can be compared to other students in the same school. The government, for example, could offer $1,000 tax breaks to parents if their child finishes in the top 10% of their grade. This would stimulate parents to encourage their child’s education, both within a school and outside of it. More so, competition by definition under such a program would increase because the amount of money being distributed (and the amount of families receiving it) would be fixed, as opposed to a program that requires minimum test scores that are the same every year, resulting in a certain amount of complacency in the better schools (who cares if you get 95% or 85% as long as you pass?). And of course, competition results in better results.
There are roughly 17 million high school children in America. So that would mean that my suggested program would cost about $1.7 billion, only about 1.3% of the total money the federal government spends on education. However, it seems to me that encouraging individuals to improve their child’s education would have much greater impact on the overall level of education than telling schools to improve students’ scores on tests that do a poor job of measuring actual educational quality. In short (I know, this e-mail has not really been short), it seems clear that the federal government should be concentrating on individuals, not schools, when it implements programs to improve education in America.
I realize I’m rushing in where angels fear to tread by arguing with a Nobel laureate, but it seems to me this theory assumes an even playing field for the students/parents which obviously does not exist. Pitting the college-educated two-parent families against the high-school-drop-out single-parent households is hardly a fair fight, no matter what the prize is. That’s why the Federal government evaluates the school as a whole — to make sure that all the children are achieving. Becker’s theory would end up with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
Somehow, I think school voucher’s is laying nearby in that man’s thinking.
“The government, for example, could offer $1,000 tax breaks to parents if their child finishes in the top 10% of their grade. ”
This makes me want to pre-emptively break out in a cold sweat followed by hives and vomiting. AS IF MY HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCE WASN’T COMPETITIVE ENOUGH. Teenaged depression and suicide-attempt rates at competitive suburban schools are already through the roof. Adding a $1,000 tax break on top of what I was ALREADY EXPERIENCING would have … well, I already went over the edge and had a nervous breakdown at 17 just from the existing pressure. I’m not sure how it could have been worse — multiple breakdowns? I saw a good friend slit her wrists IN THE BAND ROOM from grade pressure. That was a good day.
I graduated in the top ELEVEN percent of my class. Many of my classmates were SHOCKED I went to such a good school as Notre Dame because, “Well, you’re just not that good a student.” I had something like a 4.7 GPA (on a 5-point academic scale). That wasn’t enough to be a “good student.” Nor enough for top 10%.
On a different note, I always struggled in high school with the way science was taught. The curriculum was just not built in a way that made it easy (or sometimes even possible) for me to learn it. My brain wasn’t structured the same way as the curriculum. I saw the same thing with others; I had a friend who was in the LD English classes and won the school English award for excellence … she wasn’t bad at English, the curriculum was just impossible for her to follow. Even rewarding the best STUDENTS rather than the best SCHOOLS rewards not intelligent or hard-working students (although most of those who come out at the top ARE intelligent and hard-working), but it rewards the students who are best at working the curriculum, just like high-stakes testing rewards the students/schools who are best at the skill (and it is a learnable skill) of taking standardized tests.
It wasn’t until six months into trigonometry that I got that piece of info that made me suddenly go, “AHA! THIS is how trig works!” Some schools teach trig the way I learned it (starting with the unit circle); others start with that piece of data *I* needed (starting with triangles). I simply couldn’t grasp the theory when we started from unit circles and so I spent six months floundering and frustrated to the point of tears. I could MEMORIZE it all but I didn’t UNDERSTAND a bit of it. Once I got the bit that my personal brain needed, I never had a problem again, although it was far, far too late to rescue my abysmal trig grade. Had I been under the other curriculum, I probably would have been a trig superstar instead of a trig laggard. I always found that SOOOOOOO frustrating, being penalized for my brain not working the way the state board of ed felt it ought to work, and for the insistence that there is ONE TRUE WAY to learn subject X.
The concept of vouchers will become a reality if the public schools continue their decline. If the information I recently heard is correct, #150 is losing over 300 families per yer – either moving out of the district to the surrounding suburban districts, or the children transferring to one of the local private schools. When a voucher program begins, those numbers will only increase.
One of the more interesting things I’ve encountered lately is the number of #150 staff members (teachers, administrators, clerical, and other support staff) pulling their children out of #150 to attend one of the parochial or other private schools in town. That really says it all, doesn’t it?
