When Laura Chapman read Some DAMPoet’s poem, “Economists are Like Weathermen,” she responded with an informative comment. I know Eric (Rick) well. We served together for years on the Hoover Institution’s Koret Task Force on Education. I wrote a bit about Rick in “Reign of Error,” and pointed out that his work has long applied econometrics to education. He was featured as an expert voice in “Waiting for ‘Superman'” where he reinforced the film’s message that public education is failing, choice are better, bad teachers cause low scores, and the best way to raise test scores is to fire teachers who can’t raise test scores. He has testified as an expert witness in court cases against increased funding for schools. I quoted at length from one of his articles in which he claimed that firing the bottom 5-7 teachers and replacing them with average teachers would cause a leap in test scores that would make us equal to Finland. The Gross Domestic Product would then soar by $112 trillion, just because of those higher test scores.
Laura writes:
Don’t get me started. The creep of econometric thinking into education has gone beyond reason, and the reason is this: Economists are addicted to scores on tests as indicators of anything that catches their fancy–school quality, teacher quality, instructional quality, cognitive skills, worker skills, state ranking in economic growth, national ranks in productivity, the fate of the nation’s economy.
On March 9, 2017, The Wall Street Journal published an Op Ed by economist Eric A. Hanushek titled “American Teachers Unions Oppose Innovative Schools—in Africa with the subtitle “Bridge Academies show promising results in Kenya and Uganda, but unions see them only as a threat.”
It begins “No longer content to oppose educational innovation at home, the unions representing America’s teachers have gone abroad in search of monsters to slay.
For nearly a decade, Bridge International Academies has run a chain of successful private schools in the slums of Kenya and Uganda. A for-profit company, Bridge has shown that it’s possible to provide high-quality, low-cost primary education to poor children in the developing world….” https://www.wsj.com/articles/american-teachers-unions-oppose-innovative-schoolsin-africa-1489099360
Readers are at least informed that Dr. Hanushek s a consultant for Bridge International Academies. The WSJ is an advertorial for Bridge, well place to attract even more investors to this not so low cost system of education with all questions and answers delivered on computers.
Hanushek has been VAMing teachers since his dissertation, about 1968. He is a frequent contributor of dubious statistics to legal cases that blame teacher unions for students who are “underperforming.” Like Chetty he is a serial publisher of inferences about the fate of the economy based on student test scores.
I do not doubt that he and many economists are well-trained statisticians, but if economists who pontificate about schools could not rely on test scores as the coin of their realm, they would probably be out of the education business business.
Here is a sample of the amazing inferences that can be made when you rely only on formulas to think about schools. Quote:
“Our primary analysis relies on these estimates of skills for students educated in each of the states. Minnesota, North Dakota, Massachusetts, Montana, and Vermont make up the top five states, whereas Hawaii, New Mexico, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi constitute the bottom five states. The top-performing state (Minnesota) surpasses the bottom-performing state (Mississippi) by 0.87 standard deviations.
Various analyses suggest that the average learning gain from one grade to the next is roughly between one-quarter and one-third of a standard deviation in test scores (Hanushek, Peterson, and Woessmann (2013), p. 72).
Thus, the average eighth-grade math achievement difference between the top- and the bottom-performing state amounts to about three grade-level equivalents – highlighting the problem of relying exclusively on school attainment without regard to quality. ”
From Hanushek, Eric A., Paul E. Peterson, and Ludger Woessmann. 2013. Endangering prosperity: A global view of the American school. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
These three economists are also responsible for the use of standard deviations to assert that this or that intervention or comparison of schools yield a gain of “days of learning,” or months, or years. Those inferential leaps are really absurd.

Did any of these astute economists who can predict the effect of education on the economy, happen to detect the enormous housing bubble that developed after the stock bubble. When it did crash the economy, did any happen predict severity and the long term effects of that collapse.
Speaking of economists and education here is a link you might want to read because it says a lot about each in a short piece. Especially when it come to predicting economic outcomes.
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/the-labor-market-isn-t-paying-attention-to-economists-employment-for-college-grads-down
LikeLike
Too many economists believe they can determine the value of any and everything. Their results suffer from making false assumptions and a misunderstanding of the many variables in teaching and learning. We have seen these fake conclusions in the “magic market” that in theory should solve everything, Instead, the market has unleashed winners, losers, waste and fraud and a whole host of other problems. I wonder who advised Trump’s people when it was announced that Meals of Wheels and after school programs were not worth the investment. I am sure many fragile, hungry elderly people and single moms would disagree with this heartless assessment. Number crunching in a vacuum brought us VAM, a failed formula to determine “effective teaching.” Economists are not much better than the weatherman or perhaps a soothsayer. We are all still waiting for the big rewards of trickle down economics!
