the Richmond Times-Dispatch
Email Facebook Twitter Mobile RSS
|
 
Posts tagged education
10:04 am - Tue, Apr 1, 2014
1 note
Yes, he sometimes threw pieces of chalk at students, but they were usually small pieces.

Comments

2:33 pm - Mon, Mar 31, 2014
150 notes

You Just Can’t Fix Stupid

Virginia Beach sixth-grader Adrionna Harris took a razor away from a troubled student who was cutting himself and threw it in the trash. When school administrators found out, they gave her a certificate of merit for helping a classmate.

Ha, ha! Of course they didn’t. They gave her a 10-day suspension, with a recommendation that she be expelled. For three or four seconds there, she was in possession of a dangerous object in violation of the school’s zero-tolerance policies.

The only reason administrators found out about the incident was that Adrionna volunteered the information. And the only reason she threw the razor away instead of turning it in was because she didn’t want to violate school policy. As she told WAVY-TV, she didn’t want to “hold it in my hand long enough for it to, like, become an issue. The trash can was right there.”

School officials eventually backed down — after getting slammed by bad publicity — and the young lady returned to school a few days ago. Administrators reportedly are tired of taking heat from the public, the poor dears. (Why do bad things always happen to them?)

Nathan Entingh wasn’t so lucky. The 10-year-old who pointed his finger and said “bang” was suspended for what the Einsteins of the Columbus, Ohio, school system considered a “level 2 look-alike firearm.” After agonizing over that decision for weeks, officials decided that, on reflection, they had been right all along. They upheld the suspension.

Entingh got off lucky compared with Jordan Wiser, who spent 13 days in jail on a felony charge because he drove onto school property with a pocketknife in the trunk of his car. Then there’s Taylor Trostle, a middle-schooler suspended for pointing her finger and saying, “pew, pew.” And Andrew Mikel, a Spotsylvania 14-year-old expelled and charged with assault for blowing pellets through a plastic pen tube. And 7-year-old Josh Welch, of the infamous Pop-Tart gun. And too many other cases to list.

Zero-tolerance policies have been around for a couple of decades. They were launched by the 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act, which required expulsion for bringing a firearm to school. But like diaper rash, they did not remain confined to one area. Soon kids were landing in hot water for bringing to school such deadly objects as a butter knife (King William) and nail clippers (Escambia, Fla.). They have gotten in trouble for engaging in such threatening behavior as drawing an Army man (Ouachita Parish, La.) and playing cops and robbers (Sayreville, N.J., and elsewhere). And for taking or handing out birth control (Fairfax), Midol (Pierce County, Wash.), Alka-Seltzer (too many places to name) and even Certs breath mints (Manassas).

Such stories invariably elicit outrage, and from time to time a district here or there will rethink zero-tolerance policies, or claim to. “Rethinking Zero Tolerance: A Few Schools Are Inching Away from One-Strike Policies,” reported Newsweek back in 2001. A decade later, The Washington Post reported “More Schools Rethinking Zero-Tolerance Discipline Stand.”

They must not be the fastest thinkers. In January 2013, a 5-year-old girl was kicked out of kindergarten for “threatening” to “shoot” classmates with a Hello Kitty soap-bubble gun. But don’t worry — this January, The New York Times confidently informed readers that “schools across the country are rethinking ‘zero tolerance’ discipline policies.”

If your brain has more electrical activity than a bowl of lukewarm Jell-O, then you know why zero-tolerance policies are stupid. First, they ignore blatantly obvious distinctions. Gnawing a Pop-Tart into the rough silhouette of a gun does not turn it into a firearm. Breath mints are not a Schedule I narcotic. Fingers don’t fire projectiles.

Second, zero-tolerance policies don’t prevent the incidents they are designed to prevent. Deeply disturbed individuals who commit school massacres — the Dylan Klebolds and Adam Lanzas of the world — are not deterred by rules, and they do not commit mayhem with soap bubbles. So a rule that bans soap-bubble guns in school has zero effect on school violence.

School officials will reply that they have to apply school policies consistently: A knife is a knife, and knives are weapons, even when they are used to spread butter. Nonsense. By that logic everyone on the wrestling team should be suspended for fighting, and a student who sketches a rifle should be punished for “drawing a gun” (which has actually happened more than once).

