Jon Chait has to be pranking us?

I say this because of this review he posts of a book that seems deeply ahistorical:

The new right-wing book of the moment is American Betrayal, by Diana West, which offers the thesis that American foreign policy under presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower was secretly controlled by the Soviet Union. If this sounds like the sort of tract that would be written by somebody who thinks Joe McCarthy was absolutely right about everything, well, that’s exactly what Diana West does believe. She’s also quite the birther.

and

West argues not just that there were communist spies in the government or that American foreign policy failed to take a strong enough line, but that the Soviets controlled the American government in the way they controlled, say, East Germany. For instance, West argues that America provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor — an American working for the Soviets “subverted relations between the US and Japan by inserting ‘ultimatum’ language into the cable flow that actually spurred the Japanese attack.”

So the downfall of the communist US government was due to John F Kennedy, lion of the right wing?  Who managed to squeak out a victory over Soviet pawn Rich Nixon (Eisenhower's Vice President, after all)?  Making JFK and Lyndon Johnson leading the only actual American led government in this 40 year period of subjugation?  Making the Great Society what a non-communist government would introduce in opposition to the communism of Richard Nixon? 

I am not saying that these things aren't possible in the sense of "logically possible".  But the Korean war and the Berlin blockage seem like odd policy decisions if the United States was a soviet satellite in the sense of East Germany.  Look what happened to Hungary in 1956 when it decided to buck Soviet control!  Now, this is completely separate from a claim that these presidents were rabid socialists or a competing strain of communist (kind of like China was).  It is the direct control from Moscow that seems to beg for a very high level of evidence.

So I guess I prefer to believe that Jon Chait got his facts wrong rather than actually imagining anybody would posit this theory of US history. 

Chait versus Delong

Brad Delong has a very nice reply to Jon Chait's latest column.  I think that any reasonable analysis of tuition versus professorial salary in real terms is going to make it clear that the link between salaries and tuition is . . . weak.  After all, we live in the age of the adjunct professor/lecturer -- if just slashing salaries was the answer then adjuncts would have solved the problem.  Just ask anyone who has taught at those salaries. 

It is also the case that private schools (i.e. Harvard) give tenure and pay high salaries.  It cannot just be that the private sector has no ability to assess value.  Not have I missed the fact that summer camp seems to be increasing in price, making it also less accessible.  Nor is anybody suggesting that replacing summer camp with a television set is the way to improve educational outcomes. 

Yet we have had VHS tapes since the 1980's.  If taping and replaying lectures was so superior, why did it take the internet to make this a viable approach? 

The one place that I think Jon Chait is correct is when he draws the analogy with Health Care.  Some parts of health care have been real improvements and were worth the cost.  Conspiracy theories aside, comparing cardiovascular disease treatment between 1960 and today is sobering; expensive technologies and drugs really have helped.  What is challenging is the fine line between what is a real improvement in quality and what is an unnecessary expense.  Some degree of pressure on higher education may elucidate some of the fault lines and that could be quite useful to all of us. 

A truly remarkable piece of misreading

To some degree we've all been guilty of hearing what we expected to hear rather than what was said. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, this has always been a part of human nature and it's probably grown more common with the advent of the internet. Even with that in mind, though, this is a truly remarkable example.

Here's the context. A few days ago, Jonathan Chait wrote a long and unflinching take-down of Paul Ryan. He razed the man, left no stone on stone, salted the ground so... well, you get the point. What's more, Chait was just as direct and damning in his handling of the journalists who had given Ryan so many free passes, even going so far as to confront James Stewart on his Ryan pieces.

Here's a representative passage:

Ryan’s mastery of these details does not signify openness to evidence or a willingness to shape his views to real-world evidence. It actually signifies the opposite. And yet Ryan has grasped that the aura of specificity he has cultivated paradoxically renders the specifics themselves irrelevant.
For a virtuoso display of this principle in action, return to another vintage Ryan moment: his Dave profile from last year, where he awed a swooning reporter by opening up the budget to a random page and fingered a boondoggle. The item Ryan pointed to was the Obama administration’s reform of the student-loan industry. “Direct loans—this is perfect,” Ryan said. “So direct loans, that’s new spending on autopilot, that had no congressional oversight, and it gave the illusion that they were cutting spending.”
The exchange is so perversely revealing that it rewards explanation. For decades, the government helped make college more affordable through “guaranteed loans”—it encouraged banks to lend money to students by promising to repay the banks if the students defaulted. Banks were making billions of dollars in profits at virtually no risk. The General Accounting Office, a kind of in-house fiscal watchdog for the federal government, issued sixteen reports over the years noting how the government could save money simply by issuing the loans itself and cutting out the middleman.
It was the simplest, no-brainer pot of savings you could find—ending pure corporate welfare, just like in the movie Dave. The cause attracted support from think tanks, as well as the moderate Wisconsin Republican Tom Petri, an eclectic reformer who is sort of the real-life version of the Paul Ryan character who appears on television. Two National Revieweditors endorsed eliminating guaranteed loans in an article advocating a new reform conservatism.
The banks lobbied fiercely to protect their gravy train. Among the staunchest advocates of those government-subsidized banks was … Paul Ryan, who fought to protect bank subsidies that many of his fellow Republicans deemed too outrageous to defend. In 2009, Obama finally eliminated the guaranteed-lending racket. It could save the government an estimated $62 billion, according to the CBO.
Not everything in Ryan’s career, and possibly nothing at all, is quite so undeniably venal. You could pluck any other single example out of Ryan’s long history of strident conservatism and he would be able to defend it, at the very least, on ideological grounds. A tax cut for the rich, a hike in military spending—all those could be explained as a blow for the cause of Reaganism. This was an almost astonishingly unlucky break, an instance where he lacked even ideological cover—standing up for higher spending at the behest of a powerful lobby lacking any plausible rationale for its subsidy.
At the moment the page opened to that unfortunate item, Ryan’s heart must have stopped. Here was a reporter trying to cast him as a movie-hero outsider, and he was performing on cue. Yet the book opened to a page that, cruelly, just happened to expose the gap between Ryan’s image and the reality more clearly than anything else possibly could have.
Ryan probably knew, even in that split second, that he stood little chance of exposure. (The overlap between television news reporters and people with a detailed understanding of the federal budget is quite small.) Yet a lesser politician might have panicked, or hesitated, or possibly tried to flip to a different page. In that moment, Ryan revealed the qualities that have propelled him to his current position. As cool as can be, and as winsome as ever, he said, “This is perfect.”

