It's the system, man

You can disprove any position if you force your imaginary opponents to take the maximal side. So if you say of teacher's unions "smashing them will not magically raise test scores", all I can say is, "Well, d'uh". And while I understand that teachers also lobby for things that are good for kids, like better supplies, this does not make powerful teacher's unions a good idea. Teacher's lobby for kids when it happens to coincide with their interest. Unfortunately, in urban areas, it often doesn't.

I should probably clarify that I'm talking about twenty, maybe thirty failing urban school districts/agglomerations in the United States. I could care less whether Scarsdale has a powerful teacher's union that negotiates triannual ten month paid leave in Hawaii. And the problem in rural areas is not the teacher's unions, it's the geographic fact of no possible competition, and often the net outmigration of educated people who might make good teachers.

But in those urban areas, the teacher's unions are a big honking problem. This is not some crazy right wing opinion about unions in general; it is a specific problem with public employee unions. The cops and firefighters have their own issues, about which I will happily wax lyrical some other day, but in the end most of them boil down to getting paid ridiculous amounts of money to do no work. If the laziest ten percent of New York's teachers spent all day drinking coffee and doing "literature review", this would be a fiscal problem, but not a desperate one. The problem is, we stick the teacher's union's problems in our classrooms.

But getting rid of the teacher's unions would not lead to some happy paradise where all the students were Doogie Howser. The teacher's unions are one cog in an enormous dysfunctional system. The school boards, the education bureaucracy, the principals, the other "political stakeholders"--precious few of them poor parents--also factor in. If you got rid of the teacher's unions and left the rest of the institutions in place, I would be shocked if the schools noticeably improved.

But while taking away much of the teacher's union's power is definitely not sufficient, it does seem to be necessary. They resist changes to their work practices that the best evidence (see Ayers, Supercrunchers) seems to show works with disadvantaged kids: rote memorization, and phonics. These replace the tools that upper middle class give their kids earlier--even if you went to a whole language school, if you're reading this blog it's a safe bet you had phonics, too, when your parents taught you to "sound it out".

Instead, they agitate for things like smaller class sizes. It is true that schools with smaller class sizes tend to do better--but this is not surprising, since they tend to be more affluent. Pilot programs with disadvantaged kids also seem to show a benefit, but these suffer from the same problem that I discussed in a previous post about the Perry Pre-School: who's staffing your smaller class sizes? If smaller class sizes means employing more marginal teachers, it's far from obvious that this is a net boon. To the kids, I mean. It's an obvious win for the union.

This is why almost all educational ideas fail: they don't scale when you take the highly motivated grad students and gifted teachers out of the equation. That's why I'm tepidly gung ho about Direct Instruction: it has been proven to work with ordinary teachers using ordinary resources.

I don't care if the teachers have unions to negotiate over salary and benefits. But I think the power to block terminations and set work rules should be entirely stripped from them.

But this will not do anything unless you also take on the principal's union, prune the rapidly multiplying deadwood in the educational bureaucracy, get someone who knows their way around a regression analysis to pick your curriculum, and get serious about accountability for the schools. I don't want to defang the teacher's unions for the fun of it; unless you're planning to do these other things, you might as well leave it alone, too.

Comments

Thank you, thank you, thank you: rote memorization and phonics absolutely work, even if they're not sexy.

Posted by Derannimer | May 14, 2008 10:16 AM

I love this I-don't-need-no-evidence-to-say-stupid-things-like the "laziest ten percent of New York's teachers spent all day drinking coffee and doing "literature review."

Posted by rickm | May 14, 2008 10:34 AM

Schools almost always use a combination of tactics. No doubt you could find extremist on either side, but, despite your beliefs to the contrary, teachers go with what works. Phonics teaches children the sounds of letters and their combinations. Whole language teaches the child to focus on the whole text, and not just sounding the words out. You learn phonics and branch out into whole language.

Middle class children do whole language too, especially clever ones who learn to read early and pick up many, many words through context. Since you learned several languages, you surely know this already anyway.

It is important to examine one's biases because it can lead you to accept dubious sources chosen to reinforce your prejudices. When you start off with the supposition that teachers are lazy and scamming the public of money, of course you think teachers' unions should be abolished.

