Susan Pendergrass speaks with Jacob Light, Hoover Fellow at the Hoover Institution, about his research on how artificial intelligence is reshaping higher education. They explore which college majors are most exposed to AI capabilities, why professors are largely not changing their syllabi or assessment methods despite widespread awareness of AI, and what students are doing in response to the uncertainty. They also discuss whether the backlash against AI on college campuses is real, what previous waves of technological change can teach us about the current moment, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00): Thank you so much for joining us today on the podcast. Jacob Light, Hoover Fellow at the Hoover Institution, talking about something that’s very timely right now in this college graduation season. I’m hearing that all the college students are having a backlash against AI. I don’t know if you would agree with that or not, but I want you to try to explain to people listening what first of all you’ve been looking at in terms of AI in college in general, and also what your findings have been, because I find them to be very interesting and somewhat surprising.

Jacob Light (00:31): Thank you so much for having me. I’m really excited to join the podcast today. I’m an economist who studies how universities respond to different forces of change, whether that be changes in the labor market, changing political conditions, and more recently, changing technology, which feels very central both as a former student and now as an instructor at a university, thinking about how AI is affecting the way that students interact with their courses. My work right now thinks about this problem of AI in higher education in two ways. First, where should we be looking for exposure of higher education to AI? Where do the skills that students are learning to develop in their courses overlap with the capabilities of artificial intelligence? The second strain of the research is how are universities adapting? How are instructors changing the way that they administer courses? How are students changing which courses they take? And how should we look at these movements as indications of how these two sides of this market are responding to this big shock?

Susan Pendergrass (01:39): So to be clear, you’re not just saying that ChatGPT becomes available and all the professors outlaw the use of AI in classes, but more so: are students continuing in 2026 to be taught skills that we know AI can do? And what’s the answer?

Jacob Light (01:57): Yeah, exactly. I think it’s important to contextualize that we teach students many skills that have already been automated. We teach students basic arithmetic and spelling, even though we have calculators and spell check. We have these tools that can perform a lot of the cognitive work that we teach students to do from a very young age, and yet we still think it’s important for students to develop skills in these areas. We still teach students to add and subtract both because those skills unlock higher order cognitive skills and also just because that exercise is useful to students. So what I do in my research is think not just about whether instructors are changing the courses they offer to reduce the weight on things that ChatGPT and large language models are able to do, but if we think it’s important for students to develop these skills even though AI can do them, things like analyzing data or writing essays, then it becomes important for instructors to modify the way they offer courses so that we still get information about how well students are learning to do the tasks that AI can potentially substitute for them.

Susan Pendergrass (03:13): I don’t want to minimize the effort you put into this, because it’s massive. You went through thousands of syllabi to really look at what’s being taught in a very specific way. You also included not just large language model AI but robots, and a lot of the skilled trades. I would imagine that the skills needed 10 years ago have changed now that robots can do a lot of that work. What are you seeing there?

Jacob Light (03:42): For this first part of the project, where I think about how different fields of study are exposed to artificial intelligence, I should say upfront that exposure here doesn’t necessarily mean that every computer scientist is going to have their job completely automated. What I’m thinking about is the degree to which students are able to use AI as a substitute for, or maybe even a complement to, their work in the classroom. The approach I take is to leverage a dataset that I’ve spent many years collecting of course offerings from a large number of US colleges and universities. For about 1,000 schools, I’ve scraped the course catalogs and course schedules, which gives me insight into every course offered at the school over a period of up to 30 years. I see course offerings, enrollment, titles, instructors, and course descriptions. I use these course descriptions to build a sense of what skills and tasks a student develops in, say, an economics class. The exposure measure is the degree to which what a student does in that class overlaps with the capabilities of artificial intelligence. To be very specific with an example: in an economics class, students are often trained to analyze data, use models, and evaluate policy. The intuition for the approach I use is that if we see AI is really good at analyzing data, using models, and evaluating policy, we would think of economics as a field of study that is highly exposed to AI. I think about exposure to AI in two different ways. For the broad capabilities of AI, I glean from patents related to artificial intelligence. I look at the overlap between the tasks that students do in their courses and tasks that AI technology patents say those technologies are capable of doing. And then very specifically at the capabilities of large language models, which I think of as a subset of AI.