Chait later said he was prepared for a wide range of responses but he had to admit that this post from the left wing site Crooks and Liars caught him off guard:

Praise Jesus and pass the awesome sauce. Paul Ryan's going to be the next Republican Saint, wrapped in a flag and waving down at all of us who are too stupid to understand the complex thinking and amazing nuance of St Paul's brain.Thank you, Jonathan Chait, for this awesome NYMag article telling us how to count the ways Paul Ryan is the Great American Hero. What would I have ever done without being enlightened in such an obsequious way, beginning with the title: The Legendary Paul Ryan?

It is, as Chait says, a fascinating read despite going on for over eighteen hundred words counting two updates (neither of which improves on the original). Part of the fascination comes seeing a writer with such exceptionally poor reading comprehension. She follows every quote from Chait with a reply that seems oddly inappropriate, as if she were listening to him in a noisy room and didn't really hear what he said.

And then there's the self-effacing "I'm not ambitious at all, no sir!" claim that Chait reinforces:

One trope that has marked Ryan’s media coverage from the outset is that he is consistently described as lacking ambition. It’s a sharp contrast with fellow Republican Eric Cantor, to whom the adjective “ambitious” is affixed like a tattoo. Ryan says, and many political reporters believe, that he is immune to the political concerns that distract his colleagues. He “has a level of disdain for the sort of rank political calculations required of people who want to climb the electoral ladder,” explains the Washington Post. Here is a telling description from Politico: “Of the partisan political game, Ryan confessed, ‘It’s not my natural tendency. I’m a policy guy.’ ” The operative word here is “confessed.”

Because wonks lack ambition? This would be why Ryan has abandoned St. Ayn Rand in recent days, eschewing her "I've got mine, screw the rest of you" philosophy for a kinder, gentler piety that "disagrees" with Catholic bishops and pretends to be a bipartisan kind of guy who gets along with everyone! Of course he's not ambitious. Jon Chait has told you so.

Of course, the operative word here is "operative." Chait specifically emphasizes that Ryan is telling us that Ryan's not ambitious. (The word "trope" is also telling.) It's a difficult point to miss, particularly given that a few lines later Chait points out that Ryan "had to elbow more experienced Republicans out of the way to grab his nomination, and then leapfrog other more experienced Republicans to claim the party’s leadership of the House Budget Committee in 2007."

Still, if this were just a badly reasoned post, I wouldn't be recommending you all read it. Seeking out something just because it's bad is mean-spirited and I try to avoid the habit (though the internet does encourage backsliding in that area). What makes the Crooks and Liars piece so fascinating is the way it shows how an interpretation can get embedded so deeply that everything we see confirms that view. As mentioned before, we've all had these moments but most of the time either we catch ourselves or someone shakes us out of it.

It's instructive to see what happens when you just keep going.

My disconnect with Jon Chait

Let me begin with Jon Chait being one of my favorite writers, a must-read, and a person with whom I agree > 90% of the time. I think that the one area we really differ is with teaching:

I think Palko's point is pretty obviously just wordplay, but I suppose I didn't express myself as well as I could have. Being a professional, to most people, means having the opportunity to gain higher pay and recognition with greater success. Such a system also, almost inevitably, entails the possibility of having some consequences for failure. Teaching is very different than most career paths open to college graduates in that it protects its members from firing even in the case of gross incompetence, and it largely denies them the possibility to rise quickly if they demonstrate superior performance.

Obviously the realistic possibility of being fired for gross incompetence would not in and of itself do much to attract more highly qualified teachers, but the opportunity to receive performance-differentiated pay would.

I think I can put my finger on the point of disconnection here. I would gladly take employment In which hard work and results were rewarded (and people who were bad fits were quietly eased out of the profession). These are my favorite work places, as I never want to be in a role where I am not contributing in a substantive way.

But what I think worries me about the attack on teacher tenure is that it seems to be coupled with a small government/austerity movement. I worry that the endgame is no tenure and less compensation (regardless of performance). That approach would open up higher education to worse incentives than it has now and increase the pressure for a parallel (and private) system. Looking at the cost of higher education, my concern is that the poor might be priced out of the education market.

I might be wrong about this pattern, but many countries have balanced job security with quality education (e.g. Canada, Sweden, Finland). I am not against a new pathway, I am just not sure how to increase compensation (to balance against the loss of job security) in the current environment. But I note that Jon Chait is coupling increased compensation opportunities with decreased job security. A reasonable trade, so long as it doesn't fall victim to the desperate need to shrink government that is in the very air these days.

If there is a path forward, I would actually be happy to revisit this question in a positive way. But why is this a burning question in the middle of a period of austerity budgets when it is unclear where the revenue for such reforms would come from?

Too much silliness, too little time

I'm in the middle of a busy weekend, so I can't do justice to Brooks recent education column and Jonathan Chait's affectionate follow-up. Besides, regular readers can probably shoot down the fallacies as well as I can.

I can't, however, let this pass with getting off a quick shot just to get things started.

From Chait's column:

I thought David Brooks' column yesterday on education reform was generally quite good. But he conceded a point to critics of education reform that should not be conceded:

If you orient the system exclusively around a series of multiple choice accountability assessments, you distort it.