It’s great that a school district here and there has second thoughts about first-strike policies. But that doesn’t solve the broader problem, which is rooted in a bureaucratic compliance mentality. Just ask Chaz Seale, a Texas 17-year-old who accidentally shoved a Coors into his brown-bag lunch instead of a soda. When he realized his mistake he gave the unopened beer to a teacher. The teacher told the principal, and the principal suspended Seale for three days and sentenced him to two months at an alternative school.

Like Adrionna Harris and countless others, Seale has learned two things from zero-tolerance policies: No good deed goes unpunished. And — as comedian Ron White likes to say — you can’t fix stupid.



Comments

11:26 am - Mon, Mar 24, 2014
9 notes

Comments

2:34 pm - Fri, Mar 7, 2014
12 notes
When Disclaimers Go Too Far
Check your privilege, Immanuel…!!!!

When Disclaimers Go Too Far

Check your privilege, Immanuel…!!!!

Comments

11:26 am - Wed, Mar 5, 2014
1 note

Comments

10:47 am - Mon, Mar 3, 2014

A Private Model for Learning

Mariah Kelley was 14 credits short, weeks from giving birth, and seemingly light-years from getting a high school diploma when she was referred to the Performance Learning Center, which is located in a gritty industrial section of Richmond.

A public-private partnership between the Richmond Public Schools and the Richmond affiliate of Communities in Schools, the Performance Learning Center takes the longest of long shots and, through individually tailored instructions, gets them to pay off — again and again.

The average GPA of an entering student is zero-point-nine. The percentage of students who leave with a high-school diploma is 96. A third go on to post-secondary education. “We know that kids can change their lives if given the opportunity,” says Wes Hamner, the school’s academic coordinator. The problem isn’t innate ability; it’s taking kids who derailed somewhere along the way and getting them back on the track to success.

Entire library floors groan under the weight of proposals for improving the schools. But education reform confronts a dilemma that better schools alone can’t fix: The best instruction in the world doesn’t do a bit of good to a kid who is standing on the corner instead of sitting in class. Nationwide, 7,000 students a day drop out. Nearly half are minorities. And without a diploma, they’re looking at lives likely to be one long, hard slog.

But students don’t simply wake up one morning and quit. They start to go off the rails long beforehand. Education is supposed to give everyone an equal start in life — but Harold Fitrer, president of the Richmond affiliate of Communities in Schools (CIS for short), says many pupils already have fallen behind before the first day of kindergarten: They haven’t been taught “numbers, letters, and colors.” Many then can’t make the crucial third-grade shift “from learning to read to reading to learn.” So they get held back. And get held back again. Before you know it, you have a 15-year-old seventh-grader who is frustrated, embarrassed, and dejected, with just enough math to figure out there’s no way he’ll ever graduate. He might drop out before entering high school — and never even get counted in graduation-rate statistics.

The problem is especially acute in Richmond, where 75 percent of children in the public schools come from families with incomes below the poverty line. In the Creighton Court housing project, in the city’s East End, adults who have a high school diploma are in the minority. Unemployment is rampant. Nearby Woodville Elementary School hosts holiday dinners because, says interim principal Kara Lancaster-Gay, “those don’t happen at home.”

School lockdowns are not mere drills. When Lancaster-Gay attended a vigil for the mother of one Woodville pupil, another pupil asked her why she had bothered: “Don’t you know people over here die every day?” A year and a half ago, Woodville staff were looking forward to watching the children enjoy a new $80,000 playground. Two days before classes began, somebody burned it down.

CIS plays a particularly active role in schools such as Woodville. An on-site services coordinator works with more than 20 partner groups, from the Junior League to the YMCA, to get kids the help they need. Help can be as simple as a free eye screening and a pair of eyeglasses, or as complex as grief counseling and intensive behavioral therapy for a pupil who has lost a parent to the prison system — or the cemetery.

Often the help comes in the form of food, including “pre-breakfast” — which is served to those kids who may not have eaten since lunch yesterday and are so hungry they need something even before breakfast is served. After school, dozens of children stay at the Boys and Girls Club until late evening, and get a good meal in the process. On Friday, CIS sends children home with a backpack filled with six meals from the Central Virginia Food Bank to tide them over until Monday.

But CIS does more than provide handouts. It also sets expectations surrounding the ABCs — attendance, behavior and coursework. CIS says 69 percent of its hardest cases improved attendance, 71 percent improved behavior and 75 percent improved their grades.

