"Freakonomics" and schools
Economists talking economics usually make textbooks, not good reading. But University of Chicago professor Steven D. Levitt turns otherwise dry academic fodder into "Freakon0mics," the title of a surprising tome I picked up recently on the recommendation of former Hawaii Tribune-Herald news editor Chris Reed who writes "America's Finest Blog" for the San Diego Union Tribune.
Levitt and former New York Times writer Stephen J. Dubner published "Freakonomics," subtitled "A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything," in 2005, causing a stir for arguing convincingly that legalizing abortion in the U.S. caused a significant drop in the nation's crime rates. While Levitt also applies his methods to topics as varied as the ku klux klan, campaign finance, crack dealers, sumo wrestlers, and whether parents make a difference in how their kids turn out, he makes a couple of points about education worth noting.
Levitt discredits the concept that "school choice" improves student performance. In a study of Chicago Public Schools in which families were free to send their kids to any school where there was room, applications to the most highly regarded schools resulted in a lottery system for admission. Naturally, some students who wanted to go to the "better" school couldn't get in. But it turned out those students succeeded anyway. Where school choice was available, it barely mattered to student performance, Levitt concluded. Schools and students perform about the same in public schools whether parents can choose or not with one important exception -- the performances of students who chose to attend technical school or career training improved dramatically.
"These students performed substantially better than they did in their old academic settings and graduated at a much higher rate than their past performance would have predicted. So the (Chicago Public Schools) school-choice program did help prepare a small segment of otherwise struggling students for solid careers by giving them practical skills. "
Federal education officials and Hawaii schools could learn from this that de-emphasizing vocational and technical training in the mad rush to meet "No Child Left Behind" guidelines guarantees failure. Not only are Hawaii's schools currently "failing" in ever greater numbers, but so is the misguided effort to help them improve by chasing test scores, creating a cycle of failure. The latest test scores will force more schools to adopt the costly "pass-the-tests" curriculum being applied at dozens of failing public schools already, providing more incentives to address test scores at the expense of more diverse offerings that would better meet the needs of students. Some kids just aren't cut out for classroom academic and can't sit for tests, but they could become better students and productive citizens with adequate vocational and technical training which is not given proper emphasis under NCLB.
Hunter Bishop
3 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (3)
Beyond that, to put on my cynical teachers-union-loathing hat, the fact is that virtually anything seems likely to be an improvement on the status quo. That anyone can still argue that school quality is a function of total education spending -- the most common argument I heard during my 3,090 days in Hawaii -- is baffling. Since the "A Nation at Risk" federal report was issued in 1983, inflation-adjusted per-student spending has gone up more than 60 percent in the U.S. Yet test-score gains have been non-existent or minimal, at least until the school accountability movement finally gained momentum in the late 1990s.
Given this backdrop, charter schools are an experiment absolutely worth pursuing, whatever their initial mixed result.
Also-Chris Reed-don't jump on the case of Charter Schools without first hand knowledge. I know plenty of students whose grades and life in general have improved since enrolling in Charter Schools in Hawaii. I actually see the future Charter schools getting even better in spite of the jealous attitude of the DOE here and the financial short shrift the Charter Schools have to put up with. Considering the poor academic atmosphere for students in the Hawaii state school system,I'm sure the Charter schools will not stoop to that level. Charter schools exist because they work as a alternative to the public schools which tend to waste students' time and force them to be in an atmosphere of verbal and physical violence, boredom, and unqualified teachers.
NCLB is an impossibility and a huge waste of money. Its also a huge waste of the best assest our schools have - the intelligent students with great potential. Sorry, no money left for them. As the Hawaii DOE seems to say, "They are already doing well enough, we aren't concerned with them because they aren't a problem. We have to meet the NCLB requirements or we'll get even less $. What kind of a ridiculous system is that?
Thanks for past gastronomic revelations -- the rest of the world is catching up to you! http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040609/news_lz1f9dinners.html