Posted by Susan of Texas | May 14, 2008 10:37 AM

Rickm proves his excellent reading skills by mistaking an illustrative hypothetical for a factual assertion.

Well done, rickm!

Posted by Howard | May 14, 2008 10:44 AM

You can disprove any position if you force your imaginary opponents to take the maximal side. So if you say of teacher's unions "smashing them will not magically raise test scores", all I can say is, "Well, d'uh"

Was this imaginary?

New Orleans smashes it's teachers union; test scores rise dramatically

It is disingenuous demagoguery to toss in an absurd "data point" to support your thesis, and then accuse your commenters of staw man arguments when they call you on it. Sheesh. Maybe you should go into politics, you are a natural.

Posted by phasearth | May 14, 2008 10:47 AM

Fixing our school systems is a political problem, not an pedagogical problem. While that battle rages, parents still have to worry about how to get the best education for their individual child. Surprise! They use whatever small market mechanisms are available to them. Look at the (mostly non-union) charter school boom in places like DC and Detroit, for example.

Arguing about which schools and curricula are "better" is like arguing about whether Coke or Pepsi is better. Give people choices and they'll make better decisions than pundits, government bureaucrats and school district boundary-drawers.

Posted by Mike Antonucci | May 14, 2008 11:04 AM

rickm, it was an illustrative hypothetical as Howard rightly notes, but any adult with observational abilities knows that the weakest performing 10% of nearly any large organization is pretty much pure deadweight.

Posted by Will Allen | May 14, 2008 11:07 AM

We also need to blow up every college of "education." Or at the least, stop subsidizing them. No Pell grants for "education" degrees.

Posted by Rand Simberg | May 14, 2008 11:14 AM

"It is disingenuous demagoguery to toss in an absurd "data point" to support your thesis..."-phasearth

One data point doesn't make the case, it's true, but a reputable study does. As Coroline Hoxby exaplins her results:

Teachers' unionization can explain how public schools simultaneously can have more generous inputs and worse student performance. Using panel data on United States school districts... I find that teachers' unions increase school inputs but reduce productivity sufficiently to have a negative overall effect on student performance. Union effects are magnified where schools have market power.

Evidently the teachers' unions are indeed creating inefficiencies in the educational system, so that educational quality is deteriorating even as education spending rises.

That isn't really surprising. Unions are established to benefit their members at the expense of everyone else. They are essentially a form of monopoly, and like other monoplies they exert market power to raise prices and let quality of service decline.

Banning teachers' unions is not realistic. Fortunately it isn't necessary either. One of the benefits of school choice is that it would rapidly erode the market power of the unions.

Posted by rwe | May 14, 2008 11:36 AM

Would all those who support teachers' unions and also do not intend to teach your children to read before Kindergarten please say "Doh!"?

Posted by Bob | May 14, 2008 12:01 PM

My wife is a first-grade teacher in a middle-class suburban Utah neighborhood. After observing her classroom, helping her grade tests and homework, and talking with her every day about the problems the kids have, I can say with some assurance that while bad teachers can ruin a kid's education, even a perfect teacher can only help to certain degree. We expect public education to do work that only parents can do. In public schools, because everyone is put together, the smart kids while away the days getting their work done in one-fifth the time provided, while the lowest kids are busy eating their shoelaces. We need to do away with the assumption that the current educational model, which involves putting 20 random kids in a room with one adult for six hours a day, is the ideal.

Posted by Matt | May 14, 2008 12:32 PM

Problem is no one can agree on what they want from the schools--you can't have accountability unless you can get agreement on that, and you mostly can't. If you want a French or Japanese school system where everyone in the country in a class has the same lesson plan on the same day, then fine, you don't need unions because you can determine whether the teacher is following the plan. Teacher's unions are the price we pay for having a decentralized chaotic school system in a decentralized chaotic country that believes in everyone looking out for number one. (I know, I greatly exaggerate.) I wonder, are the k-12 schools the military runs unionized?

Even with charter schools and vouchers, parents don't know what they want--they know what they don't want, which is something different.

Posted by Bill Harshaw | May 14, 2008 12:35 PM

Re: The cops and firefighters have their own issues, about which I will happily wax lyrical some other day, but in the end most of them boil down to getting paid ridiculous amounts of money to do no work.