That’s what CIS claims, anyway. But you don’t have to take the group’s word for it. In 2011, the consulting firm ICF International completed a five-year study of CIS. The exhaustive examination compared 602 CIS schools with 602 demographically similar non-CIS schools. Just for good measure, it included controlled trials involving 573 students in two different states.

As Education Week reported, the study found “the program has a strong effect on reducing dropout rates and yielded small but consistent improvements in performance on state assessments for math. Results for reading and language arts tests were mixed. … Overall, the study concludes, the more fully and carefully the Communities in Schools model is put into practice, the more effective it is.”

None of this is cheap: Richmond’s CIS has a budget of more than $3 million, and nearly 1,800 volunteers give their time and expertise to the effort. And that goes on top of Richmond’s already-generous spending of nearly $14,000 per pupil, well above both the statewide average of $10,000 and the levels of nearby Henrico and Chesterfield, which also are about $10,000 per pupil. But spread across the 14,000 students who get CIS help, that $3 million comes to just a little more than $200 per student — which could make CIS one of the most cost-effective social interventions around.

There are 200 CIS affiliates around the country — five of them in Virginia, the rest scattered among 26 other states and the District of Columbia. All told, they help more than 1 million children every year. That kind of volume almost demands a cookie-cutter approach. But CIS may be effective precisely because it eschews uniformity. Although every CIS program abides by a few general principles, there is no procrustean, top-down formula dictated by a tower of bureaucrats in Washington or New York. Not only is every program different — every program treats every student differently. Those involved say that individualized attention is what makes it work.

When educators in Richmond and similar urban areas catch heck for lousy test scores, they often complain that they are being held responsible for factors they didn’t cause and can’t control. But that doesn’t mean those factors cannot be counteracted, or that they can be counteracted only by a massive infusion of government money and control. Private efforts can make a difference in public education. Just ask Mariah Kelley. After getting her diploma through the Performance Learning Center, she is now pursuing a degree in nurse anesthesia.

Comments

1:24 pm - Thu, Feb 20, 2014

FDR’s tweets about Obama’s ears were hilarious, says woman on street.

Comments

9:20 am
2 notes

Comments

1:39 pm - Wed, Feb 19, 2014

Comments

9:33 am - Wed, Jan 29, 2014
4 notes

On Campus, Education Often Isn’t Liberal

In Virginia, education isn’t always liberal

Virginians who think of colleges and universities as bastions of free inquiry and no-holds-barred arenas for intellectual engagement might be shocked at how inaccurate that picture can be. Some of the state’s colleges and universities have put in place policies that make a mockery of such notions.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has issued a report on the state of free speech on U.S. campuses. It makes for dispiriting reading. Fewer than half the institutions in America provide a robust defense of free expression. Virginia’s record is likewise mixed: Six of its public institutions – Christopher Newport, Longwood, Norfolk State, U.Va.’s college at Wise, VCU, and Virginia State — received the group’s lowest rating. Only three — James Madison, William & Mary, and U.Va. — received the highest.

The colleges receiving poor marks impose a combination of speech codes and prior restraint. For instance: At Christopher Newport, students are forbidden to post anything that might be deemed “disrespectful.” And anyone “wishing to exercise their freedom of speech … must register with the Dean of Students at least 24 hours in advance.”

Believe it or not, that represents a considerable improvement. CNU used to insist that groups wanting to demonstrate ask permission 10 days in advance. The school changed the policy after it accidentally redounded to a Republican’s advantage: In September of 2012, GOP vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan made a campaign stop at the school. Some students wanted to protest his appearance, including the Feminist Alliance and the Gay-Straight Union. They weren’t allowed to. And even if they had been, they might not have been noticed, because the school permitted demonstrations only on its Great Lawn, far from where Ryan was speaking.

Yet the school still has a long way to go: CNU’s policy on computer communications prohibits — among other things —– “unwarranted annoyance.” Given the hair-trigger sensitivities encouraged by the hothouse atmosphere of modern higher ed, that could cover a heck of a lot.

But don’t think CNU is an outlier. Many state universities impose equally egregious limits on freedom of expression. Take Longwood University, which designates the sole “area … for speeches and demonstrations” as “the Lankford Mall which is a primary crossway on the campus and will consist of the patio and the surrounding area located on the south side of the Student Union.” That’s it. And you still have to get permission first.