If you make tests all-important, you give schools an incentive to drop the subjects that don’t show up on the exams but that help students become fully rounded individuals — like history, poetry, art and sports.

The assumption that schools have had to make tests "all important" has deeply penetrated the debate, but it's not accurate. Different states have different ways of measuring teacher performance. But none of them use student test scores as more than 50% of the measure. Classroom evaluations and other methods account for half or more of the measures everywhere. I've also noticed, anecdotally, that many people assume test measures use a single, blunt scale so that poor children are measured against the same standard as wealthy ones. That's not true, either. Test measures account for socioeconomic status, and measure student improvement over the school year.

Now, this isn't to deny that some schools and teachers over-emphasize a narrow curriculum. But the non-test components of a teacher evaluation method can easily incorporate broader measures of student performance.

Just to sum up, we don't have to worry about schools dropping subjects that don't show on certain tests because these tests are only a part of the teacher evaluation.

This is one of those, for lack of a better word, arguments that leaves you wondering if you missed something. When a superintendent and a principal try to decide whether or not to hire an art teacher, does the non-test component of teacher evaluations guarantee the hiring in some less than obvious way?

Jonathan Chait -- now to the right of David Brooks on Education

For those keeping track, Jonathan Chait has now chastised both David Brooks and the National Review's Jim Manzi for being too moderate on this subject.

In the center, the National Review. On the right, the New Republic

Jim Manzi has an excellent column discussing proposed teacher evaluation metrics from a business perspective, a column that raises some of the same questions that teacher's unions have brought up. There's nothing particularly surprising about that -- Manzi is an intelligent man with a well known independent streak. He's not going to disagree with a position just because he's a conservative.

Jonathan Chait dismisses Manzi's points with some sweeping generalities, completely ignores his point about fairness to the evaluated and ends up being significantly less sympathetic to the concerns of labor than Manzi. Sadly this not surprising either. Chait is one of the most brilliant pundits we have but on the topic of education he combines intense feelings with an apparent lack of knowledge of the important research in the field. This has caused him to embrace certain popular narratives even when they lead him to conclusions that contradict his long standing values.

But as unsurprising as the parts may be, when you put them together the strangeness of the current education debate just sweeps over you. Formerly right-wing positions like privatizing large numbers of schools or denying unions the right to protect workers from unfair termination are now dogma for much of the left. It has reached the point where when a writer for the National Review suggests, as part a larger analysis, that teachers can have legitimate concerns about the reliability of the metrics used to evaluate them, the voice of the New Republic dismisses the possibility without even feeling the need to make an argument.

Even without the political role reversal, Chait's response is strange and oddly disengaged. Judge for yourself.

[I'm presenting these out of order for reasons that will obvious]

1. You need some system for deciding how to compensate teachers. Merit pay may not be perfect, but tenure plus single-track longevity-based pay is really, really imperfect. Manzi doesn't say that better systems for measuring teachers are futile, but he's a little too fatalistic about their potential to improve upon a very badly designed status quo.

Argument by modifier with not one but two 'really's and a 'very' to sell the point. What he doesn't give is any kind of supporting evidence whatsoever. With millions of teachers and a small but thriving industry of think tanks digging up damning anecdotes, you can always find something negative to say, but Chait doesn't even bother coming up a bad argument.

There's an odd, listless quality to the entire post. Chait is normally an energetic and relentless debater. Here he just goes through the motions. He doesn't even bother to proof his prose (I'm pretty sure he either meant to say "the search...is futile"). He also makes a huge jump from the specific techniques Manzi is focusing on to "better systems." I'm pretty sure that Manzi believes better systems can improve the status quo; he just questions how big a role value-add metrics will play in those systems.

As for the case for longevity vs. value-added, I'll let Donald Rubin take it from here:

We do not think that their analyses are estimating causal quantities, except under extreme and unrealistic assumptions.

This is not to say that there isn't a case to be made for merit pay. I don't have any problem with rewarding teachers who do exceptional work, but the methods being discussed here are simply not the way to do it.

Chait's third point runs along similar lines:

3. In general, he's fitting this issue into his "progressives are too optimistic about the potential to rationalize policy" frame. I think that frame is useful -- indeed, of all the conservative perspectives on public policy, it's probably the one liberals should take most seriously. But when you combine the fact that the status quo system is demonstrably terrible, that nobody is trying to devise a formula to control the entire teacher evaluation process, and that nobody is promising the "silver bullet" he assures us doesn't exist, his argument has a bit of a straw man quality.

More argument by adverb and a strange double straw man (straw-straw man? straw straw man man?) continued from the soon-to-be-discussed point 2. The first 'nobody' is doubtful; Chait seems to jump from the fact that no state currently bases evaluations primarily on value-added metrics to the conclusion that no one is even looking into the possibility. The second 'nobody' is just plain wrong; many reform movement followers have so much faith in the silver bullet status of value-added metrics that they have seriously proposed firing more than half of our teachers based on that one number.

But the weirdest part came in point 2.

2. Manzi's description...

evaluating teacher performance by measuring the average change in standardized test scores for the students in a given teacher’s class from the beginning of the year to the end of the year, rather than simply measuring their scores. The rationale is that this is an effective way to adjust for different teachers being confronted with students of differing abilities and environments.

..implies that quantitative measures are being used as the entire system to evaluate teachers. In fact, no state uses such measures for any more than half of the evaluation. The other half involves subjective human evaluations.

Argument by ellipses. Take a look at the whole paragraph:

Recently, Megan McArdle and Dana Goldstein had a very interesting Bloggingheads discussion that was mostly about teacher evaluations. They referenced some widely discussed attempts to evaluate teacher performance using what is called “value-added.” This is a very hot topic in education right now. Roughly speaking, it refers to evaluating teacher performance by measuring the average change in standardized test scores for the students in a given teacher’s class from the beginning of the year to the end of the year, rather than simply measuring their scores. The rationale is that this is an effective way to adjust for different teachers being confronted with students of differing abilities and environments.

