Investments in Education May Be Misdirected

[theworldismine13]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/b...ts-of-early-education.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Investments in Education May Be Misdirected
By EDUARDO PORTER

James Heckman is one of the nation’s top economists studying human development. Thirteen years ago, he shared the Nobel for economics. In February, he stood before the annual meeting of the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Industry, showed the assembled business executives a chart, and demolished the United States’ entire approach to education.

The chart showed the results of cognitive tests that were first performed in the 1980s on several hundred low-birthweight 3-year-olds, who were then retested at ages 5, 8 and 18.

Children of mothers who had graduated from college scored much higher at age 3 than those whose mothers had dropped out of high school, proof of the advantage for young children of living in rich, stimulating environments.

More surprising is that the difference in cognitive performance was just as big at age 18 as it had been at age 3.

“The gap is there before kids walk into kindergarten,” Mr. Heckman told me. “School neither increases nor reduces it.”

If education is supposed to help redress inequities at birth and improve the lot of disadvantaged children as they grow up, it is not doing its job.

It is not an isolated finding. Another study by Mr. Heckman and Flavio Cunha of the University of Pennsylvania found that the gap in math abilities between rich and poor children was not much different at age 12 than it was at age 6.

The gap is enormous, one of the widest among the 65 countries taking part in the Program for International Student Achievement run by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

American students from prosperous backgrounds scored on average 110 points higher on reading tests than disadvantaged students, about the same disparity that exists between the average scores in the United States and Tunisia. It is perhaps the main reason income inequality in the United States is passed down the generations at a much higher rate than in most advanced nations.

That’s a scandal, considering how much the government spends on education: about 5.5 percent of the nation’s economic output in total, from preschool through college.

And it suggests that the angry, worried debate over how to improve the nation’s mediocre education — pitting the teachers’ unions and the advocates of more money for public schools against the champions of school vouchers and standardized tests — is missing the most important part: infants and toddlers.

Research by Mr. Heckman and others confirms that investment in the early education of disadvantaged children pays extremely high returns down the road. It improves not only their cognitive abilities but also crucial behavioral traits like sociability, motivation and self-esteem.

Studies that have followed children through their adult lives confirm enormous payoffs for these investments, whether measured in improved success in college, higher income or even lower incarceration rates.

The costs of not making these investments are also clear. Julia Isaacs, an expert in child policy at the Urban Institute in Washington, finds that more than half of poor 5-year-olds don’t have the math, reading or behavioral skills needed to profitably start kindergarten. If children keep arriving in school with these deficits, no amount of money or teacher evaluations may be enough to improve their lot later in life.

Much attention has focused lately on access to higher education.

A typical worker with a bachelor’s degree earns 80 percent more than a high school graduate. That’s a premium of more than $500 a week, a not insubstantial incentive to stay in school. It is bigger than ever before. Yet the growth of college graduation rates has slowed for women and completely stalled for men.

The Economic Report of the President released last month bemoaned how the nation’s college completion rate had tumbled down the international rankings, where it now sits in 14th place among O.E.C.D. countries.

The report restated the president’s vow to increase the number of college graduates by 50 percent by 2020, and laid out how the federal government has spent billions in grants and tax breaks to help ease the effects of rising tuition and fees. Last year the government spent almost $40 billion on Pell grants, more than twice as much as when President Obama came to office.

Mr. Heckman’s chart suggests that by the time most 5-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds reach college age, Pell grants are going to do them little good.

“Augmenting family income or reducing college tuition at the stage of the life cycle when a child goes to college does not go far in compensating for low levels of previous investment,” Mr. Heckman and Mr. Cunha wrote.

Mr. Heckman and Mr. Cunha estimated that raising high school graduation rates of the most disadvantaged children to 64 percent from 41 percent would cost 35 to 50 percent more if the assistance arrived in their teens rather than before they turned 6.

Erick Hanushek, an expert on the economics of education at Stanford, put it more directly: “We are subsidizing the wrong people and the wrong way.”

To its credit, the Obama administration understands the importance of early investments in children. The president has glowingly cited Mr. Heckman’s research. In his State of the Union address, the president called for universal preschool education.

“Study after study shows that the earlier a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road,” Mr. Obama said at a speech in Decatur, Ga., in February.

But the fresh attention has not translated into money or a shift in priorities. Public spending on higher education is more than three times as large as spending on preschool, according to O.E.C.D. data from 2009. A study by Ms. Isaacs found that in 2008 federal and state governments spent somewhat more than $10,000 per child in kindergarten through 12th grade. By contrast, 3- to 5-year-olds got less than $5,000 for their education and care. Children under 3 got $300.