Susan Pendergrass (05:21): Yeah.

Jacob Light (05:35): So I look at two measures of what AI can do: the broad range of AI capabilities, which I extract from patents, and then the specific capabilities of large language models. What I find is that when you compare the exposure of college courses to AI versus to previous types of technologies, such as robotics, we see that courses are much more exposed to the things that AI can do than to the capabilities of previous technologies. This is consistent with existing research that suggests highly skilled jobs, the types of jobs that college graduates flow into, are more exposed to artificial intelligence than they were to previous waves of technology. That’s the first order finding. But within college majors, there’s pretty wide variation in exposure, and it differs based on whether we think of exposure to the broad class of AI technologies versus just large language models.

Susan Pendergrass (06:55): What’s the most exposed? It looks like it’s computer science, right?

Jacob Light (07:00): Statistics and data science and computer science are highly exposed majors. Unfortunately, economics is also a highly exposed major. I should say it’s not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing to be exposed. On one hand, there’s a risk that students are not developing the same skills when they have access to these AI tools as they did in a pre-ChatGPT period. But also, we lower the barriers to entry into computer science and economics through the availability of these tools, because everyone’s vibe coding, and also you have bespoke tutors in your pocket that can help you navigate difficult courses and overcome barriers to entry. So it’s not obviously a bad thing.

Susan Pendergrass (07:35): Because everyone’s vibe coding.

Jacob Light (07:53): But to be specific, especially when we think about exposure to AI as represented by the capabilities of large language models, what seems to drive exposure is a combination of fields of study that involve data analysis and generating text. These are the two things we think of LLMs as being very good at. So the quantitative social sciences, economics, political science, even sociology, as well as fields that involve applied data analysis, including statistics and computer science, are going to be the fields where the skills that students develop overlap most with what AI is capable of doing.

Susan Pendergrass (08:31): So are professors changing their syllabi to reflect that? Are they dropping things that clearly could just be covered by AI?

Jacob Light (08:40): That gets to the second part of this project. Having documented that there is this concern that AI overlaps with what we teach students to do in their courses, and that students might be able to substitute AI for their own work, we might look specifically at these highly exposed fields as places where we want instructors to modify the way they teach as a means of ensuring that students are developing the skills they were developing before ChatGPT was released. We read a lot of these articles about blue books being back.

Susan Pendergrass (09:12): Using blue books? I feel nostalgic for the blue books. There’s something almost romantic about writing in a blue book versus clicking buttons on a Canvas quiz.

Jacob Light (09:12): Yeah, I don’t like blue books by the way, but using blue books, yes.

Susan Pendergrass (09:23): But isn’t that just working against an enormous tide? To think that requiring students to write in a blue book is going to force them to not use AI for the exam, but aren’t they using it daily in their coursework?