Good grief, do you really think teachers (or police, or firefighters) make "ridiculous amounts of money" or "do no work". A visit to planet reality is in order, I think.

Posted by JonF | May 14, 2008 12:36 PM

It is my understanding that New York has a large number of firefighters who arrange to work their shifts in 48 hour stretches so that they have the rest of the week off. The number of fires has declined dramatically in New York, and most other urban areas. The number of firefighters has not responded to the decrease in demand for their services.

The police issues are different, and have to do with pensions and overtime calculations. You saw a mass exodus from both departments after 9/11, because the overtime they worked boosted their incomes so much that it would have been foolish not to take retirement or medical--pensions are pegged to your last three years of work.

Posted by Megan McArdle | May 14, 2008 1:02 PM

JonF shows abilities to misunderstand nearly as well as his fellow reading star, rickm.

Megan is obviously not referring to all teachers / cops / firefighters but rather to a subset. If, for example, you look at Boston and identify the highest paid employees in the public sector, they are all nearly all cops.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/03/12/108_who_make_more_than_menino/

Again, for those who were educated by unionized teachers, this doesn't mean that cops, writ large, are overpaid. But we shouldn't be arguing that point since it was never really contented in the first place.

Posted by Howard | May 14, 2008 1:06 PM

Susan of Texas said:

Schools almost always use a combination of tactics. No doubt you could find extremist on either side, but, despite your beliefs to the contrary, teachers go with what works. [...] You learn phonics and branch out into whole language.

If only that were true. But I believe it is a misstatement of the facts to imply that phonics is used first (when it's most effective) and then a switch is made to focusing on the whole text. Rather, it is my experience here in Houston that whole word is the dominant method for the initial reading instruction for kindergarden and first graders. In any case, teaching the appreciation of fine literature is a concept that is not interchangeable with whole word (or “text-intensive”) reading instruction, no matter how often the error is made.

And for the assertion that "teachers go with what works": my belief to the contrary is based on both observed and statistical evidence that there are millions of functionally illiterate people in this country. (30 million adults according to the latest National Assessment of Adult Literacy.) I think it is indisputable that whole language remains the de facto standard for reading education in our public schools. 30 million functionally illiterate adults provide ample evidence that teachers are not going with what works.

As far as what does work, see Thaddeus Lott, who twenty five years ago had severely underprivileged kids outperforming schools in wealthy suburban Houston districts. Among his most effective weapons: Direct Instruction.

Posted by Jeff S. | May 14, 2008 1:26 PM

I thought for a second that your reference to "Ayers" was to Obama's terrorist buddy, Bill.

Posted by Beldar | May 14, 2008 1:34 PM

"I don't care if the teachers have unions to negotiate over salary and benefits. But I think the power to block terminations and set work rules should be entirely stripped from them."

You can pay them to give up that power. If you want something, buy it. Or do you not believe in markets?

Posted by Njorl | May 14, 2008 1:43 PM

"You can pay them to give up that power. If you want something, buy it. Or do you not believe in markets?"-Njorl

The comment above shows a fundamental misunderstanding of markets. The case against teachers' unions is that they are trying to maintain a monopoly over the supply of labor in a particularly important industry. This means that they are interfering with the proper functioning of markets and creating large distortions (a claim supported by the study I linked to above).

So those who prefer to help middle class teachers, at the expense of poor kids in the ghetto, should support the teachers' unions by all means. But those of us truly interested in improving education for the poor should be supporting school choice, to give poor kids and their parents an escape from failing schools and incompetent teachers.*

*I wish to emphasize, though, that I am not implying that all--or even most--public school teachers are incompetent.*

Posted by rwe | May 14, 2008 2:49 PM

After working in a public school system for 8 years I've come up with the following solution:

A doubling of the teachers pay if they accept a live video camera in their classroom.

Posted by Judson | May 14, 2008 3:14 PM

"The comment above shows a fundamental misunderstanding of markets. The case against teachers' unions is that they are trying to maintain a monopoly over the supply of labor in a particularly important industry."

If they were selling directly to the citizenry, you'd have a point. They are not. The monopsony power of the local government is significantly greater than the monopoly power of the union. If the government decides that it is in its best interest to eliminate the union monopoly in exchange for a drastic decrease in the hiring pool, they can. If they decide that they want to sacrifice termination power for lower salaries, they can. If they decide to purchase termniation rights in exchange for higher salaries, they can.

Posted by Njorl | May 14, 2008 3:17 PM

What, precisely, is it, that you think the schools should do?

What is K-12, or k-8 education for? What should be taught? What is the purpose?

Yes, there are boring methods that teach children to read. That gets you to grade 3, maybe 4, at the latest. What else is being taught? What is the GOAL OF EDUCATION?

We don't have a consensus on this. So "fixing the schools" means vastly different things to different people. To some, it means "stop passing kids who can't read." To others it means "stop having violence in the schools." To others it means "educate the whole person". To others it means "create a civic-minded individual capable of participating in society." To others it means "get them prepared for a job". To others it means "teach them to read so they can go to any college and be anything they want."

We never fix the schools because we have no idea what a fixed school looks like. We don't agree on the outputs, and we don't agree on the inputs.

Posted by mouse | May 14, 2008 3:33 PM

Why bother responding to Kathy?

Kathy, last week: "The best research has found that unionized firms are, on average, more productive than their nonunionized counterparts.'

Kathy, yesterday: "So far as the best research can tell, the impact of unions on productivity has been mixed; and it's generally small to nonexistent in any case."

Mind you, she's citing the same sources for this. It's just that, in the interim, someone provoked her to actually open the book.

She's a moron. Don't bother. Really, it's cruel, just walk away.

Posted by Thomas | May 14, 2008 3:34 PM

Njorl, I admit you have a point. The government has monopsony power, and unions can plausibly argue that they are protecting their members' interests against that monopsony power.

But that is all the more reason to support school choice and especially vouchers. Both government and union power over education would decline, and competition would force schools to be responsive to the needs of parents and students.

So, in a sense you are right and I take back my comment above. Megan's proposed solution of stripping unions of rights is argubaly unfair and is at any rate politically impossible. A much better solution is to liberalize education and use the market to increase the efficiency and quality of the educational system.

And an overwhelming majority of economists supports that solution. So is it right to let the self-serving intransigence of unions and bureaucrats get in the way of rational reform?

Posted by rwe | May 14, 2008 3:54 PM

"The monopsony power of the local government is significantly greater than the monopoly power of the union."

Funniest thing I've heard in a while. If this were at all true, we would not be in the current situation - what is the school board going to do - fire all the teachers?

Posted by Holdfast | May 14, 2008 3:55 PM

Okay Megan, I bite.

You said: You can disprove any position if you force your imaginary opponents to take the maximal side.

I'm taking the plunge:

2+2=4

Absolutely every, every time.

Your move.

Posted by Sidney | May 14, 2008 3:58 PM

2+2=4 Absolutely every, every time.

That's so typical of you base-10 extremists to take a ludicrous position like that.

Posted by Rob Lyman | May 14, 2008 4:14 PM

Njorl, the problem is that the negotiating body is the union, not the teachers, and this is an unequivocally bad deal for the union, which loses a great deal of its powers, but doesn't get a percentage commission on wage rates. If all the union did was negotiate wages and expectations every two years, they wouldn't need much of a workforce. So I don't think it's possible to cut that deal--just as the docks couldn't cut a deal with the longshoremen to pay off the existing workers in exchange for permanently eliminating their jobs. Principal agent problems operate on both sides of the labor/capital divide.

Posted by Megan McArdle | May 14, 2008 4:49 PM

The problem with teachers' unions is that they severely distort the marketplace. AND, each local school district has its own union. Add to that the tenure rules, and that means that there is no incentive for a teacher to vote with their feet unless working conditions become intolerable.

I'd like to see a set regional scale, with steps for years of experience, and let teachers move from one district to another more readily than now. Then the districts would have to get their acts together to provide good workplaces and conditions to retain their good teachers and attract new good ones.

As it is now, it takes roughly two years working under union constraints to fire an incompetent teacher, while it only takes one year to fire an incompetent teacher in a non-union state, such as Virginia, where the teachers are still protected by the civil service laws.

My point of view is from the administration level, where I have seen principals and superintendents work very hard to purge the teaching ranks of incompetent teachers--and in one of our local districts, the teachers have such a stranglehold on the district, the superintendent was the one who was forced out instead of the teacher.

But even superintendents are not all-powerful, because when they go to a new district, they inherit the teachers and administrators who already have tenure, and have to work within that constraint. It takes many years to fine-tune the administrative ranks, and then to support the building administrators who are trying to fine-tune the teaching ranks. Trying to get rid of the popular but ineffective teacher is a nightmare in itself.

There are no easy answers. Nor are there many easy questions, as mouse alluded to above.

Posted by Rex | May 14, 2008 4:56 PM

rwe,

Your post has nothing to do with what I said. I said nothing about unions or inefficiencies. My point was that Megan first says:

New Orleans smashes it's teachers union; test scores rise dramatically

with NO qualification, and then follows that with:

if you say of teacher's unions "smashing them will not magically raise test scores", all I can say is, "Well, d'uh".

and moreover, has the temerity to accuse her commentators of misrepresenting her! So she throws something silly out there because it seems to support her position, then when called on it feigns the incredulous, "everybody who has any sense knows I didn't mean that," attitude. If that's not intellectual dishonesty, I don't know what is.

Posted by phasearth | May 14, 2008 4:57 PM

Phaseearth, you've confused necessary with sufficient.

Posted by Megan McArdle | May 14, 2008 5:07 PM

Phasearth, did you miss it when I agreed with you that:

One data point doesn't make the case, it's true...

My comment was not--and was not intended as--a refuation of yours, but you are manifestly wrong when you write that:

Your post has nothing to do with what I said.

I was pointing to a reputable study that justified Megan's claim (which you brought up) that unions are indeed damaging the American education system. So clearly my post had something to do with yours.

Anyway, if you want to slam Megan, go ahead. I'm more interested in the truth of her claim about the effect of teachers' unions. And indeed her claim seems to be true.

Posted by rwe | May 14, 2008 5:22 PM

Snort! Tell me, Mr. Patriot, did you even read the article you 'cited'? If so, why don't you summarize the lady's findings, and how they led to her conclusion. Feel free to quote from specific segments of this report.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | May 14, 2008 5:39 PM

2+2=4 Absolutely every, every time.

That's so typical of you base-10 extremists to take a ludicrous position like that.

Posted by Rob Lyman

Nope. Doesn't matter what the base is. It's still true (assuming the field(ring) has characteristic zero, or the order of the group is not finite, etc.) 2+2=(1+1)+(1+1)=(1+1+1+1)=4. In whatever base you care to work in. In base e, for example, 0.293147...+0.693147...=1.386294...

Posted by ScentOfViolets | May 14, 2008 5:59 PM

ScentOfViolets,

Nope. Doesn't matter what the base is.

Nope. In base-3, 2+2=11

Posted by phasearth | May 14, 2008 6:44 PM

Nope. You're wrong. In base three, like any other non-unary base, is a positional notation: 11 denotes 1*3^1+1*3^0=3+1=4. More briefly, a dog doesn't have five legs if you call a tail a leg.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | May 14, 2008 7:09 PM

Nope. You're wrong. In base three, like any other non-unary base, is a positional notation: 11 denotes 1*3^1+1*3^0=3+1=4.

So then why did you just take the ln of both sides when giving your base e example? It really should have been: 2+2 = 1.0200112...

The thing is, there's ambiguity about 2 and 4. If 2 stands for (1+1) and 4 stands for (1+1+1+1), then yes, 2+2=4. But if the 2 in question is the set {i,ii}, and 4 is {i,ii,iii,iiii} and + is the union operator, 2+2=2 != 4.
If the statement had really been (1+1)+(1+1) = (1+1+1+1), it would have been on firmer footing.

(Incidentally, why did you specify that the order of the group wasn't finite? It works for finite groups just fine too, of course. Now, admittedly, in GF(2^n), (1+1) = 0 = (1+1+1+1), so saying (1+1) + (1+1) = (1+1+1+1) is just saying 0+0=0, but it still holds.)

Posted by GF27 | May 14, 2008 7:37 PM

So then why did you just take the ln of both sides when giving your base e example? It really should have been: 2+2 = 1.0200112...

Because I'm an idiot, and did the base conversion wrong.