Manzi explicitly says "widely discussed attempts." Now, for the sake of comparison, check out the New York Times' similar wording:

A growing number of school districts have adopted a system called value-added modeling to answer that question, provoking battles from Washington to Los Angeles — with some saying it is an effective method for increasing teacher accountability, and others arguing that it can give an inaccurate picture of teachers’ work.

The system calculates the value teachers add to their students’ achievement, based on changes in test scores from year to year and how the students perform compared with others in their grade.

Manzi was perfectly clear with his wording and used language consistent with the New York Times' coverage. It was only by excerpting his paragraph mid-sentence that Chait was able to get even the suggestion of a distortion.

I have somewhat mixed feelings Manzi's business-based approach. There are certain aspects of education that are, if not unique, then at least highly unusual and you have to be careful when drawing analogies (obviously the subject for another, much longer post). That said, all of his points about the way evaluations work are valid and useful.

This is not a bad place to start the debate.

[You can read Jim Manzi's somewhat bewildered reaction to Chait's column here.]

Depressing thought of the day

From Jon Chait:

Basically, the optimal number of Fox News-like propaganda outlets is zero. But I suspect the next most optimal number is two, not one.

I worry not so much that this statement is wrong but that it is correct and that there will be a push to a local optima.

Jonathan Chait disapproves of a liberal journalist's flip-flop on unions

In today's TNR:

New York has a mordantly funny piece about the effort by staffers at Harper's to unionize. The saga begins with gross mismanagement by owner Rick MacArthur, spurring the staff to organize. Then the left-wing MacArthur started to act a lot like a union-crushing boss.

I have a bit more sympathy for MacArthur. He's in a difficult situation trying to save a tremendously worthwhile institution. I tend to be very union-friendly but the situation can get murky when the business in question really is struggling to survive, not just making a play for sympathy. Given that my only source of information is the gossipy and badly written New York piece, it's difficult to assign much blame.

Besides, it's not like he attacked a fundamental role of unions like the right to protect their employees from unfair termination.

More on owning preperty to vote

Commenter David made the point:

This criticism always sounds a little hollow--when people talk about interpreting the constitution 'as the framers intended', I'm pretty sure they don't mean the parts that later amendments changed.

What is difficult is that it is pretty clear from his quote that Judson Phillips really does believe this; go look. Now it could be that this is a minority view and not very typical.

But I jumped on it because this comment seemed to open a lot of issues:

But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community.

So what happens if you have a mortgage on a property? Do you own it? What about a lien? How do you easily keep track of who has successfully sold their house (and thus lost the right to vote). When does this count? What if you buy a house right before election day?

Furthermore, how much property is enough? Do we value it by space? What about by value? In a country as diverse as the United States, either Wyoming or Manhattan is going to be complicated.

How would this interact with eminent domain? If the state seizes your house are you disenfranchised? Could this interact in unexpected ways with the idea of equal protection?

If you own land in city X but live (by renting) in city Y, where do you vote? What if you rent your house but own a cottage? Or a garden plot?

Finally, I wonder if the act of owning land really leads to stability given how liquid houses are. It might become more of a marker of wealth; arguing that only the wealthy should vote is a dangerous position.

So I was mostly struck by how badly this proposal seemed to be thought out and how complicated it would be to implement.

What happens if you have a mortgage?

Jon Chait talks about a new idea from Tea Party Nation:

Tea Party Nation Judson Phillips thinks the franchise should be taken away from renters

Of course, the complexities in trying to operationalize such a plan are, shall we say, staggering.

Education Reform

I want to very quickly return to first principles. When Mark and I began discussing tenure reform, it was in the context of a "crisis" in education. This terminology continues to this day.

However, the real impact of recent news is that proposed reforms don’t have the potential to make immediate and dramatic improvements in education outcomes. Why does this matter?

Because if there is an incipient crisis and known strategies can directly address them then it would be grossly unethical not to try and address this in the fastest way possible. However, if there is not an immediate crisis the correct way forward is one that addresses all of the stakeholders and not radical top-down driven reform. In other words, Baltimore and not Washington, DC.

In the long run educational reform may be inevitable and positive. One of our well versed commentators (Stuart Buck) opined about the evidence:

It's consistent with any number of stories, including increased quality of teaching, better curriculum, finding a better fit for each individual students (some do better in a smaller school, for example), and the factors that you mention.

In my view, this suggests that we are going to experiment with news modes of education. After all, many people who I respect are strongly advocating for experimenting further with education reform (Jon Chait, Megan McArdle, Matt Yglesias, Alex Tabarrok come immediately to mind).

So why are there concerns about the process by which educational reform is occurring? Because, the discussion began with a question of where to allocate resources. Seyward Darby was arguing that we needed to accept teacher layoffs as part of the price if educational reform:

The president's beef is with a provision to prevent teacher layoffs, which Democrats tacked onto the bill along with several other domestic priorities. To pay for the measure, the House agreed to cut money from some of the president's key education reform initiatives. Obama isn't happy about it. Nor should he be.

Now, if there is a real and immediate crisis in education than, of course, dramatic measures can make sense. But is this really the time to spark a round of teacher layoffs in order to make slow improvements in who decides to apply for teaching jobs? Maybe, but it seems naive to think that we should fuel the testing of educational reform with layoffs at this precise moment. Readers of Felix Salmon may remember this week's jobs report:

Meanwhile, as the school year begins, we have this:

Employment in local government decreased by 76,000 in September with job losses in both education and noneducation.