Jacob Light (09:53): Again, it’s not obvious to me that using AI in their coursework is a bad thing. So much of the work I did when I was a college student was pretty inefficient. I spent a lot of time writing code that didn’t work and writing essays that read very poorly. To automate some of those experiences might allow students to invest more in the types of higher order thinking and learning that are more valuable. But on the other hand, I think I became a better coder because I made mistakes through the process. Now I can distinguish good code from bad code because I’ve written a lot of bad code and I know what my bad code looks like. So we might think that even if we’re not changing the types of skills that students develop in their courses, that we continue to offer economics courses and computer science courses, the way that we assess whether students are learning the skills they need is going to change. There are certain types of assessments, like out-of-class essays and homework, where you just can’t get as much information about how much students are learning, versus in-class proctored exams, participation, and presentations where students have to demonstrate mastery through assessments where you can’t use AI tools. What I do is, for about 20 universities, I’ve collected a panel of syllabi covering both the pre and post-ChatGPT period, and I extract two pieces of information. The first is whether the syllabus has an AI policy or not. The second is the weights that instructors put on different types of assessments, such as half the grade being based on exams and 25% based on essays. I find two interesting things. The first is that following the release of ChatGPT, instructors became very aware of AI. We see a massive increase in the share of courses that have any AI policy, and most of those policies are restrictive of the use of AI. My own syllabus has clear instructions about when I want students to use AI and when I don’t. My students are very compliant and of course listen to everything I say, both when I’m lecturing and in the syllabus. So we see that instructors are aware of AI and think of it as a concern in the classroom.

Susan Pendergrass (09:12): You think they follow that?

Jacob Light (12:24): Sure, great, okay. But the second thing I extract is assessment weights, which allow me to assess whether instructors are changing the way they offer courses in a way that lets them extract more information about how much students are learning. What I find is that despite instructors being very aware of AI, we see virtually no changes in how much weight instructors are putting on the types of assessments where students can substitute AI for their own work, versus assessments like exams and participation where they can’t. We hear a lot about blue books being back. We hear anecdotal stories about how instructors are concerned about students using AI in the classroom. But I just don’t see this in the data.

Susan Pendergrass (13:23): That’s surprising to me.

Jacob Light (13:42): I think what’s interesting and informative is that there are two shocks in pretty quick succession over the last couple of years that push in opposite directions on the information that instructors can get from different types of assessments. During the pandemic, it became harder to offer in-person exams. There was a physical constraint that limited exams. What I see is a shift away from exams and towards homework, a gradual pre-pandemic shift away from exams that sharply accelerated during the pandemic, and that persists even in the years after in-person instruction resumes. We can use that as a benchmark: at minimum, instructors could revert back to the way they were weighting courses before the pandemic. What we see is basically nothing. There are very modest shifts away from homework and other AI-substitutable assessments, primarily essays. We’re slightly reducing the weight on essays and offsetting that with increases in participation and presentations. But we’re seeing very little movement at scale away from the types of assessments where students can substitute AI for their own work.

Susan Pendergrass (14:44): Maybe higher education just moves slowly. It’s an ivory tower. People get entrenched. Some professors use the same syllabus for 20 years. Maybe it just moves more slowly in reaction to this. I know some that are angry about the AI thing, but it’s up to them to figure out how to change it. In terms of what students are doing, how are they reacting to the changes in terms of what they’re choosing as majors? What are you seeing there?

Jacob Light (15:32): Yes, so I track changes in enrollment over the last 20 years using this course schedule data from a large number of universities. Similar to the relatively slow movement on the instructor side, students are moving pretty slowly as well. Despite stories about concerns about the viability of computer science as a major, and after a period of very rapid growth in CS enrollment, we’re only seeing a slight dip in CS enrollment and in other AI-exposed fields of study in the last couple of years. What I can show is that for the first time since around 2005, when CS enrollment began to take off, this current year, the 2025-26 year, we see a slight decrease in computer science enrollment. But it still remains elevated compared to the start of the pandemic and substantially elevated compared to 2010. In a way, perhaps this makes sense, because although there is greater uncertainty around the returns to developing CS skills, CS courses are now easier to take because you have tools that can help you with your homework and tutor you. One of the barriers to entry into CS courses previously was that they were hard, and these tools make more AI-exposed courses easier. I think the risk and the concern is that the same tools that can do your work in the classroom can also potentially do your job, and I don’t think we see students internalizing that risk yet.

Susan Pendergrass (17:12): Even though the Wall Street Journal has a layoff tracker and Meta is constantly seemingly laying folks off, and Amazon as well. We see a lot of thinning of the herd when it comes to software engineers. I just imagine it’s going to change. Is this generation of college students in a weird bind? They’re right between the pre-AI and post-AI worlds, spending a lot of money on college tuition at a time when the future of different types of work is very uncertain.

Jacob Light (17:54): I’m very sympathetic to college students who are navigating uncertainty right now of a form that I don’t think college students have had to navigate previously. During previous technological change, we’ve always looked to universities as the resource that we send people to upskill, with the promise that the skills you develop in college are going to have returns when you enter the labor market. I continue to believe that’s the case, certainly in the short term. But I recognize that the nature of work is changing quite rapidly as new technology can perform some of the tasks that workers are able to do. Economists often conceptualize occupations as a bundle of tasks, and when a new technology comes online, the technology is able to do some of those tasks while the human worker continues to perform others. The net impact on an occupation really depends on which tasks are being automated, and whether that means we need fewer people doing that occupation because the technology can do it for us, or whether the ability of technology to make workers more efficient actually increases the demand for people with those skills because now more firms will benefit from having a single software engineer on staff when it previously would not have been rational for them to have any. There’s a lot of uncertainty right now, and I think it’s difficult to navigate as a 19 or 20 year old.

Susan Pendergrass (19:37): What about this backlash? Eric Schmidt spoke at a college graduation and folks booed him, I think. Even Jonathan Haidt, who is sort of anti-smartphone and screen time. Do you perceive that? You work on a college campus. Do you see that age group wanting to turn away from AI?

Jacob Light (20:02): My perception is that the backlash is to the uncertainty that AI introduces. Many students are eager to use the technology when it makes them more efficient or when it allows them to substitute time they would spend solving problem sets towards leisure and other pursuits. But I’m sympathetic to the frustration that students are feeling, that this investment they’ve made and the promise of opportunity that college has previously offered is now at risk because of the changing technological landscape.

Susan Pendergrass (20:53): I was talking to a lawyer recently about AI and how they use it and how great it is for them. They said basically every lawyer now has their own legal assistant. And I was like, what does that do for legal assistants? Everyone’s got a research assistant, which is great. I use it all the time. But what does that do for people who used to start as a research assistant? It’s obviously changing things. I kind of remember, because I’m pretty old, desktop computers being the thing that was going to kill all these jobs, and it just shifted the market. It didn’t kill anything. It just dramatically increased productivity. I think people have a lot of dystopian views of this, but you sound like you’re a little more on the utopian side, and I think there could be a lot of positives that come out of it.

Jacob Light (21:38): I think that’s right. Economists are not in the business of making predictions generally, and I’d have to give up my PhD if I did. I take some comfort looking at previous waves of technological change, exactly as you said. Computers created more job opportunities than they reduced. Mechanized agriculture unlocked widespread growth in the economy despite reducing some employment in agriculture. My belief, if we take the past as precedent, is that we will see something like that with artificial intelligence as well. Some, perhaps many, occupations will be disrupted. Workers in those occupations will experience difficult consequences of this change. But there will be more and new opportunities available once this technology is more widely deployed. There’s a trade-off, and the transition is messy and painful. But I think on net, the precedent is that new technology is generally helpful for society.

Susan Pendergrass (22:57): AI spits out a lot of bad content and you still need a human, I think, to determine what’s bad and what’s good. I think that’s the skill set within the CS world. You can have AI code five versions of something, but somebody needs to know which one is good. So what do you think about that?

Jacob Light (23:22): I think that’s exactly right. The expertise becomes more valuable. In a way, it’s kind of a bummer that the parts of work where humans maintain their advantage are in evaluating quality rather than in generating. We’ve kind of taken the creative component of work away. I think it creates a less satisfying, perhaps less intellectually stimulating workflow. At this stage, certainly, we continue to need humans with expertise beyond the capabilities of AI to evaluate what AI is producing. I think that points to the crisis that higher education faces: if we are not able to produce these experts because students are not developing the skills we need them to develop in college, then how will we produce the next cohort of experts? Similarly to your point, if we don’t have legal assistants and research assistants who will eventually become lawyers and researchers, then we are not training people to preserve their comparative advantages over these new tools. I think that’s a big risk we face, and it emphasizes the importance of education right now more than ever.

Susan Pendergrass (24:56): So are you going to continue with this, scraping the data and looking at it?

Jacob Light (24:58): Yeah. It’s my maniacal hobby. I started this data collection in February 2020, and a month later the world changed. But I had a lot of free time on my hands, so it gave me something to do. This little hobby of mine became my pandemic hobby. It was my sourdough. This data gives really rich insight into how universities differ in ways that I don’t think researchers have been able to explore previously.

Susan Pendergrass (25:36): No, I think it’s great. That’s really cool. If people want to find out more, where can we find it?

Jacob Light (25:42): I’m a researcher at the Hoover Institution. You can go to my website at jacob-light.com. I’m always eager to talk about this work.

Susan Pendergrass (25:51): That’s fascinating stuff. Well, thanks so much. I’d love to see a follow-up in a year or two. I think it’s really interesting. Thank you so much.

Jacob Light (25:57): Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post AI and the Future of College with Jacob Light appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Download the full report here.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Michael Hartney is a Hoover Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, an associate professor in the department of political science at Boston College, and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He is also a research affiliate at Harvard University’s Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG), and, in 2020-21, a W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell Hoover National Fellow.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post How Unions Choose School Board Candidates with Michael Hartney appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is essentially a lifetime tax that isn’t being addressed as the crisis that it is. Collectively, our nation could lose as much as $28 trillion because the workforce will simply have more people who know less. That’s more than 15 times the current estimate of the economic cost of the pandemic.

The future of Missouri’s workforce is certainly not promising. Our K-12 enrollment is declining. Four in ten of our 3rd graders, who were in kindergarten in 2020, do not have even a partial understanding of 3rd-grade reading material. And last year, 40 percent of our high school graduates were not college or career ready, as measured by state standards.

Test scores matter. Declining test scores matter. Watering down the tests, backing off the grading scale, and not holding students and families accountable for chronic absenteeism only add to the negative impact.

Dr. Hanushek’s policy recommendations may seem harsh, but they’re the kind of bold ideas we ought to consider. He suggests creating meaningful financial incentives for “good” teachers to teach more students and buying out the contracts of low-performing teachers. These are solutions that prioritize the children in the system over the adults. What are the chances that Missouri is willing to take that approach?

The post The Lifetime Pandemic Education Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Michael J. Petrilli is president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, executive editor of Education Next, editor in chief of the Education Gadfly Weekly, and host of the Education Gadfly Show podcast. An award-winning writer, he is the author of The Diverse Schools Dilemma, editor of Education for Upward Mobility, and co-editor of How to Educate an American and Follow the Science to School. An expert on charter schools, school accountability, evidence-based practices, and trends in test scores and other student outcomes, Petrilli has published opinion pieces in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and Slate, and appears frequently on television and radio. Petrilli helped to create the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement and the Policy Innovators in Education Network. He lives with his family in Bethesda, Maryland.

Produced By Show- Me Opportunity

The post How We’re Writing Off an Entire Generation with Michael Petrilli appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On May 10, 2022, Aaron Hedlund, chief economist at the Show-Me Institute, and Tyler Goodspeed, Kleinheinz Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, discussed the impact of decades-high inflation on the economy, workers, and consumers, as well as the role of the Federal Reserve in solving the problem and the risk of the next recession.

Listen to the podcast:

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post Inflation in America: The Role of the Fed and the Risk of Recession appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Cochrane’s growth-oriented policy program outlines the need for more efficient regulations and a simpler tax system that would encourage work instead of undermining it. He says the ideal tax system should be one that raises revenues without drastically distorting economic behaviors, and a pure tax on consumption is “close to that ideal.” The piece goes on to cover a myriad of policies where free-market reforms could boost growth and improve standards of living.

While I highly recommend reading the piece, the Show-Me Institute also had the pleasure of hosting the self-described “Grumpy Economist” last month at Saint Louis University, where he talked in more depth about how these reforms could affect Missouri and the nation. The full presentation is available online here. 

The post “But for those willing to recognize the simple lessons of history, slow growth is not hard to diagnose or to cure.” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Speakers Series on Economic Policy: Policies for Economic Growth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

WASHINGTON — Racing to meet an October deadline, Obama administration officials said Thursday that they had awarded a contract worth as much as $1.2 billion to a British company to help them sift applications for health insurance and tax credits under the new health care law.

The company, Serco, has extensive experience as a government contractor with the Defense Department and intelligence agencies, and it also manages air traffic control towers in 11 states and reviews visa applications for the State Department. But it has little experience with the Department of Health and Human Services or the insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, where individuals and small businesses are supposed to be able to shop for insurance.

A billion dollar contract to a foreign company with limited experience in the health care industry? What could go wrong?

Of course, it remains to be seen how Serco will be able to determine tax credit eligibilities since the tax credits themselves are partly dependent on… the employer mandate,.

The IRS both delayed the imposition of penalties and “suspend[ed] reporting for 2014.” As the American Enterprise Institute’s Tom Miller observes, without that information on employers’ health benefits offerings, the federal government simply cannot determine who will be eligible for credits and subsidies. Without the credits and subsidies, the “rate shock” that workers experience will be much greater and/or many more workers will qualify for the unaffordability exemption from the individual mandate. …

All of these tax credit details matter to Missouri taxpayers. According to Daniel Kessler, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, insurance rates for many Missourians could rise a whopping 89% in 2014 because of the Affordable Care Act. To make matters worse, the question of whether tax credits can even be issued in Missouri and many other states is already unclear. Under the text of the law, tax credits flow through state exchanges only; Missouri, as well as a majority of the country, will have federal exchanges. The Affordable Care Act not only raises costs for most, but indeed, the law may be written in such a way that even its cost-mitigating provisions won’t apply to most of the country, Missouri included. Assuming Serco could determine whether tax credits can be issued to anyone, it may end up that only a fraction of the country would qualify for the tax credits outlined in the law.

It’s pretty cynical of the government to dump news of its health law outsourcing on a holiday — and of all holidays, a patently American holiday — to ensure fewer people found out about it. And it’s a sad commentary not only on the unpopularity of the law itself, but of the kind of political leadership slowly and sneakily implementing it. What a massive mess.

The post Of Course: Health Law That Will Ship Jobs Overseas to Be Overseen by… An Overseas Company appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A better education reform strategy, according to education experts Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and Eric Hanushek, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, is to allow free competition among schools for students. Such competition would allow schools that provide a quality education to flourish while punishing schools that provide a poor education.

A review of all available empirical studies of school voucher programs — a school choice policy that allows students to take public dollars with them to schools that they choose — found that the majority of studies showed that voucher programs improved student outcomes and public schools. Unfortunately, education vouchers are not a viable option in Missouri because they might violate the state constitution’s Blaine Amendment.

Increased choice frequently produces cost savings. In Washington D.C., for example, charter school students are outperforming traditional public schools while operating at a per-pupil cost of $11,000, compared to the $17,000 per-pupil expenditure of traditional public schools. Options are limited in Missouri because state law restricts the creation of charter schools to the cities of Saint Louis and Kansas City.

Furthermore, Missouri has many rural areas without a critical mass of students to support the infrastructure of multiple schools. In fact, two-thirds of Missouri’s school districts have fewer than 1,000 students.