At Norfolk State, anyone who isn’t on a list of officially recognized campus groups must obtain written permission before handing out literature. Remember, Norfolk State is (like CNU and Longwood) a public institution — so the prohibition is just as unconstitutional as if the city of Norfolk itself had passed it.

Virginia Commonwealth University? It prohibits “humor and jokes about sex that denigrate women or men in general.” And last month, Virginia State University earned the dubious distinction of making FIRE’s “Speech Codes of the Year” list. Its code of conduct says no student may “offend” any member of the university community.

Private institutions do not face the constitutional issues public ones do, but some are no more enlightened. The University of Richmond has a system that enables witnesses of “bias incidents” to report them to a “Bias Response Team.” Bias incidents are those that “do not appear to constitute a crime or actionable discrimination” but which nevertheless “may,” among other things, “mock” individuals or groups. (You can find all the speech codes at www.thefire.org.)

Some might think policies like these cannot be taken seriously; surely they must be honored more in the breach than in the observance. In some cases that might be true. Yet FIRE’s case histories — and they are voluminous — make it abundantly clear that many colleges and universities not only take them seriously, but pursue them to sometimes ridiculous extremes. Consider some of the recent cases FIRE has highlighted: A student group at Dixie State rejected because its name included Greek letters. Modesto Junior College forbidding a student to distribute free copies of the Constitution — on Constitution Day. A pro-life group at Johns Hopkins denied recognition because it might make some students “uncomfortable.”

Really.

Virginia has seen similar episodes, albeit not so many in recent years. For that you can thank the eternal vigilance of groups such as FIRE. In the future, you also should thank those state lawmakers who have joined the cause. This year, two Republican delegates — Scott Lingamfelter and Rick Morris — have introduced legislation in Virginia’s General Assembly to restore a modicum of free speech at the state’s colleges and universities. Lingamfelter’s would do away with “free speech zones” that deny free speech outside the zones. Morris’ would grant students facing non-academic disciplinary charges the right to attorney representation. Based on FIRE’s findings, the measures are sorely needed.

Comments

12:31 pm - Mon, Dec 9, 2013
8 notes

Universal Pre-K: Mozart-for-Babies All Over Again?

Two decades ago, psychologist Frances Rauscher conducted an experiment in which she asked 36 college students to listen to different kinds of music before visualizing how a folded-up piece of paper would look when cut and then unfolded.

The results seemed to suggest Mozart might improve spatial reasoning. Nothing earth-shattering there — yet this one small study inspired a nationwide craze. Through something like a national version of the children’s game of telephone, countless Americans glommed on to the idea that playing Mozart to a child in the womb would boost his or her IQ.

A new industry was born. What Amazon now calls the “baby brain-booster category” of consumer products soon grew crowded. Inevitably, politicians jumped on the bandwagon. Georgia Gov. Zell Miller directed that classical music recordings be sent home with new mothers. Florida mandated that state day care centers play symphonies.

Just one small problem: None of that had any scientific basis. True, babies can recognize music they hear in the womb for several weeks following birth. But this does not boost a child’s IQ. Six years ago, Scientific American reported that a German review by “a cross-disciplinary team of musically inclined scientists … declared the (Mozart effect) phenomenon nonexistent.” Even Rauscher, author of the original study, called the idea that playing music to a fetus will make it smarter “really a myth.”

Study after study has reached the same conclusion. Yet companies still pitch the idea of piping tunes into the womb, and parents still lap it up.

Something similar may be going on now — with pre-kindergarten.

Back in February, President Obama proposed “working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America. Every dollar we invest in high-quality early education can save more than seven dollars later on by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime.”

The claim was bunk. But the president’s proposal enjoys growing support.

Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine recently penned an op/ed supporting the Start Strong for America’s Children Act — a “10-year federal-state partnership to expand and improve early childhood education.” Virginia Gov.-elect Terry McAuliffe favors expanding pre-K, too. The support crosses red-team/blue-team lines: The Virginia Chamber of Commerce would like the state to “improve access to high-quality early childhood education,” and it was a Republican governor, George Allen, who launched the Virginia Preschool Initiative.

In his op/ed column, Kaine repeated the standard arguments: “Pre-K is good for the economy”; “early learning programs make it more likely that children will do well in elementary school”; and so on. It would be nice if we had an experiment somewhere to test the validity of those claims.

We do. It’s called Head Start. The United States has spent more than $160 billion on that early education program for at-risk children. The results are amazing — as in amazingly poor.