As states and municipalities around the nation start running out of money, they’re going to fire people; this is only the beginning. And if October is any indication, the job losses in the local government sector are going to be at least as big as the job gains in the private sector.

So the real issue is whether this is the time for radical teacher employment restructuring -- should we lay off teachers to test educational reform? We do have a duty to the future but we also have a duty to the current students as well. The conversation would be different if the net resources for education were increasing but claiming that education is a priority in the midst of layoffs due to lack of funding seems disingenuous.

My interest in this subject grew from two arguments in the blogosphere. One, that the crisis in educational was so bad that the state should massively break contracts without cause. Notice that in cases like AIG and TARP, we were willing to spend a lot of money as a society to preserve financial contracts. Two, that reform has likely to be so important that teacher lay-offs in the midst of a recession were an acceptable sacrifice as the students would be better off.

If we don't accept that there is an immediate crisis then we can still move forward. But then it becomes an American-style bottom-up reform and not a Soviet-style top down reform. I like the Baltimore example -- specific communities negotiating ways to respond to the crisis and continuing to try ways to create a better future for their children. The result of a thousand experiments with engaged communities could very well result in a far better educational system in the long run.

And I think that is a good outcome.

Apparently we've reached the goalpost-moving stage of the game

We all knew the case for incentive pay for teachers. The argument was simple and it made a lot of sense: teachers' unions and tenure limited the consequences of poor performance and bad behavior while the lack of bonuses limited the incentives for excellence. You could hardly blame the reformers for pushing it. Who could disagree with the statement that people respond to incentives?

Unfortunately, like so many appealing theories, it didn't do that well in the messiness of the real word. First researchers concluded that the data was too volatile and confounded to identify poor teachers, and now a major study by Vanderbilt and Rand has failed to show anything more than trivial results from incentive pay. Faced with these unpalatable facts, reform supporters have stayed true to their conviction that education (or at least education reform) should be run like a business and have done what so many project managers before them have done: they've moved the goalposts.

Eric A. Hanushek, from the Hoover Institution, assures us that he knew it all along:

"The biggest role of incentives has to do with selection of who enters and who stays in teaching - i.e., how incentives change the teaching corps through entrance and exits," Hanushek said. "I have always thought that the effort effects were small relative to the potential for getting different teachers. Their study has nothing to say about this more important issue."

Jonathan Chait echoed the Hoover line (bet you never thought you'd hear that one):

Of course, the point of performance pay isn't to wring better results out of the same teaching pool. It's to change the composition of the teaching pool. Teachers tend to come from the lower ranks of college graduates. That's natural, because the profession pays poorly compared with other jobs requiring college degree and does not offer financial rewards for success. The idea of merit pay is that you lure into the profession people who want to be treated like professionals -- they run the risk of being fired if they're incompetent, but they can also earn recognition and higher pay for exceptional performance.

It's true that there important secondary selection benefits from a well-designed incentive system, but how credible is the claim that all the reformers were interested in from the beginning were the selection effects, that the Vanderbilt results were unimportant, even, according to Hanushek, expected?

Why did these reform supporters push ahead with high profile research that they believed would prove nothing and would make the movement look bad? This was not a cheap study. In addition to conventional funding, a private donor, presumably a reform movement supporter, put up 1.3 million dollars of his own money to test the hypothesis that incentive pay for teachers would improve student test performance. If "the point of performance pay [wasn't] to wring better results out of the same teaching pool," why waste over a million dollars to see how well performance pay did just that?

For a fraction of that money, you could have funded research that would have directly addressed the question of teacher self-selection by conducting a quick and cheap survey-based study that would look at the correlation between attitudes toward incentive pay and factors like GPA.

And even if we accept the I-meant-to-do-that response, the Vanderbilt study still presents advocates of incentive pay with a huge problem. The assumption behind their theory is that competent, hard-working people will go where competence and hard work are rewarded. Unfortunately, the study indicates that either the incentive metrics are largely out of teachers' control or teachers were generally doing what they could to maximize student performance before bonuses were on the table.

Keep in mind, we're talking about individual bonuses, not the kind you get for an organization meeting some goal. Do we have any evidence, even anecdotal, to show that more desirable employees are attracted to compensation plans with large individual incentive components even when the employees have been shown to have little if any influence over the value of those incentives?

If we were talking about a good, well-designed compensation scheme you could make a strong case for positive selection effects, but we're not even close. We are talking about incentive pay based on hopelessly confounded and volatile data. We are talking about incentive pay based on easily manipulated metrics. We are talking about incentive pay that does not incent.

You really need to read that last one out loud to get the full effect:

We are talking about incentive pay that does not incent.

Just so we're clear, the reform advocates are saying that we take money from things like salary and training and divert it to bonuses that are based on poor-quality data and have not been shown to provide incentive value. We should do this because this poorly-designed compensation scheme will attract a better class of applicant.

And on top of all that, they're asking us to believe this was their plan from the very beginning.

An experiment in blogging -- the conclusion

When assessing a statement, sometimes it's useful to rephrase it in a more general way and see how well it holds up. I tried that with a passage I found in a popular blog (one of the very few I read every day). Where the author had referred to members of a specific profession I substituted in the word 'employees' except when talking about unions ('employees unions' seemed redundant). I also changed a couple of words for consistency, but other than that the passage was exactly the same.

The resulting paragraph (seen below) was much more extreme than I had expected and it got me to thinking, how would people react to this passage if they encountered it without all the baggage? I decided to post the generalized version with a brief explanatory note then give people a couple of days to think about it before filing in the details.

Here's the generalized passage:

If you concede that employers need to be able to fire bad employees, then you can't fully defend the role of the unions. You can defend the concept of unions, and you can believe that some of the things unions do, like bargain for higher aggregate wages, help society. But most unions demonstrably make it very difficult to fire bad employees. That is currently a core function of unions, and something that must change. You're also going to need higher salaries to attract a better caliber employee into the workforce, and that's something unions could potentially help. But being "treated like professionals" has to mean both the opportunity to earn a good living if you do well and the potential to be fired if you fail.

And here is the passage Jonathan Chait (that's right, Jonathan Chait) originally posted in his blog:

If you concede that principals need to be able to fire bad teachers, then you can't fully defend the role of the unions. You can defend the concept of unions, and you can believe that some of the things unions do, like bargain for higher aggregate wages, help education. But most teachers unions demonstrably make it very difficult to fire bad teachers. That is currently a core function of teachers unions, and something that must change. You're also going to need higher salaries to attract a better caliber teacher into the profession, and that's something unions could potentially help. But being "treated like professionals" has to mean both the opportunity to earn a good living if you do well and the potential to be fired if you fail.

There are obviously two possible responses Chait could make here (three if you count ignoring it entirely). He could say he agrees with the general statement or he could argue that teachers are a special case and should be granted less union protection than, say, policemen.*

Ironically, the more defensible position Chait can take here is the extreme one, namely that unions should not do anything to discourage employers from firing their members. It's not a position that most readers of the New Republic would embrace but, as a statement of personal belief, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebut.

If he tries to explain why teachers constitute a special case, he will have to deal with the data and in this particular debate, the numbers are not his friends. (It's worth remembering that Diane Ravitch started out on Chait's side. Her road to Damascus came when she realized she could no longer reconcile those views with what she was seeing in the research findings.)

Jonathan Chait can be a formidable debater but he has shown himself to be largely ignorant of the research behind these issues (no one at TNR even knew enough about PISA to catch the bait and switch in the intro to Waiting for Superman and in the education debate that's about as slow as the pitches get).

He'll be trying to punch holes in the findings of institutions like EPI and Rand and big guns in the field like Donald Rubin. He'll have to show precipitous educational decline without resorting to the aforementioned PISA (good test but absolutely meaningless in this context). He'll have to explain why schools that use his policies are more likely to underperform than to outperform unionized schools. He'll have to justify firing people based on metrics so volatile that a third of teachers in the top 20% could find themselves in firing range the next year, metrics based on data so confounded that "students’ fifth grade teachers were good predictors of their fourth grade test scores."

This is one time the smart money is on the other guys.



* Yes, we fire policemen. What we don't do is is fire policemen based on unreliable metrics that are largely outside of the officers' control and are easily manipulated by their superiors

Was I too tough on Seyward Darby?

We've recently had a huge uptick in viewers. This is great (and I'm tremendously appreciative), but I do have to remind myself most of the people in the room walked in on the middle of the conversation.

If you do a keyword search, you would see we've been hammering away at Ms. Darby for a long time and you might get the impression that we are trying to depict her as the mad relative chained up in the New Republic's attic. We're not and she isn't. (TNR's attic position was filled long before she got there.)

Ms. Darby, a talented and well-qualified journalist, takes the brunt of the criticism because she writes the bulk of TNR's articles on education, not because those articles deviate from the magazine's position on, well, anything.

The indispensable Jonathan Cohn has handed his blog over to Darby's education posts while Jonathan Chait, arguably the best political blogger out there, has taken an almost identical position on the subject.

I addressed Chait's uncharacteristic education writing a couple of weeks ago (seems like longer) in "Strange Bedfellows":

There's too much here to cover in one post (I could do a page just on Chait's weird reaction to Samuelson's looks, a topic that I had never given any thought to up until now). I may take another pass at another section later but for now I'm going to limit myself to this particularly egregious bit:

How does Samuelson explain the existence of new charter schools that produce dramatically higher results among these lazy, no-good teenagers? He insists, "no one has yet discovered transformative changes in curriculum or pedagogy, especially for inner-city schools, that are (in business lingo) 'scalable.'" This is utterly false. The most prominent example is the Kipp schools, which have shown revolutionary improvements among poor, inner-city students and have rapidly expanded.

It is strange to see Chait take the pro-privatization side of the debate, stranger still to see him accuse critics of charter schools of having an anti-government bias*, but what pushes this into Rod Serling territory is the spectacle of having Chait, one of the most gifted bullshit detectors of the Twenty-first Century, rolling out the same sort of flawed argument that he has made a career out of dismantling.

In order to be viable, a reform has to improve on the existing system by a large enough margin to justify its implementation costs, but if you accept the metrics used by the reform movement, then you will have to conclude that charter schools do worse than public schools more often than they do better.**

So we have a major push to privatize government services which, after about two decades of testing have been shown to under-perform their traditional government-run alternatives. Rather than show why this statistic is misleading, Chait pulls out vague, anecdotal evidence of a single out-lier. Now, given the variability of the data, we would expect the top schools (or even chains) to do pretty well. That alone rebuts Chait's point, but it gets worse. Self-selection, peer effects and selective attrition*** all artificially inflate KIPP's results. When you take these factors into account, it's hard to make a compelling statistical case that even the best charter schools are outperforming public schools (though the second footnote still applies).

At the risk of over-emphasizing, this is Jonathan -- freaking -- Chait we're talking about, a writer known for his truly exceptional gift for constructing logical arguments and, more importantly, spotting the fallacies in the arguments of others. Under normal conditions, Chait would never fall for a badly presented argument-by-anomally, let alone make one, just as, under normal circumstances, a confrontation between Samuelson and Chait would result in little pieces of the former being scraped off of the walls of the Washington Post.

But Chait loses this confrontation decisively. From his ad hominem opening to his factually challenged close he fails to score a single point. And this is far from the only example of this odd reform-specific impairment affecting otherwise accomplished writers. OE has spilled endless pixels on the reform-related lapses, both statistical and rhetorical, of smart, serious, dedicated people like Chait, Seyward Darby and, of course, Ray Fisman (just do a keyword search). None of these people would normally produce the kind of work we've cataloged here. None of them would normally ignore the defection of one of the founding members of the reform movement. None of these people would normally feel comfortable dismissing without comment contradictory findings from EPI, Donald Rubin and the Rand Institute.

