School Accountability Favors Subjects Like Math

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Tyler Cowen is blogging about a study that found No Child Left Behind to have improved student math scores but not reading scores. Cowen comments:

Math skills are more the result of drill, whereas you have to learn how to love to read and much of that happens within the family, not at school. Math is therefore easier to “teach by central planning,” so to speak.

I do think that children can learn to love reading in school, but I agree with Cowen that skills like reading are not amenable to state control. Math at the K–12 level entails learning a limited number of facts and procedures, in a set order. Although there are different ways to write out the algorithms and explain the concepts, nobody goes very far in trigonometry or calculus without first learning arithmetic and algebra. The government can say, “Teach x, y, and z in math class,” and then give a test to see whether schools complied.

Students’ reading ability does not develop in a linear fashion like math skills. People learn to read by reading widely and building up reading experience over time. There’s no obvious, direct route to a high level of reading comprehension, so it’s harder to legislate improvements in reading skills.

Campaign Enlists “Sesame Street” to Improve High School Education

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Do U.S. high school students score poorly on math and science tests because of too many commercials and not enough encouragement from Big Bird? If so, a new federal campaign will remedy that. It’s a hodgepodge of initiatives, ranging from science-themed video games in public libraries to commercial-free science television shows. Scientists will volunteer to help teachers, and “Sesame Street” is getting in on the action.

One thing is clear:

“It has nothing to do with the day-to-day teaching,” said Dr. Schneider, who was the commissioner of education statistics at the Department of Education from 2005 to 2008.

None of the new programs would transform science class. Few would affect schools at all, instead giving children opportunities to learn about science through after school activities. Their success would depend on whether anyone wants to participate in these particular initiatives, and whether the science video games teach as much as they’re supposed to. And there’s a disconnect between the programs and the campaign’s stated goals: high schoolers are too old to care about many of the “hooks” (like Big Bird), yet the campaign seeks to improve high school science scores.

Here are some policies that would have a greater effect on science in school:

  • Alternative teacher certification. If you like the idea of scientists volunteering to work with students for the duration of a single project, just imagine what students would learn if  scientists stayed on as full-time teachers.

  • Science-themed charter schools. Allow the students who are most interested in science to choose specialized schools and devote more time to studying it.

  • No national standards. Schools should strive to offer the best science instruction possible, not conform to a single standard. No matter how good the standard is, it will always be possible to improve on it. We don’t want schools to stop once they reach whatever level that the government finds acceptable — but that’s exactly what standards legislation prompts them to do.

Stay Tuned

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The trial for the man charged with terrorism because of a conversation he had with a telemarketer was originally scheduled to take place this month, but it’s been postponed until Jan. 4 (search case no. 0922-CR03091-01).

Getting angry on the phone is only one of many behaviors that can prompt suspicion of terrorism. According to the public service announcement embedded in this post by Jim Harper, anyone who asks for directions or writes in a little notepad is a possible terrorist.

I hope the justice system will turn its attention to real threats and dangers, and go easier on the people who lose their cool over phone solicitations. Put them on the Do Not Call list; don’t put them in jail.

Don’t Overreact to Bumps in the Economic Recovery

Posted on by Rik W. Hafer

This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon.

Determining when business cycles start and end is a tricky call. Recently released GDP data indicated that the economy expanded during the second quarter of this year at a healthy 3.5-percent rate. This is quite a turnaround from the 6.4-percent decline in GDP during the first quarter. And, as expected, optimism in our economy is being restored, even if gingerly. Before all the champagne bottles get uncorked, let’s raise a few cautionary flags.

First, how much of last quarter’s expansion was fueled by one-time gimmicks? GDP is driven by sales. The cash-for-clunkers program, for example, rearranged the timing of car purchases. Purchases that may have occurred over six months were accelerated into the program’s window of opportunity. Without that government-backed program, GDP growth would have been slower than reported.

Second, the government’s subsidization of new home purchases also provided a boost to the recent GDP figure. The housing market appears to have righted itself. But, going forward, the question is whether it has legs. Will there be sustained recovery in housing?

