I spoke at Stanford on September 30, and afterwards there was a panel discussion with Stanford’s Linda Darling-Hammond and Hoover Institution economist Eric Hanushek, moderated by veteran journalist Peter Shrag. There was a commentary afterward by doctoral student Channa Mae Cook, who had been a charter principal in New Orleans.
I have known all of the panelists except for Channa Mae Cook for many years. Rick Hanushek and I became good friends at the Hoover Institution, but not we are on opposite sides of the fence. He thinks the nation is in terrible trouble because of our international test scores; I don’t. From my perspective as a historian, I recall 1983 when “A Nation at Risk” issued dire predictions about the future because our international scores were so terrible. I think our biggest problem is our indifference to poverty. The nations that outperform us have reduced their child poverty rate, and it shows in the well-being of their children, as well as their test scores.
It was a good discussion, and Rick was a good sport, knowing that it was basically two against one. He held his own very well.
Linda is fabulous. She has an amazing grasp of teaching and learning. I have been urging her to learn how to tweet and to start blogging, but thus far to no effect.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Eric Hanushek is a conservative economist. Hanushek touts all of the conservative, corporate-style “reform” ideas for public education: school vouchers, more standardized testing, valued-added teacher evaluations, and “accountability.” There is little if any research to support these initiatives (and much to reject them), but that never gets in the way of Hanushek or his brethren.
Hanushek has been caught fudging (and this is the polite term for it) his “research” on class size and achievement. He dismissed the results of Project STAR, the rigorous, well-designed Tennessee state study that found significant achievement gains as a result of small class size in early elementary grades, because “the kids were not tested before the program began,” that is, BEFORE they even entered kindergarten. .
No one can reliably predict the future, yet Hanushek has said that we have to stick with the “reforms” of No Child left Behind, because even if those “reforms” have yet to yield much, if any, of a return on the huge increases in time and money spent on the “accountability” of high-stakes testing, “over 75 years even a reform that takes effect in 20 year… yields a real GDP that is 36 percent higher ” than without “reform.” Hanushek even makes the claim that gains as small as 0.08 standard deviations result in “trillions of dollars more in the gross domestic production.”
If that’s the case (and it isn’t), then why have achievement gains over the last three decades, at the same time that the student population has become much more diverse, not led to robust economic growth, healthy budgets and well-funded social programs, and prosperity for all citizens in this country?
[Note: Hanushek makes the extraordinary statement that “Bringing all countries up to the average performance of Finland, OECD’s best performing education system in PISA, would result in gains in the order of USD 260 trillion.” Of course, what Finland does educationally to attain its achievement scores is antithetical to Hanushek’s conservative ideological dogma, and is directly contrary to the kinds of “reforms” he supports.]
Hanushek says that American economic competitiveness is dependent on school “reform.” He cites economist Robert Lucas to bolster his contention. Lucas is the protoypical free market conservative who subscribes to and believes in “supply-side policies.” Lucas says that the economy has slowed due to “ fiscal policy that threatens higher taxes on the rich.” In the wake of the Great Recession the consensus from economists was that a government stimulus was necessary. But Lucas said that economists who supported President Obama’s stimulus package “were either incompetent) or corrupt.”
Both Robert Lucas and Eric Hanushek signed onto 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s plans to make the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent and to reduce corporate income taxes.
Eric Hanushek has written that if we could only “if we could replace the bottom 5%-10% of teachers with an average teacher—not a superstar—we could dramatically improve student achievement. The U.S. could move from below average in international comparisons to near the top.” And, American economic competitiveness would be restored. But Hanushek’ assertions don’t seem to add up. Maybe because they’re just made up; they’re not true.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) ranks nations each year on their economic competitiveness. For the most recent year, the U.S. ranked fourth, dropping from second. Why the drop? The WEF cited “a number of escalating weaknesses,” including poor business “auditing and reporting standards,” declining “corporate ethics,” “repeated fiscal deficits,” and unsustainable public debt. The WEF noted that “mapping out a clear exit strategy will be an important step in reinforcing the country’s competitiveness going into the future.”
Yet Republicans and their corporate and media allies (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, etc.) insist on more supply-side tax cuts, and they steadfastly reject any tax increases even though taxes are at a six-decade low. Instead of owning up to the financial calamity and distress their policies have inflicted on the country and its citizens, they demand even more of them. And, they blame the public schools for the problems that they and their supply-side stupidity caused.
One economist recently remarked that “economics is not really a science at all and, if practiced within the political arena, often is just ideology marketed in the guise of science.”
Robert Lucas and Eric Hanushek are two prime examples of that statement.
Thanks for the very informative review.
No, economics is nothing like a science, nor anything that even begins to approach a rational basis for public policy. There are maybe a handful of public figure type economists on the scene today that I can read or listen to without needing to scream. What might have been a fledgling science got hijacked by the Snake-Handlers of the Invisible Hand and turned into a fumble-mentalist religious cult.
“No, economics is nothing like a science,”
Thank you!
Every time I hear about the “laws of econ.” expressed as though they are equal to the natural laws of science (gravity anyone?) I actually do scream.
Jon Awbrey & Ang: This is the same Eric Hanushek who on BRIDGING DIFFERENCES, in an ongoing online discussion with Deborah Meier, on 3-19-13 made the following statement:
“In our conversations about accountability, we have skirted around the issue that I think drives the most heated debate—namely, that accountability involves evaluation of teachers and administrators. And teachers and administrators are “agin it,” period.”
LInk: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2013/03/dear_deborah_in_our_conversati.html
Needless to say, this assertion was—and is being—eviscerated. For simply one of many examples, access a yesterday’s posting by Jersey Jazzman:
Link: http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2013/10/another-reformy-practice-not-grounded.html
Yet like any true believer he continues on.
“You can’t teach an old dogma new tricks.” [Dorothy Parker]
🙂
Ha❢
When economists start being accountable for their economic practices anywhere near as consequentially as teachers are accountable for their teaching practices — that, as they say, will be the day.
It’s called the invisible hand because it doesn’t exist. Freudian? slip on their part.
democracy,
Another excellent post.
Thank you
Thanks for this synopsis on Hanushek. My take is that he makes the pronouncements he does based on a woefully inadequate knowledge of the greater context within which the things he examines occur. No excuses Eric.
I got some tickets to the Boston event on October 24. They won’t be in the church with you, but you’ll be debating the after-image of Jeb Bush’s whole “Foundation for Excellence in Education”, which is holding its annual Summit on Oct 17-18, also in Boston.
http://excelined.org/national-summit/2013-agenda/
Here’s their agenda, in case anybody tells you you’re imagining conspiracies. The crowning glory has to be “Extreme Choice through Digital Learning”, with the president of iNACOL, a Louisiana DOE functionary, and a Utah senator defending K12inc against DFER’s current effort to cut that particular “cancer” out of corporate ed reform, so it doesn’t contaminate their whole “movement”.
It’s too late. Everybody on all the strategy sessions has already got K12inc cooties all over them, and all their baggage is infested with cheats and frauds, too. They’re more like bedbugs than a tumor.
“Educational choice is evolving beyond simple choices between traditional public schools and alternatives such as charter and private schools.”
Interesting that reformers have announced we’ve moved to a publicly-funded system rather than a public system. It’s a done deal, I guess.
On to cybercharters!
I think most people in the public would be surprised to find out that this debate has ended, and we’ve adopted every single one of their ideas as standard public policy. I think it’s true that all of the reformers who (rhetorically, in political campaigns only) opposed private school vouchers have capitulated on that, but I wasn’t aware they were all admitting it.
Do you think they’ll allow us to hang onto a “public option” in K-12 education or is that off the table already? I should probably inform the locals who aren’t invited to any of these forums that 150 unelected people have decided on the national public education model.
The arrogance is just breathtaking.
“It’s too late. Everybody on all the strategy sessions has already got K12inc cooties ”
The problems with the online programs are much bigger than K12. K12 has gotten negative media attention, but these programs have been around for a decade in Ohio. They’re foisted off on vulnerable kids because they’re cheap to operate and profitable; kids in juvenile detention, kids in credit recovery programs- the kids and parents who are least likely to complain.