David Warsh has aptly made the following comparison:

Remember the recipe for a policy disaster? Start with a handful of policy intellectuals confronting a stubborn problem, in love with a Big Idea. Fold in a bunch of ambitious Ivy League kids who don’t speak the local language. Churn up enthusiasm for the program in the gullible national press – and get ready for a decade of really bad news. Take a look at David Halberstam’s Vietnam classic The Best and the Brightest, if you need to refresh your memory. Or just think back on the run-up to the war in Iraq.

but along with Halberstam, it might be time to brush off our copies of Cialdini's Influence.

From a data standpoint, the past few years have been rough on the reform movement. Charter schools have been shown to be more likely to under-perform than to outperform. Joel Klein's spectacular record turned out to be the product of creative accounting (New York City schools have actually done much worse than the rest of the state). Findings contradicting the fundamental tenets of the movement accumulated. Major figures in research (Rubin) and education (Ravitch) have publicly questioned the viability of proposed reforms.

As Cialdini lays out in great detail, when you challenge people's deeply held beliefs with convincing evidence, you usually get one of two responses. Sometimes you will actually manage to win them over. More often, though, they will dig in, embrace their beliefs more firmly and find new ways to justify them.

I think it's safe to say we don't have response number one.




* Almost all of the major tenets of the modern reform can be traced back to the Reagan era and were closely associated with the initiatives described in Franks' The Wrecking Crew.

** Ironically, if you consider the intellectual framework of the reform movement to be flawed and overly simplistic, you can actually make a much better case for charter schools.

*** From Wikipedia: "In addition, some KIPP schools show high attrition, especially for those students entering the schools with the lowest test scores. A 2008 study by SRI International found that although KIPP fifth-grade students who enter with below-average scores significantly outperform peers in public schools by the end of year one, "... 60 percent of students who entered fifth grade at four Bay Area KIPP schools in 2003-04 left before completing eighth grade."[7] The report also discusses student mobility due to changing economic situations for student's families, but does not directly link this factor into student attrition. Six of California's nine KIPP schools, researched in 2007, showed similar attrition patterns.[citation needed] Figures for schools in other states are not always as readily available."

[You can find more on KIPP here]

One reason to look forward to the Republicans retaking Congress and the White House

At least liberals can be happy again.

Strange Bedfellows

(where your intrepid blogger sides with Robert Samuelson, gives Ray Fisman a break and wonders what in the hell happened to Jonathan Chait)

You really have to read this Jonathan Chait column on Robert Samuelson, and I don't mean that in a good way. You have to read this to see for yourself how low the educational reform movement can drag even a writer as gifted as Chait.

There's too much here to cover in one post (I could do a page just on Chait's weird reaction to Samuelson's looks, a topic that I had never given any thought to up until now). I may take another pass at another section later but for now I'm going to limit myself to this particularly egregious bit:

How does Samuelson explain the existence of new charter schools that produce dramatically higher results among these lazy, no-good teenagers? He insists, "no one has yet discovered transformative changes in curriculum or pedagogy, especially for inner-city schools, that are (in business lingo) 'scalable.'" This is utterly false. The most prominent example is the Kipp schools, which have shown revolutionary improvements among poor, inner-city students and have rapidly expanded.

It is strange to see Chait take the pro-privatization side of the debate, stranger still to see him accuse critics of charter schools of having an anti-government bias*, but what pushes this into Rod Serling territory is the spectacle of having Chait, one of the most gifted bullshit detectors of the Twenty-first Century, rolling out the same sort of flawed argument that he has made a career out of dismantling.

In order to be viable, a reform has to improve on the existing system by a large enough margin to justify its implementation costs, but if you accept the metrics used by the reform movement, then you will have to conclude that charter schools do worse than public schools more often than they do better.**

So we have a major push to privatize government services which, after about two decades of testing have been shown to under-perform their traditional government-run alternatives. Rather than show why this statistic is misleading, Chait pulls out vague, anecdotal evidence of a single out-lier. Now, given the variability of the data, we would expect the top schools (or even chains) to do pretty well. That alone rebuts Chait's point, but it gets worse. Self-selection, peer effects and selective attrition*** all artificially inflate KIPP's results. When you take these factors into account, it's hard to make a compelling statistical case that even the best charter schools are outperforming public schools (though the second footnote still applies).

At the risk of over-emphasizing, this is Jonathan -- freaking -- Chait we're talking about, a writer known for his truly exceptional gift for constructing logical arguments and, more importantly, spotting the fallacies in the arguments of others. Under normal conditions, Chait would never fall for a badly presented argument-by-anomally, let alone make one, just as, under normal circumstances, a confrontation between Samuelson and Chait would result in little pieces of the former being scraped off of the walls of the Washington Post.

But Chait loses this confrontation decisively. From his ad hominem opening to his factually challenged close he fails to score a single point. And this is far from the only example of this odd reform-specific impairment affecting otherwise accomplished writers. OE has spilled endless pixels on the reform-related lapses, both statistical and rhetorical, of smart, serious, dedicated people like Chait, Seyward Darby and, of course, Ray Fisman (just do a keyword search). None of these people would normally produce the kind of work we've cataloged here. None of them would normally ignore the defection of one of the founding members of the reform movement. None of these people would normally feel comfortable dismissing without comment contradictory findings from EPI, Donald Rubin and the Rand Institute.

David Warsh has aptly made the following comparison:

Remember the recipe for a policy disaster? Start with a handful of policy intellectuals confronting a stubborn problem, in love with a Big Idea. Fold in a bunch of ambitious Ivy League kids who don’t speak the local language. Churn up enthusiasm for the program in the gullible national press – and get ready for a decade of really bad news. Take a look at David Halberstam’s Vietnam classic The Best and the Brightest, if you need to refresh your memory. Or just think back on the run-up to the war in Iraq.

but along with Halberstam, it might be time to brush off our copies of Cialdini's Influence.

From a data standpoint, the past few years have been rough on the reform movement. Charter schools have been shown to be more likely to under-perform than to outperform. Joel Klein's spectacular record turned out to be the product of creative accounting (New York City schools have actually done much worse than the rest of the state). Findings contradicting the fundamental tenets of the movement accumulated. Major figures in research (Rubin) and education (Ravitch) have publicly questioned the viability of proposed reforms.

As Cialdini lays out in great detail, when you challenge people's deeply held beliefs with convincing evidence, you usually get one of two responses. Sometimes you will actually manage to win them over. More often, though, they will dig in, embrace their beliefs more firmly and find new ways to justify them.

I think it's safe to say we don't have response number one.




* Almost all of the major tenets of the modern reform can be traced back to the Reagan era and were closely associated with the initiatives described in Franks' The Wrecking Crew.

** Ironically, if you consider the intellectual framework of the reform movement to be flawed and overly simplistic, you can actually make a much better case for charter schools.

*** From Wikipedia: "In addition, some KIPP schools show high attrition, especially for those students entering the schools with the lowest test scores. A 2008 study by SRI International found that although KIPP fifth-grade students who enter with below-average scores significantly outperform peers in public schools by the end of year one, "... 60 percent of students who entered fifth grade at four Bay Area KIPP schools in 2003-04 left before completing eighth grade."[7] The report also discusses student mobility due to changing economic situations for student's families, but does not directly link this factor into student attrition. Six of California's nine KIPP schools, researched in 2007, showed similar attrition patterns.[citation needed] Figures for schools in other states are not always as readily available."

Speaking for the unhinged

Jonathan Chait dismisses critics of proposed education reform as 'unhinged.' Speaking as one of the whackjobs, here's the sort of thing that makes us loonies so nervous.

From a press release (6/8/09) from the Department of Education:

Emphasizing the need for additional effective education entrepreneurs to join the work of reforming America's lowest performing public schools, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan told reporters during a conference call this afternoon that states must be open to charter schools. Too much is at stake for states financially and for students academically to restrict choice and innovation.

"States that do not have public charter laws or put artificial caps on the growth of charter schools will jeopardize their applications under the Race to the Top Fund," Secretary Duncan said. "To be clear, this administration is not looking to open unregulated and unaccountable schools. We want real autonomy for charters combined with a rigorous authorization process and high performance standards."

From a May 1st story in the New York Times:

But for all their support and cultural cachet, the majority of the 5,000 or so charter schools nationwide appear to be no better, and in many cases worse, than local public schools when measured by achievement on standardized tests, according to experts citing years of research. Last year one of the most comprehensive studies, by researchers from Stanford University, found that fewer than one-fifth of charter schools nationally offered a better education than comparable local schools, almost half offered an equivalent education and more than a third, 37 percent, were “significantly worse.”

Us nutjobs would like to see the administration reconsider its position based on the data.

In games of perfect information, bluffing is a really bad idea

But that seems to be the Republican strategy on financial reform. Jonathan Chait has the details:

So wait. Republicans think they can limit the political damage of a filibuster if they reach a bipartisan deal. But what incentive do the democrats have to reach a deal? If they can force the Republicans to maintain a filibuster, why not keep the issue going until November? The strategy here seems to be, take a political hit by opposing popular legislation, and then hope that somehow this will strengthen the party's hand in the negotiations to follow. How will this work? It's like trying to bluff your opponent in poker when both you and he know he has the stronger hand.

What's more, Republicans are no longer even pretending to be able to hold the line after today's vote. This is amazing:

McConnell secured a commitment from his conference to hold together in opposition on the first vote, but all bets are off after that, aides acknowledge. McConnell’s challenge after Monday is preventing moderates such as Snowe and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) from breaking away and weakening Republican leverage.

Now that the Democrats know the Republicans are planning to defect after the first vote, why on Earth would they compromise? Moreover, what is the point of taking the hit by filibustering reform in the first place? It could work, in theory, if you could bluff the Democrats into thinking the GOP might hold the line indefinitely. But I'm pretty sure the Democratic party has access to articles published in Politico, which means the jig is up. So now the Republicans are trying to bluff in poker when they and their opponent know they have the weaker hand, and their opponent has heard them admit that their strategy is to bet for a couple rounds and fold before the end. Why not just cut their losses now? This makes zero sense.

Chait on careers in journalism

I had some posts up earlier (see here and here) on how economic changes had affected the career options for writers of fiction. Over at The New Republic, Jonathan Chait looks at old and new career paths for writers on the nonfiction side. His comments on columnists are particularly interesting:

The traditional ladder is even more problematic for columnists. Calderone notes, "a Washington column has traditionally been the reward at the end of a climb up the journalistic ladder, with stops along the way at small-town papers, medium-sized city desks and local TV newsrooms." Whereas the small town beat is merely unnecessary as a career chokepoint for national reporters, it's actually counterproductive for columnists. Writing opinion about politics and public policy is a very different skill than reporting. The almost-uniform rule of political reporters-turned-columnists is that they're awful at it. They have no idea how to construct a persuasive argument or marshal the kinds of evidence they need to make their case. Usually, their argument relies on authority -- I am asserting opinion X and you should believe me because I am a prestigious veteran reporter.

The practice of training people for one kind of work and then shifting them into something that requires a completely different set of skills is one of the more bizarre habits of the traditional journalism world. If the New York Times approached me and said that I've done a good job as a columnist and blogger for TNR, and now I should start covering the city hall beat for them, it would be nuts. I'd be horrible.