William Mathis is managing director of the National Education Policy Center and Vice-President of the Vermont State Board of Education. He sent this report to the blog exclusively. Hanushek is a strong believer in testing, accountability, and school choice, as well as annually firing the bottom 5% of teachers, as identified by their students’ test scores.
Dr. Hanushek Again Imagines Saving Trillions of Dollars
William J. Mathis
In a recent brief published by the American Enterprise Institute, economist Eric Hanushek announces that $76 trillion (that’s a “T”) dollars will be generated or saved by adopting unspecified educational reforms.[i] That’s almost a four-fold increase! The closest explanation of these mysterious school improvements is that they are “incentives” for “teachers and leaders.” In a longer technical version of the brief, the authors dismiss the need for more specifics stating “the precise source of the given improvements is not important.”[ii](p.466)
Hanushek is the Paul and Jean Hanna Senior Fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution of Stanford University, best known for his frequent testimony on behalf of defendants in school-funding litigation. But his work also includes analyses of teacher effectiveness, among other topics.
The argument made in the new AEI brief is one he and his colleagues have made repeatedly over the years. It goes like this: If we imagine that standardized test scores go up a certain amount, this will add trillions to the GDP. Alas, this argument is little more than a numerological exercise in assumptions, multiplication and extrapolation. The astonishing increased dollar amounts are the result of “new estimates of … human capital stock” and assumptions about growth, which are then extrapolated to the nation. It assumes that NAEP test scores are a valid measure of workforce quality which will, in turn, drive the economic gains. As noted, this improved workforce is developed through unspecified “significant changes in school policies.”
The AEI brief does not present the actual methods or results, but some of these are found in the original technical paper, which itself circles back to the authors’ other work. In the end, the analyses fail in predictable ways:
- They oversimplify the complex relationship between education and national wealth,
- They are based on correlations which are interpreted as causal,
- The statistical approach exaggerates the results, and
- Workforce projections do not support this static scenario.
Oversimplifying – Education and wealth are certainly connected. But assuming education has this pervasive power over the economy ignores the complex set of interactive factors affecting the economy. This includes infrastructure, transportation, investments, political instability, climate, poverty, social changes and macroeconomic supports.[iii] In fact, two-thirds of the variance in test scores is attributable to outside of school influences.[iv]
Correlations are interpreted as causation – “Gains from school activities” certainly sounds causal. More specifically, the long paper flatly states the “… gains in annual GDP [are] due to educational reforms.” (p.470). But then, they back away and state causality is “challenging.” (p.479)
The core assumption of the piece is illustrated in a scatterplot of test scores and state economic growth (Figure 1, reproduced below). This includes an “estimated impact” of education on a state’s wealth. Little or no consideration is given to more important variables that might be the causes of the limited correlation.
Statistical Exaggerations – Although a best fit line (regression) is super-imposed on the scatterplot, the pattern is more suggestive of a shot-gun blast than an illustration of a strong relationship. Going back to the original study, we find that test scores explain a mere 23% of the variance in economic growth – and this may be largely due to the aforementioned “third variables.” This weak relationship is far from being as strong as touted. Furthermore, achievement test scores are collapsed into “state aggregate scores.” When scores are collapsed in this manner, the effect is to exaggerate a correlation.
Mystery Methods – Beyond one short note below the study’s Figure 1, the AEI paper does not share how these numbers were derived. How these were calculated for each state goes unexplained. Improving teaching and teacher leaders is put forth as the leading reform, but this also is not defended or explained. Neither socio-economic factors nor adequate funding are addressed, although a vast and relevant literature points to their importance. Yet, improvements are claimed to be “enormous” and states should be “willing to make substantial changes.” But how these strong but unknown recommendations are derived is not explained. However, the long paper does present a rich trove of irrelevant statistical exotica.
Workforce Extrapolations – The brief misses the mark with its implicit assumption that the work force and economic needs will remain static and can be easily extrapolated. In an age of emerging artificial intelligence and with virtually every job being transformed in the next half-century, it seems a long reach to assume that the form, function and role of education (and the economic drivers) will remain unchanged.