Third, the success of the federal government’s stimulus package is getting partisan scrutiny. Those in the administration and their supporters aver that the government’s open checkbook approach has saved or even created hundreds of thousands of jobs. An analysis conducted by the New York Times, however, suggests that such claims are wide of the mark.

That analysis also indicates that the jobs “saved” are predominantly in the public, not private, sector. As I have written before, this is predictable: Government jobs tend to be more secure than those in the private sector. Why not use stimulus money to protect your own and expand the pro-government electoral base?

These items are not meant to say that government intervention did nothing. Quite the contrary. But it does raise an important question: When the government’s dole ends, will the economy be able to stand on its own two feet?

There are some who argue that it won’t. The Federal Reserve’s policymaking arm, the FOMC, announced earlier this month that it intends to keep short-term interest rates close to zero. This clearly reveals their outlook.

Paul Krugman, the liberal economist and columnist, continually complains that the original $787 billion stimulus package (not counting the bailouts) was insufficient. His solution is the same as many in Congress: Spend more taxpayer money, enlarge government programs and create more dependency on the government’s largess.

What evidence will be brought to bear on the question of whether this expansion is viable? Any slip in the growth of GDP will be taken as a sign to increase government intervention. This is a false premise. Economic recoveries are uneven and unpredictable. Following the bottom of the 1981–82 recession, the economy roared back, growing at nearly an 8-percent rate over the next year. In contrast, in the year following the 1990–91 recession, economic growth limped along with growth rates of less than 2 percent.

Recessions are unique in character, and this one is no different. Real economic growth may be choppy, consumer spending will rise in fits and starts, and the unemployment rate will bump up before it recedes. We must resist the temptation to use such uncertain economic signals to justify increased refutation of the economic system upon which our economic growth has been built.

Further centralizing economic decision-making with the government will have adverse, long-run effects on our productivity and well being. The economic expansion that lasted for most of the 1982–2000 era was not based on increased governmental intervention. Just the opposite. And, if one needs reminding of how well bureaucracies operate, think Fannie and Freddie, FEMA, Sarbanes-Oxley, the SEC and Bernie Madoff, and the state of our educational system, just to name a few.

Rik W. Hafer is distinguished research professor and chair of the Department of Economics and Finance at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and a scholar at the Show-Me Institute.

 

Public Service Academy, Forestry Division

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

A small Oregon school district has found a way to gain new students. It’s converted to a charter specializing in natural resources. In the upper grades, the curriculum includes public service experience:

High school students are working with the Forest Service to help clean up campgrounds and do other activities that give them a glimpse of what working for the federal agency might be like.

I hope these kids don’t get in trouble with any unions, like the Boy Scout in Pennsylvania who cleared a walkway in a park. In that case, a union protested that only government employees were allowed to work in the parks — no volunteers. (The union president resigned soon afterward.)

“No Duh” Headline in Post-Dispatch Regarding Taxes

Posted on by David Stokes

Hopefully, the editorial board of the Post-Dispatch will read the AP story they are running today, titled “Rising unemployment taxes could hinder hiring.” But we are supposed to look at taxes as an “investment,” according to the Post, rather than as a compulsory taking (a term I don’t automatically regard as a bad thing, but it’s a priori what taxes are), so the fact that higher taxes are actually a detriment to economic growth will no doubt be ignored. From the story:

Bruce Meyer, a University of Chicago economics professor, said his studies show that higher unemployment taxes usually lead to lower pay for employees.

My wife and I pay unemployment taxes on our children’s nanny, so I have some knowledge about this issue. Nationally, according to the article, unemployment taxes on businesses are rising dramatically. I don’t know what the average is in Missouri, but I just received my 2010 tax rate statement, and — if I recall correctly — the rate decreased slightly, as it is supposed to when you don’t fire anyone. What did rise for everyone, though, whether they have one employee or 10,000, was the taxable wage base. So, every employer in Missouri will owe unemployment taxes on the first $13,000 of wages next year, when last year it applied only to the first $12,500, and the year before to the first $12,000. That is a tax increase by another name. Now, is it so large that it will have a significant effect on hiring in Missouri? I don’t know, but probably not. The total tax increase on a $500 base hike is roughly $16, assuming the rate remains the same and basing it on our rate.