For students whose educational choices are limited by geography, restrictive laws, financial constraints, or some combination of the three, a new approach is necessary to give them the benefits of educational competition and course diversity. Virtual schools and distance learning can offer these benefits to nearly all of Missouri’s students.

Related Links

The post Virtual Learning: Beyond Brick and Mortar appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Hoxby is the Scott and Donya Bommer Professor of Economics at Stanford University, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution, the director of the Economics of Education Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Senior Fellow of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

The post Charter School Benefits and Research: An Interview With Dr. Caroline Hoxby appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post The Promise and Performance of Charter Schools: Drivers of Educational Improvement in the U.S.? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On March 16, the topic up for debate was whether teacher unions should be blamed for failing public schools. Arguing that teacher unions should not be blamed were Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers; Gary Smuts, a superintendent of a successful public school district in California; and Kate McLaughlin, an elementary school teacher in Lowell, Mass. Arguing that unions should be blamed were Dr. Terry Moe, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University; Rod Paige, former U.S. Secretary of Education; and Larry Sand, a teacher from Los Angeles.

The debate itself is incredibly interesting and well worth watching for anyone interested in the topic of education reform. Although the details of the debate are too numerous to go into here, I will give you an idea of how it turns out.

Before the debate, 43 percent of the audience said that unions were to blame, 24 percent said they were not to blame, and 33 percent were undecided. After the debate, 68 percent said that unions were to blame, 25 percent said they were not to blame, and only 7 percent remained undecided. In short, only one percent of the audience’s undecideds were persuaded by the union advocates, while 25 percent were persuaded by the union’s detractors.

The post Teacher Union Advocates Get Schooled in Debate appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The embedded video below is a playlist consisting of five separate parts. After each individual part has finished playing, the playlist should automatically load the subsequent part until the sequence has finished.

You may also choose to view any individual part on its own:
Part 1 (9:22) | Part 2 (9:20) | Part 3 (9:13) | Part 4 (9:57) | Part 5 (10:01)

During Hoxby's trip to Saint Louis, she also spent a few minutes speaking with the Show-Me Institute about some of the key points contained in her lecture. In this interview, Hoxby explains the benefits of charter schools, outlines the challenges that charter schools currently face, points out the reasons for success in many charters, and more.

The embedded video below is a playlist consisting of two separate parts. After the first part has finished playing, the playlist should automatically load the second part.

You may also choose to view either individual part on its own:
Part 1 (9:08) | Part 2 (7:59)

This same interview can also be viewed in seven separate sections, each addressing a different educational question:

What are the benefits of charter schools?
What are the challenges that charter schools face?
How do traditional public schools and charter schools compare?
What are the reasons that some charter schools succeed?
What constitutes adequate funding for public schools?
What are the current barriers to school choice in the United States?
How does collective bargaining affect quality teacher retention?

The post The Promise and Performance of Charter Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Dr. Hoxby is the Scott and Donya Bommer Professor of Economics at Stanford University, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution, the director of the Economics of Education Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and senior fellow of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. It is extremely exciting that a scholar of her prestige will be presenting here in St. Louis, so I encourage all of you to RSVP today!

The post And Along Those Lines … appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This Thursday evening, the library’s series will continue, as Jay Matthews, an education reporter from the Washington Post, will discuss his new book, Work Hard, Be Nice. The book offers readers a look at how the KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) network of charter schools has become a poster child for helping children from the most challenged socioeconomic groups prepare for academic success and college. This topic is extremely relevant for Kansas City, which saw a KIPP school open in recent years, as well as Saint Louis, which will greet a new KIPP school this fall.

And, last, but not least, I wanted to take this opportunity to plug yet another exciting event on the calendar. On May 5, the Show-Me Institute and Saint Louis University will be hosting Dr. Caroline Hoxby, yet another celebrated education expert with the Hoover Institution at Stanford, for a discussion titled, “The Promise and Performance of Charter Schools: Drivers of Educational Improvement in the U.S.?” This lecture will be a great opportunity for anyone interested in learning what research is telling us about the impact of charter schools nationwide.