We’ve known about it for years in the court and social services areas.
If Jeb Bush and DFER weren’t aware of it until the national K12 stories surfaced, it’s because they didn’t want to know about it.
I’m not even in education and I know about it, as do many juvenile judges and social service workers.
The K12 business model, where they target the most unsophisticated and vulnerable “consumers”? That came from “throwaway” kids being shunted to cheap online programs in states like Ohio.
“extreme choice” Lord help us.
It’s old news, but it really is a shame that Obama (the Great Deceiver) pulled his infamous bait-and-switch with Darling-Hammond and Duncan. What COULD have been…
I was at this event and am worried the message that Professor. Ravitch shared is not being heard or listened to by many superintendents and therefore test results are driving how students are taught.
I purchased Professor Ravitch’s book and will do what I can to encourage local superintendents to listen to her message and provide our students an education that will help them survive in our society.
Nothing will change until we have people in positions of power who are willing to listen to something other than money.
Every once in a while Darling-Hammond makes me wonder though. She comes off as a reformer every once in a while.
But then again, Dr. Ravitch did endorse Obama during the last election, knowing the damaging effects his education cabinet brought about via RttT. Why did you not endorse the Green Party? Their education agenda is PERFECT for this country.
Here is what I just posted on Facebook. I live in AZ where very few seem to get what is happening to education. I urge everyone to use whatever means they can to endorse Dr. Ravitch’s latest book. (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) This is important.
Dear Facebook family and friends,
I just finished the book, “Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to American Schools”. This is an important book that everyone must read. Dr. Ravitch was the Assistant Secretary of Education under Bush. She helped institute NCLB. She began to see the damage NCLB was doing and became a crusader against it. This book is about more than Charters and on-line schools. It is about how things have gone wrong and how to make them better. She writes about technology and how it is being used to educate our children. Technology has it’s place, but it is not a substitute for good teaching. She says what we all know: the arts, music, P.E., pre-school, early childhood intervention for low-income families, etc. are all important. She talks about how private schools like Catholic schools are not doing well due to charters. She backs everything she says with facts. I don’t see how anyone can argue with her. However, the rich who want privatization are arguing and currently succeeding. Parents, teachers, all who care about public schools and education for all need to read this book and start questioning your school boards. Vote only for local people who make a commitment to do what is best for children–not their own pockets. This is not a Republican, Democrat, or any party thing. It is about what is right for our children and the future of education in this country. We are headed in the wrong direction. Please go to the library and check this book out or buy it and read it. Let me know what you think.
When Tony Bennett our Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction appeared at a meeting where he was trying to promote his ideas and introduced his grading system for public schools, it was intriguing to hear the superintendent of an adjoining school system tell him that he could tell him right then what the scores for these schools would be, based on the level of income in that community. Bennett was more interested in promoting himself than in improving education, the consensus of most educators in attendance, that this was entirely overlooked.
This is stated her to concur with Dr. Ravitch.
It was indeed a great event. Here’s my blog post that includes pictures, and my introduction of Diane.
http://accomplishedcaliforniateachers.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/diane-ravitch-at-stanford/
Is there a video of the event online?
Stephen, not sure. Maybe the panel discussion.
Invite Pasi Sahlberg. We should hear from one of the nations that we say we want to be like in regard to educational systems that work well! Oh no, he is not repeating the party line. He believes the major difference between our nations is in the number of children living in poverty and he admits our party line is “to bring up poverty is referred to as NO EXCUSES are allowed”. Someone should read his writings. We could all learn something that would help improve our system for those most in need. Are we really trying to improve the system for those at the bottom? I believe the wealthy have been told the real cost to do so and they will do anything to prevent this approach cutting into their corporate profits. https://m.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.edweek.org%2Fedweek%2Feducation_and_the_media%2F2013%2F10%2Fcoming_soon_to_nbc_education_nation.html&_rdr Sent from my iPhone