In 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services reported on a congressionally mandated study of approximately 5,000 3- and 4-year-olds who were randomly assigned to either a control group or a group that had access to a Head Start program. It found that “at the end of kindergarten and first grade … the Head Start children and the control group children were at the same level on many of the measures studied.”

Last year, HHS issued the results of another randomized study. It, too, found that Head Start produced “little evidence of systematic differences” in children’s elementary school experiences through third grade.

It’s pretty damning when the federal government itself concludes that a federal program doesn’t work. But if you’re still not convinced, consider a recent piece by Grover Whitehurst of the liberal Brookings Institution. Whitehurst is a development psychologist who spent his career “designing and evaluating programs intended to enhance the cognitive development of young children.”

The rhetoric supporting the Start Strong legislation, Whitehurst writes, is “entirely predictable and thoroughly misleading. … If you’re an advocate of strengthening early childhood programs, as I am, you also need to pay careful attention to the evidence — all of it.” And the evidence, he says, “raises doubts on Obama’s preschool for all.”

Just as the baby-Mozart crowd extrapolated wildly from one small and unrelated study, Whitehurst says supporters of universal pre-K “highlight positive long-term outcomes of two boutique programs from 40-50 years ago that served a couple of hundred children” — the Perry and Abecedarian pre-school projects. Those projects focused intensely on underprivileged children: Perry’s two-year intervention spent $19,000 per student.

Meanwhile, boosters ignore evidence that pre-K isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. That evidence, Whitehurst notes, includes “a newly released study of Tennessee’s Voluntary Pre-K Program (TN-VPK). TN-VPK is a full day pre-K program for four-year-olds from low-income families.”

The study found that “seven of the outcomes are negative. … In other words, the group that experienced the Tennessee Voluntary State Pre-K Program performed somewhat less well on cognitive tasks at the end of first grade than the control group.”

“I see these finding as devastating for advocates of the expansion of state pre-K programs,” Whitehurst concludes. “I wish this weren’t so, but facts are stubborn things.”

Granted, other studies suggest early childhood programs can help prepare children for kindergarten.

One study of the Abbot pre-school initiative in New Jersey also showed modest results into fifth grade. But the claim being advanced by Obama, Kaine and others is far more sweeping: that pre-K’s benefits last long into the future — so long, in fact, that they raise graduation rates, decrease teenage pregnancy and reduce crime.

It’s possible. It’s also possible that piping Mozart into the womb makes your baby smarter. But shouldn’t government policy — and taxpayer funding — rest on a firmer foundation than that?

Comments

10:53 am - Wed, Dec 4, 2013
18 notes

Sometimes the “Makers” Act Like “Takers”

When Mitt Romney made his infamous comments about the “47 percent” who “are dependent upon government” — who “believe the government has a responsibility to care for them” — he wasn’t talking about the business community. Perhaps he should have been.

Listen to any group of business leaders for more than a minute and you’ll get an earful about the crisis in “workforce development.” America’s economic performance, says the Virginia Chamber of Commerce, depends on “a workforce that possesses the skills and knowledge that employers need.” Millions of people are looking for work, and millions of jobs are open for hire, but the former can’t fill the latter “because of gaps in skills and training.” There simply are not enough students “emerging from our public education system” with the necessary know-how.

That is why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants the federal government to streamline its “national employment and training system.” Why it wants a public-education system that will “supply American businesses with the talent necessary to compete globally.” It is why, according to a recent news story, the Virginia Chamber “wants the state (to) put more emphasis in public schools on preparing students for skills needed in science, technology and health care careers.”

The state seems willing — even eager — to oblige. As Virginia Gov.-elect Terry McAuliffe put it back in October: “We have to improve workforce training. To recruit 21st-century employers, Virginia needs to show that we have a workforce with both the soft skills businesses need and the specialized training 21st-century industries demand.”

Nobody seems to be asking why the state should shoulder the burden — and the cost — of training workers to suit the needs of industry. Is that really the purpose of public education? Why doesn’t industry train its own workers?

Yes, American business does a lot of workplace training — but clearly not enough, if it faces such an acute shortage of “human capital.” Perhaps business in the U.S. could learn a thing or two from other countries.