Just because I didn’t see a rate increase, though (with our family’s one employee and history of never firing anyone), does not mean that other companies that have been forced to lay off workers are not seeing a rate increase. If that is the case, the combination of a higher rate and a higher base could clearly influence hiring decisions statewide. But I need a little more research before I know the answer to that. As it is, I am just happy that the Post carried a story about the detrimental effects of taxation.

More Kindergarten Admissions Craziness

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Fulton’s public kindergarten screenings are nothing compared to what New York City kids have to go through to get into a public gifted program. Kids in New York have to sit still for a whole hour and answer questions about analogies. Needless to say, few preschoolers can accomplish such a feat without preparation. A plethora of tutoring centers and workbooks have sprung up in response to parents’ demand.

A mother explains why she pays for tutoring:

“It’s quite pricey, but compared to private school, which averages about $20,000 for kindergarten, the price is right,” she said of the tutoring. “I just want the opportunity to have a choice.”

Parents will go to great lengths to have choices, even if it means subjecting their children to SAT-style practice tests at age three. Anyone who’s opposed to drilling preschoolers should support policies that would build more choices into the system. Little kids could relax if the gates to choice schools weren’t so heavily guarded.

(For more about kindergarten, see Matthew Kahn’s post applying mechanism design to the admissions process.)

Live by Political Appointment, Die by Political Appointment

Posted on by David Stokes

Kansas City’s city manager, Wayne Cauthen, is out of a job after a majority of the KC City Council surprisingly voted to remove him from office yesterday. We don’t talk about city managers too much on the eastern side of the state. St. Louis city does not use one at all, and many of the largest suburbs in St. Louis County either don’t have one (Florissant) or use a city administrator form (Chesterfield, Kirkwood, Wildwood), an arrangement very similar to a city manager, but one that gives more power to the elected officials. Add in the unincorporated population of the county, and my guess is that only about 1/5 of the county’s residents live under a city manager form of government. (A couple of the largest suburbs, like University City and Webster Groves, do use a city manager.) It is my understanding that the city administrator form is used more often by cities in St. Charles County, too, but I am not certain of that.

Kansas City, however, is one of the largest cities in the country to make full use of the city manager system. The job comes with a great deal of power, and in many ways the most important role of the council is the choice of the city manager. But city manager’s have short life spans. I could compare it to prime ministers in parliamentary systems of government. One day you are the most powerful person in the country, then something goes wrong, you lose a no-confidence vote, and you are out just like that. Margaret Thatcher sort of went out in that way. The analogy might work better if Wayne Cauthen had access to nukes.

I have no idea whether he was a good city manager. My guess is that he was, but the nature of the job is unstable. You get hired by one group of politicians and then, when power changes, who knows whether you are still wanted? I wish him well, and I think we can all agree that being escorted out of city hall by security was a bit much.

What’s Transparency Without Accuracy?

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

Uh oh. News media and bloggers have been reporting all week about federal stimulus dollars going to fictitious congressional districts. The website Watchdog.org reported that, nationwide, the fictitious districts are receiving $6.4 billion in stimulus money.

I did some reporting of my own over at Policy Pulse, the Show-Me Institute’s news site, and found that four fake congressional districts had cropped up in Missouri to receive more than $900,000. KMOX picked up on the story here.

Was it fraud? Not really. The Recovery.gov website has a little data integrity problem. Federal grant and contract recipients are responsible for making their own reports of project progress. After a 20-day review period, the self-reported information is posted online. Apparently, federal agency employees can only alert a recipient that reporting errors exist; only recipients can fix them.

The reason we’re seeing so many fake districts is that recipients are required to choose a congressional district from a drop down menu. They can choose between a range from 00 to 99. And it looks like some recipients just guessed.

I looked through the data on Tuesday,which you can download in raw form here (scroll to the bottom of the page), and although fake congressional districts make for good headlines, I think there’s a bigger issue.

Contract and grant recipients aren’t required to report a project name, description, or status. In fact, for Missouri alone, 2,258 grant recipients and 76 contract recipients left all three fields blank. Yet only 18 of those were flagged for correction.

If Recovery.gov is really supposed to promote government transparency and accountability, why not require that federal stimulus recipients report what they’re actually doing with the money?

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging