Perspective

Sometimes it's worthwhile to just step back and take an outside view. This chart, from the Cato Institute, offers just such a view with respect to education and spending. As you can see, it shows that over the last 30 to 40 years per-student spending has more than doubled in real terms, while students' performance has been flat.

There must be a million possible objections to this, but the prima facie case is awfully compelling: we're not getting our money's worth when it comes to spending on education.

There's a reasonable argument to be made for emphasizing education and even for funding it publicly. But at what point to we start to ask questions such as Have we reached the point of diminishing returns? Can we plausibly argue that the return on the last dollar of education spending is positive?

As I have pointed out before, while this kind of cost/benefit calculation is done routinely in the real world, where non-performance is punished by bankruptcy or unemployment, it seems never to happen in public education. We are asked to take on faith not only that some spending on education produces worthwhile positive externalities, but that every dollar spent on education produces the same return.

Picking your poison

It strikes me that a lot of the arguing that goes on about education boils down to one question: how do you value equity relative to excellence.

I suspect that differences of opinion on questions such as, Do we spend enough on education? Should we have national standards? What is the role of government in education? Are vouchers and charter schools a good idea? are really about the trade-off between equity and excellence.

The fundamental disagreement can be seen this way. The graph below shows two hypothetical distributions of educational "goodness." Both options are represented by Gaussian curves, but they could be any shape. Option 1, the "Unfair but excellent" distribution, has a higher average, but more extremes at the high and low ends. Option 2, "Fair but mediocre," has a lower average but a tighter range.

If you could wave your magic wand and select either distribution for education in America, which would you choose?

There's no wrong answer, here. There's an argument to be made for either being better. The one you'll choose depends on whether you think equity or excellence is more important. I suspect that much of the educational establishment (can I use that term?) places more weight on equity -- ensuring that no child is left behind. Somebody like Charles Murray, who believes educating the future elite is critical, would disagree.

So? What would you do?

Maybe we can revoke their citizenship

Can this possibly be correct? Surely there's more to the story...

Oh, for...

Look, I know this doesn't have anything to do with education, but then it has about as much to do with education as it does with anything else.

PETA has taken a stand against one of the most popular tourist attractions in Seattle - the fish market at the Pike Place Market that tosses salmon.

I'd respect PETA more if they were protesting the fact that the Pike Place fish market murders innocent fish and sells them as food to omnivores who could just as easily be eating tofu or hummus or something else that doesn't have a face. Dudes! The fish are dead! They're in fishy heaven enjoying the benefits of eternal bliss and all the worms you can eat without hooks. Or they're waiting in line to be re-incarnated as, I don't know, otters or something. At any rate, they're not in any pain. I don't think -- I'm not really an expert on fish theology.

It's gotten to the point where it would be impossible to satire PETA. (Can satire be used as a verb? Can fish be used as a projectile?) Anything you made up about them would be less outrageous and silly than whatever it is they were actually doing at that moment. Here's what I mean.

PETA has begun a campaign to improve the public's perception of man-eating tigers. The organization has developed a web-site, targeted to children, suggesting that man-eating tigers be referred to as "jungle goldfish."

In an effort to make life a little easier for sheep, PETA has sent a copy of "Babe" on VHS to New Zealand. Said a PETA spokessheep, "Baah, we just want the dogs to stop being so gosh darn mean all the time." It is not certain whether the island nation, located to the south of Australia, has made the switch to DVD...


PETA is trying to get everybody to stop eating tortilla chips because one of the group's members was in Tijuana for a bachelorette party and she saw a diorama with actual stuffed frogs playing in a mariachi band...

Update: Seriously.

Pity the SAT people

A nice summary of the trials and tribulations of the SAT, from the Weekly Standard.

Those poor SAT guys, they’re doing their darndest to square this circle. You want a test that will highlight the diamonds in the rough? No problem, we’ll give you an aptitude test. Ah, you want a test that shows that all races and classes and sexes and “others” are equal? Okay, how about if we give you a string of random numbers (or, better, chicken entrails!) and you can use that for admissions. You want both? Hm... Well, we, uh... We may have to get back to you on that. Meanwhile, how about if we change the "A" in "SAT" to stand for "African American" as a sign of goodwill?

(I exaggerate slightly.)

What makes me shake my head is that some people are actually surprised that SAT scores correlate with "socio-economic status." Or, rather, they’re acting like they’re surprised. Really? Smart people tend to get rich and then have smart kids? Huh. I did not know that. Sounds like racism to me. Sounds phallo-centric. What if the parents are both pre-op transexuals, one of whom is a recovering heroin addict? What then? And what if one of them is Cambodian?