I know quite a few District 150 teachers who won’t put their kids into their schools. They probably would teach somewhere else if a good offer came along.
I agree in large part with the comments made by C.J. and E.M. regarding Becker’s theory. However, I will add this thought … how much incentive is a $1000 tax break for a wealthy family? Not much, although I suppose if this were an annual tax break on multiple children, the cumulative economic effect could be significant. That said, one must concede that it would be even more of an incentive for a struggling middle class family. However, the poorest of the poor wouldn’t see much advantage either because they are already getting most of their federal and state income taxes refunded.
If put into practice, this plan would seem to be an incentive for only a fairly narrow income range – the highest and lowest income brackets would not see much benefit. I suppose it might work if the incentives were somehow graduated to provide more benefit to the poorest Americans and capped to keep from wasting this money on the wealthiest of Americans.
I do agree with Eyebrows … such an incentive program might lead to some very cut-throat activity, especially among those just within or without the margins of the 10th percentile.
It also completely escapes me how this plan would improve public school curricula. Instead of rewarding schools that know how to “work the system,” it rewards the families of individual students who do the same. I don’t see how it changes the system.
“However, I will add this thought … how much incentive is a $1000 tax break for a wealthy family?”
It almost wouldn’t matter in wealthy enclaves; the prestige factor of it would be enough.
CJ,
I agree with Mr. Becker when he says this about our education system:
• …the current system… is highly ineffective
• …nor do they build intellect
Who would disagree with these observations? I also agree when he says children with parents who value education go to better schools, and receive more education outside of school. But do you really think parents and their students are largely responsible for District 150’s sorry shape? This excuse may have held water several generations ago- but haven’t we had at a minimum plenty of time to teach students they will achieve little if they choose to follow in their parent’s unsuccessful foot steps? Educators do play a major role in modeling and inspiring intellectual curiosity and critical thinking. I would propose District 150’s problems are more about years of weak administrators hired by untested superintendents such as Griffith, Garrett, and Hinton.
When Mr. Becker, the economist and Nobel laureate, suggests introducing additional economic incentive into the system I thought about the lack of incentive the current compensation system provides to teachers. What does length of service and accrued education hours have to do with being an effective teacher? Why should we compensate teachers with the same pay if they are not genuinely doing the same quality of work? Why should we continue with the practice of tenure? I think the answer is that even the best and most qualified teachers simply do not trust that their principals and administrators have the capacity to properly evaluate them much less guide ineffective teachers to greatness. They are by de-facto forced to accept the protection of their unions and the cycle of mediocrity continues. Even the American Federation of Teachers says on their website:
Attracting and keeping qualified teachers is one of the biggest challenges facing high-poverty schools. Teacher unions and school districts can address this problem by collaborating on financial incentive packages and programs designed to improve teaching and learning conditions, according to the latest report from the AFT
In order for teachers to be more effective they must be lead by talented administrators and appropriately paid. Isn’t this the way most professional disciplines operate? Most other professions have a better system for identifying talented individuals, compensating them, and keeping them. Not to mention they do it rather well without unions.
Peoria has had too many incompetent administrators and therefore we get what we get- a struggling school district. I am not surprised some people, especially those in the field of education, feel they can legitimately point to students and their parents when looking for someone to blame. It is more difficult and painful to accept partial responsibility for the failure of the district.
If we want to see real change in student achievement we must elect people willing to toss out the incompetent administrators and work towards a merit pay system for educators. Pure and simple- if we want a better outcome we need better leadership. Isn’t it ironic we only have ourselves (the voters) to blame?
“Most other professions have a better system for identifying talented individuals, compensating them, and keeping them.”
People say this, but I don’t know if it’s true. Lawyers are usually paid in lockstep with other lawyers hired the same year at the same firm they are, with small wiggle room within the given range of salaries. (at least until they make partner) Bonuses aren’t given for QUALITY, they’re given for # of hours billed. (In point of fact, studies suggest # of hours billed inversely affects quality of work done by lawyers, but law firms still pay for hours, not quality, and reward hours, not quality.)
My understanding is doctors at large hospitals also are fairly lock-stepped until they get quite a bit of seniority.
High-quality lawyers and doctors are compensated for their excellence by a) being hired at good places in the first place (but who can tell how good you are right out of school, really?) or b) being entrepreneurial and going out on their own. And a lot of doctors and lawyers who go out on their own do it to serve underserved populations, so don’t make the big bucks anyway. Teachers can’t really work entrepreneurially outside the system. And we’d rather the places with the most problems have a shot at the good teachers as well. 🙂
I do agree about the administrator problems, though.
I think demographics have more of an impact on the quality of education than do the teachers. You fill a school with 90% students below the poverty line, on welfare, and you have prescription for failure. Those kids come from poor families for a reason. Somewhere along the lines those parents never learned what was needed to be successful. It is hard to pass on that which you don’t have in the first place.
It is easy to point fingers at teachers but I think any average teacher is going to look ill prepared for a hostile learning environment that much of District 150 offers.
Eyebrows is right that most professions do a poor job of selecting for quality. In fact, in many instances, mediocrity is encouraged. If you think back to your school experience, I am confident you will agree that the skill of the teacher was the #1 factor in what you learned in the class. A good teacher can make difficult and boring stuff learnable and even enjoyable. But teachers can’t do it all. They need the support of administrators and parents, and that is often lacking in Dist. 150. I do NOT agree with the theory that poor people cannot learn. Interject the “welfare culture” though, and that is something else. Welfare is the enemy of self-confidence, initiative, and improvement. It teaches worthlessness, dependence, getting something for nothing, idleness, follow-the-leader, etc. All bad ideas guaranteed to keep you poor, stupid and attracted to addictions and crime. We have to destroy the welfare culture in this city and in this country. Paying people $1,000 to do well is just another form of welfare, and would lead to more corruption. We have to change attitudes, not bribe people. And we have to reach as many of that lower 90% as possible. Many will never be brain surgeons, but they can be productive, self-supporting, law abiding citizens.
Mahnko,
no, poverty does not have to mean a prescription for failure. It depends on the value you are using to measure it. I grew up not weathly, but my grades, testing, etc were very high. I am still not wealthy, mainly because I chose a profession that while considered “noble” does not pay well.
No child left behind is good in theory, but how our district implements it is horrific. In talking with teachers at a strategic planning session they report focusing only on the subjects which are measured. This means the students are not getting a well rounded education.
We as a society in the attempts to salvage self esteem have dumbed down the cirriculum to the lowest common demoninator which then does not meet children who need to be challenged to excel. Furthermore, parents in our city in increasing numbers fail miserably as parents. When a child screams and curses at a teacher and is sent to an office only to be picked up by a parent who in turn screams and cusses at the principle is simply abismal. It is in this type of behavioral arena that a parental responsibility ordinance would actually have some type of impact.
We also start with the premise that education is a right, rather than a privilege. With this philosophy we created a subset of our society who then take it for granted. We then continue to add insult to injury by creating additional safety nets to pay them to continue along with this philosophy. I am not talking about special needs populations, but those who chose to spurn the educational system. There should be no financial rewards without efforts for those able to care for themselves. Sounds harsh, but a motivator. An arguement is that they will turn to crime, but would make an educated guess that this population is involved in antisocial/criminal activities already. On a positive note, I have seen poor single mothers with children who misbehave in school. I have seen them, as they were not working, go to the school and sit with the children, correcting the behavior. I have seen poor parents who could ill afford to take time from work, come handle their children. In these families problem children are problem children, but the efforts by the parents, while not always successfull, are certainly better than those uninterested and irresponsible parents. It is the uninterested parents that are destroying society. Their unruly children steal education from other children because the teacher and staff must focus on behavioral rather than educational concerns.
I have a few friends who adovocate for year round schools. We feed the children three squares a day and school with activities which last a chunk of the day. Homework is completed in school with necessary tutoring. A full schedule of a balance cirriculum is offered and flexible tracks for those wishing to enter a trade, college, own a business, along with life skills, etc be taught. This idea comes with a hefty price tag, but factor in the cost of a low end residential treatment facility (non penal) at $40,000 a year or prison which can go for up to $54,000+ a year, public assistance costs, day care costs, etc. I would surmise it would be cheaper to do on the front end for 8 years of education plus high school, trade school, tech school, etc than warehousing overcrowded prisons for 30-40 years, social service costs, etc. It would be interesting to actually figure out the dollar comparasion of such a program.
I think the Principal is the most crucial element of a good school. They set the tone and provide the leadership. D150 has had some great Principals who have made a postive difference and some lousy ones, who have contributed to a bad educational experience.