If people are interested in looking at legitimate educational statistics, they should look at some of the government websites or even Jersey Jazzman’s blog. He understands how to make fair comparisons of student performance. He also understands how to control variables in an educational setting. He continues to poke holes in the so call “research” of many reformers.
LikeLike
And yet,
“Economists, like royal children, are not punished for their errors.” — James Buchan
LikeLike
Diane, I don’t think you’ve dealt with the NYT article two days ago on VAM (www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/upshot/the-little-known-statistician-who-transformed-education.html). I wrote the response below, only to discover the Comments section was closed. Maybe you’d consider putting it up as a rebuttal.
Mr. Carey’s article is an unabashed advertorial and it lessens our trust in the NY Times. It is neither serious journalism nor the result of any careful analysis. If it were otherwise, it would mention the statistical flaws of VAM.
VAM suffers from two fallacies, both easy to identify. First, it assumes that once-a-year tests are a legitimate measure of student progress. At best they’re just a proxy and at worst a detriment. All econometricians know that whatever is measured is what gets emphasized. So we have a perverse system where teachers are rewarded not necessarily for the best educational practices but for low-level, repetitive instruction, commonly referred to as “teaching to the test”.
When we read an article like Mr. Carey’s, we must remind ourselves that “teaching to the test” is not what parents desire who send their kids to the top U.S. schools. Those schools should be models for the others. Moreover, the practice is not in the interest of the taxpaying public. Our economy performs best when we teach innovation, creativity, communication, and teamwork. VAM, by its nature, opposes all that.
The other fallacy can be understood with a youth sports analogy. Here again, VAM has a perverse effect on what we actually want to achieve. Imagine, if you will, what would happen to 10- or 12-year-old girls soccer teams if coaches’ salaries were tied to win-loss records or improvement on physical fitness tests. The coaches who earn the most would leave behind an ash heap! The girls might be stronger, but they’d have no love of the game and, as every study on health and recreation shows, they’d be more likely to drop out of sports in subsequent years.
VAM does exactly same thing. Its proponents may love the idea of firing the lowest 10% of workers at an assembly plant because they don’t show improvement. But those are adults in charge of their own lives, not the lives of others! Kids mature and learn at different rates. One of the very best things our schools can do is keep them in the game, to get them committed to life-long learning and to make sure they have the (non-measured) skills that lead to success. How crazy are we to squash that with eight months of drill so a teacher can benefit from a proxy test?
LikeLike
DL Paulson,
I read the article celebrating Sanders as the man who taught us how to evaluate teachers drawing on his knowledge of agricultural statistics. I considered throwing up but decided to ignore it. Sanders’ musings have caused incalculable damage to tens of thousands of educators and have been thrown out by three courts.
Time and again, I have posted articles about the invalidity of VAM. It is tiring when people praise discredited theories.
LikeLike
“The creep of econometric thinking. . . ”
Subtle, perhaps subconscious double entendre??
LikeLike
“The Economist Family” song (which the Adams Family song was a parody of)
They’re creepy and they’re kooky
Delirious and spooky
They’re altogether pukey
Economists with VAM
Their stats are a disaster
A field they couldn’t master
Should run away much faster!
Economists with VAM
So get a statistician
To say “it’s superstition”
A Nobel Prize ambition
Economists with VAM
LikeLiked by 1 person
Economics, especially econometrics, like psychometrics, are the modern day equivalent of phrenology, astrology, homeopathy.
I have some hyper-diluted snake oil for sale cheaply for your test score based econometrics malady.