[1] Hanushek, Eric A. (May 2018). Every State’s Economic Future Lies with School Reform. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved May 29, 2018 from https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Every-States-Economic-Future-Lies-with-School-Reform.pdf? FRPc013V1FcL1JnZHg4V0Vsd253Z0kzUWsxVjc3dGhUSGVzRURhWUZORyttNDlQdWR2aVgifQ%3D%3D
[1] Eric A. Hanushek, Ruhose, J. & Woessmann, L. (Winter 2017) “Economic Gains from Educational Reform by US States,” Journal of Human Capital 11, no. 4 (447-86). Retrieved June 1, 2018 from http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Hanushek%2BRuhose%2BWoessmann%202017%20JHC%2011%284%29_0.pdf
[1] Sala-I-Marten, X., et al. (2014). The Global Competitiveness Index. Retrieved May 29, 2018 from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2014-15/GCR_Chapter1.1_2014-15.pdf
[1] Rothstein, R. (2016). In Mathis and Trujillo, Learning from the Federal Market Based Reforms. Charlotte, N.C. : Information Age Publishing. p. 432.
[1] Hanushek, E (Summer 2011), “Valuing Teachers; How much is a good teacher worth?” Education Next, 11(3). Retrieved May 29, 2018 from http://hanushek.stanford.edu/publications/valuing-teachers-how-much-good-teacher-worth
Ah, the “money doesn’t matter” economist that wealthy and powerful people embrace, and hire as an expert witness.
Of course they love him. He tells them exactly what they want to hear.
It’s worked out great for him, too. Money doesn’t matter for schoolchildren, but it sure matters for professional expert witnesses.
“The 20 school funding trials at which Hanushek has testified over the years include Serrano v. Priest (1973) in California, Somerset County Board of Education v Hornbeck in Maryland (1980), and Abbott v. Burke (1987) in New Jersey. His amicus brief was cited in the 2009 five-to-four U.S. Supreme Court decision of Horne v. Flores. Citing Hanushek and Lindseth in a majority opinion written by Justice Alito, the court held that in evaluating the actions of the state, attention should focus on student outcomes rather than on inequalities of spending and other inputs to schools.”
More of that awesome “advocacy for children” we see so much of these days.
Works out great for certain adults! Not so much for most children.
“…will be generated or saved….”
Interesting formulation. “Generated” and “saved” are entirely different (and opposing) concepts. If, for instance, schools are mandated to give annual standardized tests online, that is billions of dollars “generated” for testing and computer companies. That money, however, is most certainly not “saved”. It is, in fact, spent. Right from the start line Hanushek shows his (dubious) ability to spin nonsense into gold.
To channel Sr. Swacker, this is magical ‘mathurbation’ so typical of the “reform” echo chamber. These predictions are as legitimate a reading tea leaves. The goal is to fire up the privatizers so they will speed up the plunder of the common good.
Egad, one of his sources is the “Journal of Human Capital”. ‘Nuff said.
Beat me to the punch again, Dienne!
As I noted in an earlier post, Eric Hanushek recycled these points in a recent EdWeek Commentary. He asserted that raising test scores would produce financial payouts to cover the Social Security and Medicare, if…only teachers were held accountable and worked for pay-per-increase in test scores. His screwy correlations of rising, falling, and flat lining test scores with economic indices are beyond even the most obvious logical fallacies. You are asked to believe that teachers and miserable test scores were responsible for the 2008 great depression. Just like Bill Gates, he believes that test scores should be rising because the cost of schooling since 1970 has been rising–direct correlation. ““Real school expenditures per student have more than doubled since 1970—yet our graduates’ achievement remains mostly flat.”
“By historic patterns, if we were to close just half the gap between our students’ PISA scores and Canada’s, it would lead to long-run annual economic-growth rates that are almost 0.5 percentage points higher. That increase would raise the average U.S. gross domestic product 7 percent across the 21st century—more than enough to pay for projected fiscal problems with Medicare and Social Security benefits. Such monetary improvements would be more than 10 times larger than the economic losses from the 2008 recession.”
Got that teachers? It will be your fault if Social Security and Medicare benefits are not preserved. Reason? You did not close the PISA achievement gap with Canada !!!!!…
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/06/06/what-do-test-scores-really-mean-for.html
“He asserted that raising test scores would produce financial payouts to cover the Social Security and Medicare, if…only teachers were held accountable and worked for pay-per-increase in test scores.”
I need to figure out where he is getting the good shit he’s smoking.