The post Education Events in Kansas City and Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Nobody doubts the need to improve our schools. Students across the nation are being left less than fully prepared to meet the challenges of the new economy. But the problem is especially acute in our urban centers, including Saint Louis and Kansas City, which have been declared educationally bankrupt.

Kansas City is historically famous as an example of the problems facing much of the nation. Following a federal judge’s desegregation order that gave school officials a license to dream (at no cost to the district), the school system moved to the very top of the spending rankings for urban districts in the nation during the early 1990s. But student performance did not budge, and the eventual withdrawal of court support and state funding left the city with some great facilities — but without more learning. Saint Louis followed a slightly different court-ordered plan, spent almost as much money as Kansas City, and got the same dismal student achievement results.

Saint Louis and Kansas City have not been alone. Nationally, schools — urban, rural, and suburban — have pursued aggressive spending programs. They have followed conventional wisdom, reducing class sizes, introducing a wide variety of “reforms,” and hiring more educated and experienced teachers. And, as a nation, our achievement today is little different than it was in 1970.

What is wrong with this picture? We have moved our schools to a vastly different level of resources — almost quadrupling since 1960, after allowing for inflation. Yet we have not improved our performance. We do not come close to equaling the performance of students in East Asia, or in the better European countries, or in Canada.

This general problem confronts our nation, which is entering into a new competitive era in the international economy. And it particularly falls on our urban populations that lag the United States as a whole, and thus lag the dynamic economies of the world.

The most direct conclusion is that we need to make much more fundamental changes in our schools. We cannot continue doing what has not worked, even if we do this more intensively.

A fundamental issue is that we do not reward success. The current system has few rewards for producing higher achievement, but instead supports failure. If a school does well, the staff should be rewarded, not punished. If a teacher does well, she should be rewarded.

Some such better incentives are being put in place. Saint Louis and Kansas City have had a large out-migration, students fleeing the regular public schools for charters or for the suburbs. In a best of worlds, these public schools would recognize that they must change and would break from the long history of mediocre to poor schools. In the worst of worlds, everybody except perhaps the most immobile will simply leave the shell of Missouri urban public schools. The future options could not present a more stark contrast.

Eric Hanushek is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. He is the author of a Show-Me Institute study on education finance and has been a guest speaker for the Show-Me Institute lecture series with Saint Louis University and the Kansas City Public Library.

The post Urban Schools Need Fundamental Change Before They Will Improve appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For each contest, both a first-place winner and a runner-up will be selected. The winner will receive $100, the runner-up $50. The contest is open to all current Missouri residents, age 29 and under. Although the contest is primarily directed to both undergrad and graduate students in Missouri who are interested in exploring a broad spectrum of the ideas of liberty, non-students of general college age are also encouraged to participate. The age limit of 29 is intended only to keep the competitive climate on a relatively level playing field.

Contest guidelines do not specify any formal length or stylistic considerations for review submissions. The purpose of this contest is to encourage critical analysis, debate, and discussion of a wide range of thought about freedom and free-market economic perspectives. As such, entrants are not necessarily expected to agree with or advocate the ideas contained in the book under consideration, but submitted essays should demonstrate a thorough understanding of the book’s concepts and a serious attempt to grapple with the author’s ideas. The review evaluation process is necessarily subjective, although every effort will be made to consider entries in a fair and impartial manner, without regard to race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sex, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, or veteran status.

The Show-Me Institute and its scholars do not necessarily agree with or advocate the ideas contained in the books selected for use in this ongoing contest series; rather, the institute hopes to encourage critical analysis, debate, and discussion of a wide range of thought about freedom and free-market economic perspectives.

For further details, please consult the contest rules and guidelines on the Show-Me Institute website.

The post New Book Review Contest Offers Cash Prizes to Missouri College Students appeared first on Show-Me Institute.