LikeLike
The two statisticians mentioned are motivated by many things from simple money and greed to status and ideology, but they both exhibit many of the problems that are used when statistics and mathematics are used as a window dressing for preconceived notions as opposed to their primary purpose, which is to facilitate a scientific examination of phenomena. When the statistician draws these kind of conclusions he is substituting correlation for causation. Because A is an event the occurs along with or prior to an outcome B, does not prove that A is the cause of B. Family life, cultural , social , and economic circumstances, nutrition, health, school spirit are some of the issues, along with the safety and security within the school, community , and home environment, as well as a teacher’s passion and knowledge. Undoubtedly all of these play an important role, but to try to find some magical formulaic arrangement of all of these is not so easy. Removing the bottom five to seven teachers based on some VAM smorgasbord of educational measurement assumes that you have found the driving force for successful educational development.There is no proof for the VAM measurements and many many examples of poor teachers that score higher because their classes are in better, less challenging schools while highly rated teachers, working in more challenging classes or schools, score poorer on the VAM scale of measurement. There is a book called “Weapons of Math Destruction” and this is a perfect example of the abuse of statistics for a simple and destructive political agenda. The demonization and destruction of public education, the very treasure and heart and soul of a constitutional republic,is a project that is being run by the hedge funds and the outsourcing crowd, the very people that have ripped apart the basic middle class living standard that has made this country secure, exciting, and hopeful for its citizens.. The hedge fund money that has gone into the lobbying and promotion of charter schools should be enough to tell people about the real motivation behind charter schools. The funders of this effort are Bill Gates, the Waltons, and Eli Broad, some of the biggest outsourcing advocates in the nation. People who have risen to the billionaire status on the backs of the populationand who have suddenly become the so-called great saviors of education. These men and women are hardly the most qualified and trustworthy leaders and they definitely should not be calling the shots on education. Hanushek and is ilk are just the henchmen of these untrustworthy characters , using statistics as a weapon of math destruction to fool the gullible about their real intent, driving education and the teaching profession into the ground.
LikeLike
Like!
LikeLike
Amen!
LikeLike
“A way for a Manager”
A way for a Manager, a plan for his scam
The Little Economist laid down his sweet VAM
The stars in the White House look down where he lies
The Little Economist with powerful ties
The cattle are lowing, Economist awakes
And Little Economist, a model he makes
I love thee Economist, look down from the sky
And stay by they cattle til morning is nigh
(Note: VAM was initially used to model cattle growth and then tweaked to model student academic growth and teacher “value added”.
Of course, this was a brilliant extension of the model, because, you know , students are just like cattle and teachers just like cattle feed and all the other “factors” contributing to student academic growth can be carefully controlled and accounted for, just as cattle can be carefully controlled in the pens of feedlots prior to slaughter.
LikeLike
Laura is the most astute contributor to this blog. No hay duda.
LikeLike
“No longer content to oppose educational innovation at home, the unions representing America’s teachers have gone abroad in search of monsters to slay.”
Good! With the African Union facilitating, nations of Africa have set for themselves Agenda 2063, The Africa We Want. Bridge International can only undermine the agenda.
LikeLike
Eric Hanushek, is a conservative economist who 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.
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.
Hanushek’s speciality is in the areas of obfuscation and misrepresentation (although one could easily think of some more pejoratively descriptive words).
No one can reliably predict the future, yet Hanushek wrote that we had to stick with the “reforms” of No Child left Behind, because even if those “reforms” didn’t yield much, if any, of a return on the huge increases in time and money spent on the “accountability.” Why? Because, said Hanushek, “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 made the claim that gains as small as 0.08 standard deviations result in, to use Mathews words, “trillions of dollars more in the gross domestic production.”
Hanushek also made 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 that leads to its achievement scores is antithetical to Hanushek’s conservative ideological dogma, and is directly contrary to the kinds of “reforms” he supports. He either doesn’t know this, or just simply ignores it.
Hanushek says that American economic competitiveness is dependent on school “reform.” He has cited economist Robert Lucas to bolster his contention. Lucas is a free market conservative who subscribes to and believes in “supply-side policies.” Lucas said that the economy slowed under Obama due to a “ fiscal policy that threatens higher taxes on the rich, and promises higher spending on programs like healthcare,” even though the U.S. has the biggest – by far – income stratification gap in the developed world, now spends far MORE on health care than any other developed nation, and the Congressional Budget Office said the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 will help to reduce health care spending and decrease the deficit. Lucas said economists who supported President Obama’s stimulus package “were either incompetent (“schlock economics” was the phrase) or corrupt.” Both Lucas and Hanushek pretend that supply-side policies were not responsible for big deficits and debt, and did not lead to a broken economy under George W. Bush. They did.
Eric Hanushek has written that if we could only “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 (with those trillions and trillions of dollars added to the economy). But Hanushek’ assertions don’t 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. Several years back, 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.) insisted on more supply-side tax cuts, and they steadfastly rejected 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 – incredulously – they demanded even more of them. And, they blamed the public schools for the problems that they and their supply-side stupidity caused.
By the way, for 2016-17, the U.S. was ranked third in the world for economic competitiveness.
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.” Eric Hanushek is a prime example of that statement.
LikeLike