Mr. Heckman’s proposals are not without critics. They argue that his conclusions about the stupendous returns to early education are mostly based on a limited number of expensive experiments in the 1960s and 1970s that provided rich early education and care to limited numbers of disadvantaged children. They were much more intensive endeavors than universal preschool. It may be overoptimistic to assume these programs could be ratcheted up effectively to a national scale at a reasonable cost.

Yet the critique appears overly harsh in light of the meager improvements bought by the nation’s investments in education today. A study by Mr. Hanushek found that scores in math tests improved only marginally from 1970 to 2000, even after spending per pupil doubled. Scores in reading and science declined.

“Early education is an essential piece if we are going to have a better education system,” Barbara Bowman, an expert on early childhood education in Chicago who has advised the Education Department. “We’re inching in that direction.”

Education is always portrayed in the American narrative as the great leveler. But it can’t do its job if it leaves so many behind so early.

 

[Ian1362]

This isn't a new observation

Amount of $ spent has little to do with actual achievement in schools.

Education elites and their political cronies have implemented countless initiatives aimed at reforming education. From the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, every plan put forth has resulted in nothing but inefficient expenditures, new layers of bureaucracy, and continuing declines in student achievement.

Education will only be reformed once parents and entrepreneurs are free to create real alternatives to the broken systems that exist today. Repealing compulsory-education laws and allowing parents to spend their education dollars freely should be the first steps in this direction.

Curiously, compulsory-education laws, which conscript children into state-regulated programs of study, are rarely discussed in the context of education reform; these laws' ostensibly benevolent nature allows demagogues to marginalize detractors and quell any attempt at serious discourse. This results in far-reaching regulations that control how private actors educate, and thus prohibits students from getting the individualized education they need.

The origin of compulsory education was characterized by oppression and forced assimilation. The modern movement was initially led by Martin Luther and the early Protestants, who sought to inculcate the masses with their religious views. Despotic Prussia was the first to enact laws at the national level, and compulsory education quickly became a weapon of choice for states seeking to destroy troublesome cultures and languages. In the United States, Massachusetts began enforcing mandatory attendance in 1852, and by 1918 every state had enacted similar legislation. The primary impetus for policymakers was to assimilate poor immigrant children; labor unions were also ardent supporters, as they sought to decrease the supply of labor in the workforce.

Current laws vary by state in details, but they are quite homogeneous in spirit. All require a minimum amount of instructional time (ranging from 160 to 186 days annually) at approved institutions. The majority of Americans between the ages of 5 and 18 are compelled to meet this requirement, with several states enforcing slightly more lenient laws. Although parents are free to pursue private education for their children, such options are almost always regulated by state governments.

There is likely a minority of children who benefit from compulsory education. While these outliers are by no means insignificant, the benefits accrued to them do not justify the aggregate effects imposed. To objectively evaluate the merits of such laws, we must fully account for all of their costs. Evaluating the effects on private forms of education is a good starting point.

Private schools and homeschools are rarely truly free-market alternatives to government-regulated education. By mandating attendance, states have a virtual stranglehold on the nature of private education. After all, in order to become a state-approved program of study at which "official" attendance is recognized, private actors are forced to satisfy some combination of curricular, reporting, and testing requirements.

In New York, for instance, homeschools must submit a notice of intent, maintain attendance records, file quarterly reports, and submit Individualized Home Instruction Plans for state approval.Additionally, students must successfully complete an annual assessment, including mandatory yearly standardized testing for grades nine and above. Perhaps most problematic, however, is its mandate that instruction given to a child must be "at least substantially equivalent to minors of like age or attainments at public schools," an edict clearly susceptible to abuse by state officials. This forces parents to comply with the belief systems of distant regulators who are free to define "substantially equivalent" as they see fit.

In the event that a parent's personal values oppose those of the state, the state's interests will ultimately prevail. This conflict prompted Murray Rothbard to note that at the heart of the compulsory-education debate is "the idea that children belong to the State rather than to their parents." If you attempt to challenge this notion, your child may be labeled "truant," and you may be subjected to fines, imprisonment, and the forcible return of their child to his or her zoned public school. Compulsory education thus imposes the state's definition of "education" on all parties falling under its auspices — even those pursuing a "private" course of study.

The state's monopoly on what defines "education" inevitably suppresses alternative views, thereby eliminating the complexity and diversity that should be prevalent in the market. Instead, a homogeneous system is used to serve heterogeneous students — yet another cost of compulsory education.

The natures of schools should be as diverse as the population itself. Curriculum, delivery method, and instructional time are but a few of the myriad variables that must be customized if the individual needs of a child are to be met. Rothbard noted the advantage of unfettered development of private schools in that "there will tend to be developed on the free market a different type of school for each type of demand."

Regulations that mandate the character of instruction only serve to silence demand and prevent entrepreneurship and innovation. It is impossible to know the shape and scope of programs that would come into existence otherwise; churches, civic organizations, and entrepreneurs should be permitted to innovate freely.

The poor and middle class are most injured by the lack of innovation that results from government monopoly on education, as they are without the means to pursue the artificially limited supply of private education available. Instead, their children are forced to attend underperforming public schools that often have little regard for the unique faculties of individual students. It is likely that the generalized education imposed on them will do nothing but retard their development, suppress their talent, and instill in them a permanent disdain for learning. Creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson cleverly compares mass standardization in education to the fast-food model of restaurants:

The other big issue is conformity. We have built our education systems on the model of fast food. This is something Jamie Oliver talked about the other day. You know there are two models of quality assurance in catering. One is fast food, where everything is standardized. The other are things like Zagat and Michelin restaurants, where everything is not standardized; they're customized to local circumstances. And we have sold ourselves into a fast-food model of education. And it's impoverishing our spirit and our energies as much as fast food is depleting our physical bodies.

The perils of state standards imposed on schools are akin to the shortcomings of centrally planned prices: no amount of research or expertise could possibly account for the infinite variables that define the wants and needs of unique consumers. The opportunity costs of failing to pursue areas of aptitude and interest are simply incalculable, and result in nothing but boredom and frustration for students.

Critical thinking and leadership skills are eschewed in such a system.

Perhaps the most significant cost of compulsory education, however, is the implication that liberty can be granted à la carte. In this environment an individual right is only guaranteed until a critical mass of demagogues determines otherwise. Legal-tender laws, military conscription, and health-insurance mandates are blood relatives of compulsory education; all dictate the actions of private individuals and survive on the premise that citizens are subservient to the interests of the state.

Compulsory-education laws invite further intrusions into our personal lives. Still, the left-liberal who supports marijuana decriminalization and the conservative who advocates for gun rights often fail to see this obvious relationship. Simply stated, à la carte liberty is veiled tyranny — it is impossible to sacrifice one right without putting others in danger. If for no other reason, such laws should be rejected on the premise that they help create a slippery slope toward despotism.

So what would become of society if compulsory-education laws were repealed? Would we devolve into an illiterate society of lawless ignoramuses? Of course not. If parents were this bad, the moral and educational fabric of society would unravel regardless of such laws. Religion, organized athletics, and youth groups manage to survive quite well without governmental interference and decree. Education would still be available to everyone, and only in limited cases of severe neglect would a child's mind be left undeveloped. The net benefits grossly overshadow any potential deficiencies.

Parents would have more freedom in determining how their children are educated, entrepreneurs and philanthropists would create education models never previously imagined, private schools and homeschools would be freed of tiresome regulations, public schools would lose their de facto monopolies and competition for children would force them to improve, and the burden for neglected children would be placed on community and religious organizations instead of public schools.

'll summarize my argument much as Rothbard did — by appealing to Thomas Jefferson, who advocated for public schools but squarely rejected compulsory education.

It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of the father.

 

[theworldismine13]

This isn't a new observation

half the posters in HL swear on their moms that spending is the main issue

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

I like the liberal, almost haphazard, use of the word "Proof".

Of course education won't improve cognitive differences because that cognitive difference is due to the characteristics of the parents.

I think many already know my stance on nature vs. nurture, but while I am characterized as someone who believes that heredity has a 1.0 correlation, I actually believe genes (and epimarks) to have a total correlation of only .60 to .70. Up to 40% of the outcome is due to learned behavior.

I was born in the lower class but I that is not my class now. I have observed so many differences in culture and work habits between classes.

The biggest clue that heckmen points out is that the mothers had a College education. He squares in solely on income, not questioning if that income was the result of a parent's characteristics. Depending on the major, innate IQ may or may not have an impact on academic performance. What a high GPA in college really means is that someone is motivated, hard working, disciplined, can handle high stress loads, and has good impulse control.

These characteristics may or may not be the result of learned behavior. Stress management may be the result of Genotype (meQuilibrium: 'Warriors vs. Worriers': Why Normally Productive People Get Snowed by Stress), but the other behaviors may be learned. These good behaviors lead to financial success.

Parental Income isn't what is driving academic success. Parental income is an indication that the Parents have good behavioral characteristics that will be passed down to the children.

Certainly, post 1960's free-life culture of north America is hugely at fault here, and the academic success of the parental traditionalists (South Asians, East Asians, African Immigrants) serves as an extreme to contrast the degeneration of western culture.

 

[Ian1362]

half the posters in HL swear on their moms that spending is the main issue

[EDIT]:This chart includes post 06:

There was a study floating around a year or so ago that compared two school districts; the highest funded one in the country (some DC school) and the lowest funded in the nation (in rural bumfukk Iowa). The per-pupil difference in spending was some 38 thousand dollars iirc. The DC school had the newest and best facilities, the Iowa school was dilapidated and poorly funded. But what about achievement? The DC school had miserable attendance, poor achievement, a low graduation rate, while the shytty rural school scored in the upper percentages of achievement, nationwide. I know you guys are young enough to remember learning without having a PC in every room or having the internet at immediate access. You can learn with a pile of books, a roof over your head, and a good enough teacher. There's a lot of work on theories of education that is basically cast aside by the current system.

"Education" is not something that you "acquire" by getting a piece of paper from a school. You learn and educate yourself every day. You can, if you apply yourself enough, literally learn anything.

Look at a guy like Karl Hess, who dropped out of school and just went to the library on his own and taught himself.

I'm finishing up my last semester of my bachelors and am off to law school in the spring, and I can say concretely that I have taught myself far more on my own than I ever learned in the classroom. Much of my time spent in high school was a complete waste. Why should I (or someone else in much the same circumstance) be nonetheless required to be there?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

These studies are just used to justify the continued inequality in resources and opportunity given to American children. Obviously kids born to educated parents will do better in school, but that is stil no reason that kids shouldn't get equal opportunities and resources. If kids coming from uneducated homes are at such a disadvantage then they should be given more resources, not less.

I don't care what's going on at home. If you put a student in a class with 30 other students and no books to take home he's not gonna do as good as the kid in a class with only 10 other students and a computer in his class.

Public school in America was created as a way to teach kids more than their parents could at home. Uneducated parents send their kids to school, and school takes them beyond what their parents would ever know. But now somehow that isn't the roll of school. A study comes out showing kids to wealthy educated parents outperform kids to poor uneducated parents and the solution is to make sure they stay poor and uneducated and the worst part is they've convinced some idiots that this is fair because "the parents don't care anyway"

 

[theworldismine13]

There's a lot of work on theories of education that is basically cast aside by the current system.

"Education" is not something that you "acquire" by getting a piece of paper from a school. You learn and educate yourself every day. You can, if you apply yourself enough, literally learn anything.

Look at a guy like Karl Hess, who dropped out of school and just went to the library on his own and taught himself.

I'm finishing up my last semester of my bachelors and am off to law school in the spring, and I can say concretely that I have taught myself far more on my own than I ever learned in the classroom. Much of my time spent in high school was a complete waste. Why should I (or someone else in much the same circumstance) be nonetheless required to be there?

to be honest this is the first time ive come across the idea that compulsory education is bad, so i will have to get back at you on that one, but im not feeling it at first glance, it sounds like libertarianism going over the edge, there are plenty of countries where education is not compulsory and they are usually poor and backwards

and also i think self education is easier with humanities than with science and technology

but my real point is that the past couple weeks ive had big debates here in HL where i was arguing that culture is more important than money when it comes to education and fixing the academic performance gap and some people where looking at me all crazy so thanks for the graphs

 

[theworldismine13]

These studies are just used to justify the continued inequality in resources and opportunity given to American children. Obviously kids born to educated parents will do better in school, but that is stil no reason that kids shouldn't get equal opportunities and resources. If kids coming from uneducated homes are at such a disadvantage then they should be given more resources, not less.

I don't care what's going on at home. If you put a student in a class with 30 other students and no books to take home he's not gonna do as good as the kid in a class with only 10 other students and a computer in his class.

Public school in America was created as a way to teach kids more than their parents could at home. Uneducated parents send their kids to school, and school takes them beyond what their parents would ever know. But now somehow that isn't the roll of school. A study comes out showing kids to wealthy educated parents outperform kids to poor uneducated parents and the solution is to make sure they stay poor and uneducated and the worst part is they've convinced some idiots that this is fair because "the parents don't care anyway"

the evidence to support that more resources are what's important is weak

 

[Mowgli]

They're spending money on the wrong things then. Whats the point of spending money on al kinds of computer supplies and books when the kids are still stupid. Perhaps they should dedicate more money to mentoring/tutoring after school programs and basically force kids who get bad marks to review their mistakes with the mentor/tutor after school until they understand it and if there are deficiencies in their knowledge, send them to the tutor to work on those issues. Having a shiny new book isnt going to make your grades better and neither will paying your lame ass teacher more money.

 

[TheBigBopper]

I like the liberal, almost haphazard, use of the word "Proof".

Of course education won't improve cognitive differences because that cognitive difference is due to the characteristics of the parents.

I think many already know my stance on nature vs. nurture, but while I am characterized as someone who believes that heredity has a 1.0 correlation, I actually believe genes (and epimarks) to have a total correlation of only .60 to .70. Up to 40% of the outcome is due to learned behavior.

I was born in the lower class but I that is not my class now. I have observed so many differences in culture and work habits between classes.

The biggest clue that heckmen points out is that the mothers had a College education. He squares in solely on income, not questioning if that income was the result of a parent's characteristics. Depending on the major, innate IQ may or may not have an impact on academic performance. What a high GPA in college really means is that someone is motivated, hard working, disciplined, can handle high stress loads, and has good impulse control.

These characteristics may or may not be result of Learned behavior. Stress management may be the result of Genotype (meQuilibrium: 'Warriors vs. Worriers': Why Normally Productive People Get Snowed by Stress), but the other behaviors may be learned. These good behaviors lead to financial success.

Parental Income isn't what is driving academic success. Parental income is an indication that the Parents have good behavioral characteristics that will be passed down to the children.

Certainly, post 1960's free-life culture of north America is hugely at fault here, and the academic success of the parental traditionalists (South Asians, East Asians, African Immigrants) serves as an extreme to contrast the degeneration of western culture.

This. It's an IQ issue, not a spending issue. National spending per pupil in Japan is about one-third the amount in America, yet Japanese students out perform American students on all international achievement tests. Not only are the Japanese probably harder working, but they're also smarter.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

the evidence to support that more resources are what's important is weak

No it's not.

Studies show that smaller classes are important. Studies show that new updated books are important. Studies show that kids with access to extracurricular activities perform better. Studies show that poor kids are most affected by a lack of resources because they need the MOST resources due to their disadvantages and home and in their community.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

They're spending money on the wrong things then. Whats the point of spending money on al kinds of computer supplies and books when the kids are still stupid. Perhaps they should dedicate more money to mentoring/tutoring after school programs and basically force kids who get bad marks to review their mistakes with the mentor/tutor after school until they understand it and if there are deficiencies in their knowledge, send them to the tutor to work on those issues. Having a shiny new book isnt going to make your grades better and neither will paying your lame ass teacher more money.

That's still a money issue though. Tutors and extra specialized programs cost more than new shiny books.

 

[Ian1362]

No it's not.

Studies show that smaller classes are important.

Studies also show the contrary:

Getting Beneath the Veil of Effective Schools: Evidence from New York City

We find that traditionally collected input measures -- class size, per pupil expenditure, the fraction of teachers with no certification, and the fraction of teachers with an advanced degree -- are not correlated with school effectiveness. In stark contrast, we show that an index of five policies suggested by over forty years of qualitative research -- frequent teacher feedback, the use of data to guide instruction, high-dosage tutoring, increased instructional time, and high expectations -- explains approximately 50 percent of the variation in school effectiveness.

I've been in classes with 40 kids and classes with 10 students and a laptop for every student. The classroom with the laptops kids just fukk around with them and don't pay attention to w/e the instruction is. You can't force someone to learn.

 

[Mowgli]

That's still a money issue though. Tutors and extra specialized programs cost more than new shiny books.

Peer tutors then.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Studies also show the contrary:

Getting Beneath the Veil of Effective Schools: Evidence from New York City



I've been in classes with 40 kids and classes with 10 students and a laptop for every student. The classroom with the laptops kids just fukk around with them and don't pay attention to w/e the instruction is. You can't force someone to learn.

It's not about forcing someone to learn. Kids with less resources at home need more resources at school. It's a simple concept yet people want to find reasons to deny it.

Those 10 kids who were screwing around on the computers obviously didn't need them and took that resource for granted. Probably because they have computers at home and they know how to use them. But if you take a poor kid who doesn't have a computer at home, and you sit him down and teach him how to use it. He will be much better off because of it.