The other day The Washington Post ran a story reporting how Siemens and other companies are importing the German apprenticeship model to the United States. The article profiled Hope Johnson, who decided to forgo college and instead take a four-year fellowship with Siemens — which is training her at a plant in Charlotte, N.C., and with which she expects to have a lifelong career. Siemens and several other companies have formed an apprenticing partnership with local community colleges. Students who are selected get free tuition, hourly wages — and, at the end of the apprenticeship, a guaranteed job.

Some of that is going on here in Virginia — with companies such as Areva, Babcock and Wilcox, and (yes) Siemens. Rolls-Royce recently kicked off an apprenticeship program at John Tyler Community College. Thanks to the space program at Wallops Island, students at Eastern Shore Community College are learning how to launch rockets.

“In Germany,” the article noted, “it’s not unusual for students to stop traditional high school at the equivalent of 10th grade and spend several years working and studying” toward a technical career. By contrast, “Among U.S. companies … managers expect job applicants to arrive with skills already perfected.” Why is that?

The apprenticeship model has downsides. It asks people to choose a lifelong path while they’re still teenagers. It also defines a narrow pathway: Companies underwriting apprenticeships choose the curriculum. “There used to be an elective among the 24 courses the students take,” The Post notes about the Charlotte program. “That was replaced with a logic class. The companies balked at paying for ‘the history of rock-and-roll,’ ” according to the local program coordinator.

But that bug could also be a feature: Many students at traditional four-year colleges (and their parents) pay wildly inflated tuition that subsidizes such intellectual junk food — not to mention climbing walls, $90,000 dorm rooms, and gourmet dining halls. The students graduate with excruciating debt loads, but no jobs.

It’s odd that the business community, which likes to think of itself as innovative and solution-oriented, is looking to the decades-old public education system to solve its worker-training problem. If there is such tremendous demand for technically literate employees, then why hasn’t the business sector tried to meet it? Put together a consortium, raise some venture capital and launch a national STEM-H University with a branch campus in every state. Companies from Apple to Xerox should be delighted to hire the resulting product.

That would be the self-reliant, market-oriented thing to do. But if U.S. companies sit back and wait for government to “supply American businesses with the talent” they need, then aren’t they — like Romney’s 47 percent — simply demonstrating the belief that government has a responsibility to care for them?

Comments

9:20 am - Mon, Oct 28, 2013
29 notes

America the Ignorant

My fellow Americans, we are one ignorant bunch.

This is particularly true with regard to politics and government, subjects about which the public is a howling void of nescience. To say Americans don’t know much about politics and government would be more than just an understatement. It would be like saying a Galapagos tortoise doesn’t know much about medieval French literature.

Ilya Somin — a law professor at George Mason University in Fairfax — has written a book on the subject: “Democracy and Political Ignorance.” In it, he shows that Americans know woefully little about their political system, have known very little for a long time, and are not likely to change in the foreseeable future — because they have a very good reason not to.

For instance: In 1964, only 38 percent of Americans knew the Soviet Union, NATO’s principal enemy, was not a member of NATO. In December 1994, the month after Republicans led by Newt Gingrich took control of Congress, 57 percent of Americans had never even heard of him. In 2003, 70 percent of Americans were unaware of the passage of Medicare Part D, “the biggest new government program in several decades.”

Fifty-eight percent of Americans cannot name the three branches of government; 70 percent cannot name their state’s senators; 72 percent cannot name two or more of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Before you start cursing, note that Americans have very little incentive to know such basic things, and even less to study more abstruse details such as the content of specific legislation. (In 2009, only a quarter of Americans knew “cap and trade” addressed environmental issues rather than, say, health care or finance.)

This is because the cost, in time and effort, of becoming an informed voter is fairly high. And what do you get for it? Precious little. It isn’t polite to say so, but votes usually matter only in the aggregate. Your one vote in, say, a presidential election will have almost no chance of changing the outcome, and therefore roughly zero effect on your life personally. Hence, Somin writes, “For most people, the benefits of devoting more than minimal time and effort to learning about politics are greatly outweighed by the costs.”

Granted, there are exceptions — the political junkies who get the same enjoyment from politics that sports junkies get from sports. Sports fans often know a great deal, even though they cannot affect the outcome of the games. (Not even with their lucky hats.) Political fans, Somin writes, likewise “derive enjoyment from rooting for their preferred parties, candidates, ideologies, and interest groups, while deriding the opposition. They … also derive satisfaction from having their pre-existing views validated, and from a sense of affiliation with a group of like-minded people.”