Listen, it's time to consider -- just consider -- the possibility that we're not all alike. Some of these variations, like skin color and whether your hair is straight, are not terribly relevant. Others, like footspeed and cognitive ability, matter more depending on the situation. We can't go on pretending that any test that suggested differences among races is necessarily biased. Psychologists and test-writers are just like the rest of us. If they could devise a test that both a) tested cognitive ability in meaningful way and b) showed no differenct among races, don't you think they'd have done it by now? I mean, the profit potential for the creator of a test that separated the smartest from the less smart and did so in racially proportional way is practically infinite.

There is No Wave in Baseball

It was late in the game during the Seattle Mariners' 2009 home opener.  The game was close -- tied in fact.  The Mariners were up to bat with only one out.  It was tense.  It was exciting.  And some idiot three sections away from us decided to start a "wave."  What an idiot.  Well, I should say, what idiots.  Nearly the entire stadium joined in in the wave.  How many pitches did I miss while the idiots around me jumped up, waved their arms above their heads, and yelled, "Wooo"?  The wave does not belong in baseball.  Except for the break between innings, the action in baseball (0r the thrilling anticipation of action) is continuous.

I have two boys - aged 10 and 8.  They know what's what.  When the idiots who joined us in Safeco Field to watch the Mariners joined in in the wave, they rolled their eyes and said, "There is no wave in baseball."

Early Learning and Basic Education

This is difficult for me since I have a personal interest in early learning; however, I can't really get behind the idea that early learning (even limited to "at-risk" children) should be part of the definition of basic education here in Washington state. While I certainly believe that any investment in QUALITY early learning by families, the state, and private interests is a worthwhile investment, I don't believe early learning should be constitutionally protected nor do I believe that this burden should be placed upon public K-12 school districts.

Here is my main rationale for opposing including early learning in the definition of basic education: With the constitutional obligation of the state to amply fund basic education comes the authority of the state to compel children to attend public school. I can't imagine that the state is considering adding preschool to compulsory education --- if they are, that's a whole new kettle of fish and one that would most likely doom any conversation regarding the addition of early learning in basic education. But, with that said, how does the state and local school districts plan on budgeting for the appropriations to support early learning? Put another way, school districts plan their long-term budgets upon complex but relatively accurate formulas that predict, based upon housing patterns, age of the population, etc., the number of school-aged children residing within the district. And since all of these resident children will be compelled to attend schools within the district (minus private school and home-school children --- which, by the way, have predictable percentages), the district is able to plan their long-term budgets. But, at least in the foreseeable future, school districts have no way to predict how many of these resident young children will attend preschools within their districts and certainly will have no way to predict which ones will be "at-risk" and which of these at-risk young children will enroll in licensed preschools.

My second rationale is this: How are these preschools to be held accountable for performance?There must be accountability for performance in basic education. Increasing state and local bureaucracies to support and monitor early learning as part of basic education is not justifiable. I can imagine that many proponents of the inclusion of early learning in basic education simply see a predictable and protected source of revenue to support early learning in the future. But, have they considered the responsibility that comes with this constitutionally protected source of revenue? Like it or not, accountability for the performance of K-12 districts and schools is a reality, whether or not this takes the form of the federal accountability mandates of No Child Left Behind. The public demands accountability for public education and certainly increased investments in public education. So, again, how are preschools to be held accountable for performance? Furthermore, what are the performance measures and targets? And, who will hold them accountable once performance measures and targets are set? OSPI? The Department of Early Learning? [As for the latter agency, ask current preschool directors what they currently think of DEL, then ask them how they would feel about DEL enforcing performance standards in their schools. You'll very likely get a second opinion on the ramifications of including early learning in basic education.]

My third and final rationale is this: Where does it end? Early learning has not made its case, frankly, for inclusion in basic education above other programs in the education and training sector. If early learning justifies its inclusion in the definition of basic education, how soon will proponents of higher education demand its inclusion in the definition of basic education? And just so you are aware, this proposal, i.e., the inclusion of at least a two-year degree in the definition of basic education, has been made on a number of occasions. The same rationale for including early learning can be made for the inclusion of higher education: Investments in higher education have long-term positive benefits on our society as a whole. I for one would have a hard time disagreeing with this rationale if early learning is ultimately included in basic education. But, folks, we're talking huge amounts of money and huge bureaucracies to support and monitor all of this.

WASL - The System Check

"The WASL was never meant as a high school graduation requirement.  It was only supposed to be a system check."

This is one of these statements that, if made by enough people, become fact --- you know, like an urban myth:  The WASL was supposed to be only a system check --- it was never meant to be a high school graduation requirement.  I've heard state legislators in public hearings make this statement.  I've heard parents and teachers make this statement.  And of course I've heard a multitude of WEA folks make this statement.  But the fact is that the legislation that created the WASL back in 1993, House Bill 1209, stated that the Certificate of Mastery "shall be required for graduation."  And the only way for a student to earn a Certificate of Mastery was to pass the high school WASL.

If opponents to graduation being based on a high stakes assessment are fed up with the WASL or they think the WASL is a poor assessment, that's fine.  But, they only diminish their argument by perpetuating a myth.  It's sad really.