“Egad” indeed. “Education” has become a code word for the aims of a “Brutopian” totalitarianism clothed in a very nice suit.
The double-speak is (a) a spoken regard for student self-determination (“executive functioning”) while (b) the actual determination of the speaker is to destroy it in any way possible (the new question is if they are aware of the implications of what they are doing). The control goes all the way down, FROM corporate control, TO the “democratic nation,” to states, cities, towns, neighborhood schools, parents and families and, ultimately, to the student, where, instead of handing over the reigns to well-developed persons, they arrogantly usurp their place (and their self-determination) and, metaphysically, an openness to the future, all along the way. Tra-la.
We need a newer version of “Farenheight 451,” or “Brazil.” (BTW, Robert DeNiro as a young man had a cameo in “Brazil.”) CBK
Obscurantist is what Hanushek is.
Seriously, Duane? Obscurantist?! I have come to expect a less “obscure” description of reformer types from you.
Yes, it may be a little known and used word but it fits Hanushek to the T.
I take no credit for “finding” the word as it is used by Comte-Sponville in his “The Small Book of Philosophy”. I looked it up to make sure what I thought it meant it meant. For those not familiar with the term (from wiki):
Obscurantism (/ɒbˈskjʊərənˌtɪzəm, əb-/ and /ˌɒbskjʊəˈræntɪzəm/)[1][2] is the practice of deliberately presenting information in an imprecise and recondite manner, often designed to forestall further inquiry and understanding. There are two historical and intellectual denotations of Obscurantism: (1) the deliberate restriction of knowledge—opposition to disseminating knowledge;[a] and, (2) deliberate obscurity—an abstruse style (as in literature and art [or economic studies]) characterized by deliberate vagueness. [my addition]
Ah, yes. I figured you had gone into your philosophy mode. The term does fit him even if I can think of more colorful descriptions.
Diane: Relating education to GDP is highly abstract and is a textbook example of what “silo-thinking” means. Think of a silo out in the desert. CBK
How about we just throw pieces of paper with names on them and fling them in the air and randomly choose. Voodoo IN = Voodoo OUT.
Hoodoo the voodoo? Hanushek!
Good one, Duane. Hoodoo the voodoo = Hanushek … INDEED.
Any — I repeat — any education reforms that end up saving 72 trillion dollars is a return to 1900 with only 7-percent of 17 and/or 18-year-olds graduated from high school.
To save that much money through education reform means cutting more than 90-percent of the children out of a free k-12 education. If parents can’t afford to pay for their child’s education, there will be none for those children. Imagine the vast slums covering the land like a plague, a terminal disease.
Keep an eye out for any move to get rid of the child-labor laws.
“Please, sir, may I have more gruel?”
The gruel will be out of date, watered down, moldy and crawling with maggots, but somehow the wealthy autocrats, the leaders of the Alt-Right Deep State, will make money off of that too.
This AEI nonsense is downright hazardous. There’s a part on page four of the 2018 “study” where Hanushek wrote that spending money on schools doesn’t improve them. Then, in the next sentence, he wrote that teachers’ pensions threatened school improvement. Talk about a contradiction! Money doesn’t help schools improve, but paying teachers in retirement threatens the money that helps schools improve. I defy you to understand Hanushek’s thinking without losing brain cells. Hazardous. Also, if you look at the scatter plot graph and try to understand how Hanushek came up with it for too long, well, just keep your physician nearby. It’s Hanushek’s readers’ health about which I am concerned. This is almost as damaging as listening to W. Bush ask, “Is our children learning?” Irony and contradiction from conservatives is dangerous. Be careful!
Oops! Grammar error in my second to last sentence. Is I learning much reading Hanushek?
Here is something simple to debunk the claims: Does anyone imagine that all the current low paying jobs would somehow disappear if every student was well-educated? Would workers magically be able to demand a living wage?
As an aside, do the same conservative economists who engage in this magical thinking also argue that the very same low-wage employers should not be made to pay a paltry $15.hr because it would ruin their businesses?
When are these arguments merely instrumental on behalf of privilege and when do people justify themselves by coming to believe their own lies?
Great point.
See: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/self-deception
Thank you, Duane. Good quotes.
It’s pretty easy to simplify the report of Hanushek by William Mathis:
Hanushek is a petty, partisan hack who never lets facts get in the way of his proselytizing.