So does the team-sports model rescue democracy from the pit of ignorance? Hardly — because partisan activism is, in important ways, even worse than disengagement. Partisans may know more, but their knowledge is often selective. On top of that, they use it in highly biased ways — primarily to reinforce their existing views and reject new information that challenges their cherished dogmas. And they often tune in to news sources (Fox News, MSNBC) that facilitate close-mindedness.

This renders partisans more susceptible to false beliefs that cement their team loyalty: Democrats are more likely than independents to believe “truther” conspiracies alleging that George W. Bush knew in advance about 9/11, and Republicans are more likely than independents to believe “birther” claims that President Barack Obama was born abroad. It also leads partisans to reject truths that do not square with their partisan leanings. In one series of studies, Democrats completely ignored a factual correction in George W. Bush’s favor. Republicans were even worse, believing a false claim in Bush’s favor even more strongly after seeing it corrected.

Are there any remedies? Perhaps. We could delegate more decision-making to experts. But this only adds a layer to the problem. The experts still would have to be held accountable by elected officials, and ignorant voters “are likely to be poor monitors of elected officials’ supervision” of the experts. On the other hand, if the experts are not supervised, then there is no way to ensure they are pursuing the public interest.

We also could limit voting to the knowledgeable. But not only would this be grossly undemocratic, it wouldn’t improve matters, for the reasons just described.

Somin suggests two structural remedies. One involves handing over more decision-making to smaller political units — states, or even municipalities — which would allow people to vote with their feet. People who vote with their feet tend to educate themselves first. (Think about how much research you put into buying a house or a car.) And they educate themselves because they know their “vote” — to live on a cul-de-sac, or move to Seattle, or buy a Toyota instead of a Ford — will be the decisive one. When you vote with your feet, the “election” is heavily rigged to produce the outcome you want.

The other structural change? Limit the scope of government. For Somin, the reason is straightforward: A smaller government means deeper knowledge. If the public will learn, say, only 100 things about the executive branch, then it will know a lot more about each agency if there are five agencies rather than 50. There is an “inverse relationship between the size … of government” and “the ability of voters to have sufficient knowledge” to vote intelligently.

For the rest of us, there may be another reason: A smaller government, even in the hands of Those Ignorant Bums on the Other Side, will do less damage than a big one can. When power is decentralized, you can flee to another state if things get too bad in your current one. When Washington is in charge of everything, the cost of voting with your feet gets much, much higher.

Each of these approaches has downsides — though not necessarily the ones you might think. For instance, the cost of moving would seem at first blush to impede “foot voting” by the poor. In fact, Somin notes, “households with an income under $5,000 per year are actually twice as likely to make interstate moves as the population as a whole.”

That’s just one of the many insights to come out of a book on ignorance that is, perhaps paradoxically, highly informative.

Comments

6:00 pm - Sun, Oct 13, 2013
6 notes

“My goal,” says the candidate, “is a healthier America. That is why I am setting an ambitious target of sending 1 million more Americans to the hospital in the next five  next five years. To make sure they get there, I am announcing a new, low-interest loan program to help them pay for their treatment. This will ensure that hospital costs stay within reach of the typical American family.

“My goal,” says the candidate, “is a healthier America. That is why I am setting an ambitious target of sending 1 million more Americans to the hospital in the next five years. To make sure they get there, I am announcing a new, low-interest loan program to help them pay for their treatment. This will ensure that hospital costs stay within reach of the typical American family.”

If you heard a speech like that, you probably would start scratching your head. Sure, people with acute medical conditions need hospital care. But most people don’t have to lie for weeks in a hospital bed to get healthy. And lavishing more money on hospital care will simply drive the price up — just as giving everyone a $2,000 vehicle subsidy would jack up prices for cars and trucks.

Yet this is what politicians routinely propose for higher education: Send more people to college, and give them more money to help them get there. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell proposed cranking out 100,000 more college degrees in 15 years. Around the same time, President Barack Obama said he wanted the U.S. to have “the highest proportion of college graduates in the world” — which would more than double enrollment. His new higher-ed plan calls for yet more financial aid.

Aid to higher ed already has exploded: In 1964, federal student aid was only $264 million, or $1.7 billion in current dollars. Today, the feds shell out $105 billion a year just in student loans. Total federal aid has soared from $64 billion (in 2000) to $169 billion (in 2010).

Flooded with such largess, colleges have sent prices skyward (tuition is up more than 500 percent over the past three decades) and indulged in luxuries that would have made Marie Antoinette blush, from gourmet dining halls (sushi at Bowdoin, vegan at JMU) to rock-climbing walls. Last month, Virginia Commonwealth University announced the construction of two new dorms that will add 426 beds. Their $41 million cost comes to more than $96,000 per bed. Thank goodness Virginia is, comparatively, fiscally conservative: Princeton recently built a dormitory at a jaw-dropping cost of almost $300,000 per bed.

Trend lines like these cannot go on — and they won’t. But not because of politicians’ efforts to rein in college costs. College costs will drop because of market forces politicians will be powerless to stop.

In his new book “Average Is Over,” George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen explains why: Thanks to the Internet, you no longer have to sit in a lecture hall to get a superb education. And you certainly don’t have to shell out ungodly sums for five-star dormitories, Olympic-level gymnasiums and sushi bars.

You already can learn a great deal online for free from Wikipedia, TED lectures and so on. That information is unorganized, but many universities have begun offering organized instruction online through MOOCs — massive, open online courses. (Want to take one? Go to Coursera.org.) And “once an online course is created,” Cowen writes, “additional students can be handled at … close to zero cost.”

This is tremendously democratizing. To take a financial-markets course from Sterling Professor of Economics Bob Shiller, a poor kid in South Central Los Angeles or Bee Branch, Ark., no longer has to apply to Yale — hoping against hope to get in — and then beg or borrow tens of thousands of dollars a year to pay the freight. He can take the class online. Just as deregulation made air travel available to (nearly) all, online education will make college available to nearly all as well.

Granted, air travel today is much less luxurious than it once was. Won’t technology-facilitated education be equally plebian? The question falsely assumes a student at Big State U. is getting a top-notch education now. And it ignores the ways technology could improve higher ed.

For instance, Cowen writes, “when the best courses serve … hundreds of thousands of students, or maybe even millions, the financial returns to pedagogical innovation will be looked at in a new light.” Imagine writing a killer app that explains the concept of opportunity cost in a clear and entertaining manner: “As a society, we’ll put a lot more effort into teaching things better.”

Changes like this could benefit star professors tremendously, but they might not be such good news for the average instructor, whose role could shift dramatically. At Virginia Tech, 8,000 students a year take introductory math from hundreds of computers set up in a renovated big-box store — with non-tenured assistants on hand to answer the occasional question from the perplexed.

Yet Cowen argues there will always be a place for professors. Some institutions, such as certain Ivies, trade on their exclusivity and might not wish to give credit for courses taken online. Some students lack the self-motivation to learn on their own, and for them the professor will serve as “role model … motivator [and] exemplar.” Those teachers could “consult the machines to better understand the mistakes their students are making” and “outline a course for improvement.”

Finally, the revolution in higher ed could hasten the end of the sheepskin as a signifier of intellectual horsepower.

Just look at how technology has revolutionized chess instruction, Cowen says: No longer do you need to study for years with a chess coach to reach the zenith of the game. Aspiring grandmasters now learn from computers and online game play, and merit is all.

“If you’re not a good player,” Cowen writes, “the fact that you studied with a top teacher doesn’t mean a thing. … There is nothing [in chess] comparable to the glow resulting from a Harvard degree: Announcing ‘I studied with Rybka’ [a powerful chess engine] would bring gales of laughter, since anyone can do that. … The company selling Rybka tries to make its product replicable and universal, whereas Harvard tries to make its product as exclusive as possible. Now, which model do you think will spread and gain influence in the long run?”

Before you answer that, consider this: A year of tuition, room and board at Harvard will set you back more than $50,000. You can get a copy of Rybka for about $50.

Comments

2:20 pm - Thu, Sep 26, 2013
1 note
Does your college practice censorship?

A larger version of this graphic (with a link to a .pdf version at the bottom) is available here.

Does your college practice censorship?

A larger version of this graphic (with a link to a .pdf version at the bottom) is available here.

Comments

Following
Discussion
Install Headline

Advertisement

Media General
DealTaker.com - Coupons and Deals
DealTaker.com Promo Codes
KewlBoxBoxerJam: Games & Puzzles
Games, Puzzles & Trivia
Blockdot: Advergaming and Branded Media
Advergaming and Branded Media