The thing is, there's ambiguity about 2 and 4. If 2 stands for (1+1) and 4 stands for (1+1+1+1), then yes, 2+2=4. But if the 2 in question is the set {i,ii}, and 4 is {i,ii,iii,iiii} and + is the union operator, 2+2=2 != 4.
If the statement had really been (1+1)+(1+1) = (1+1+1+1), it would have been on firmer footing.

Er, all you are doing is changing the definition of the symbols, in which case you're changing the meaning as well. As I said, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

(Incidentally, why did you specify that the order of the group wasn't finite? It works for finite groups just fine too, of course. Now, admittedly, in GF(2^n), (1+1) = 0 = (1+1+1+1), so saying (1+1) + (1+1) = (1+1+1+1) is just saying 0+0=0, but it still holds.)

If the group is of order 3 so that it is isomorphic to Z/3Z={0,1,2}, with the numbers and operations as they are usually defined, then 2+2=1. Similarly for a group of order four. Iow, the same numbers, 2 really means '2' and + really means '+', but you still get different results. I assumed that there would be enough people who knew this that it would be wise to close that loophole.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | May 14, 2008 8:57 PM

Snort! Tell me, Mr. Patriot, did you even read the article you 'cited'?

Is that directed at me? I really am touched at all these paeans to my patriotism, but--while I am very attached to my country--I must protest at this excessive praise.

Posted by rwe | May 14, 2008 9:29 PM

Iow, you didn't read the article, did you? Even though you tried to pretend that you did. Why not? And since you didn't read it, why are you sighting it, and in such a concern troll fashion?

Posted by ScentOfViolets | May 14, 2008 10:03 PM

SoV, as it happens I have read the article. More than once in fact. If what you want is a good summary of it, aside from the abstract, why don't you look here. Robert Barro explains the gist of the article briefly but well. I certainly agree with what he wrote. Isn't that good enough?

If not, why not? If you just want to understand the content of the article, then that should be enough, or else you could just read the article for yourself.

Why would you want to make slanderous accusations against me for citing a perfectly reputable study? Actually, reputable would be an understatement to describe Hoxby's work in the economics of education.

I don't understand. Really I don't. Can't we just have a civil intellectual exchange without acrimony? If you'll drop this hectoring, I'm willing to forget about it, even though this is distracting me from a very good basketball game. I won't even ask an apology.

Posted by rwe | May 14, 2008 10:39 PM

Alright, SoV, I'll take your silence as a recognition that you were wrong. I forgive you. And I won't bring this unfortunate incident up again unless you do.

Posted by rwe | May 14, 2008 11:38 PM

Er, all you are doing is changing the definition of the symbols, in which case you're changing the meaning as well.

And you're assuming that there's one true meaning of 4. I dispute that.

If the group is of order 3 so that it is isomorphic to Z/3Z={0,1,2}, with the numbers and operations as they are usually defined, then 2+2=1.

Now I'm confused. Exactly how are you defining 4? If 4 is (1+1+1+1), and 2 is (1+1), then in Z/Z3, it's true that 2+2=1, but 2+2=4 as well, since 4=1 ( (1+1+1+1)=(1+1+1)+1 = 0+1 = 1).

Posted by GF27 | May 15, 2008 12:29 AM

My god, you really are going to try to brazen it out lets see what your 'cite' said:

Abstract

This study helps to explain why measured school inputs appear to have little effect on student outcomes, particularly for cohorts educated since 1960. Teachers' unionization can explain how public schools simultaneously can have more generous inputs and worse student performance. Using panel data on United States school districts, I identify the effect of teachers' unionization through differences in the timing of collective bargaining, especially timing determined by the passage of state laws that facilitate teachers' unionization. I find that teachers' unions increase school inputs but reduce productivity sufficiently to have a negative overall effect on student performance. Union effects are magnified where schools have market power. Copyright 1996, the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-5533%28199608%29111%3A3%3C671%3AHTUAEP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F&origin=bc
File Format: application/pdf
File Function: full text
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Iow, you tried to pass off something as a 'cite' that wasn't. _Then_, to further compound your mendacity, you tried to pretend that you really had read it instead of linking to a hack right-wing site. But going through J-store seems so much more credible and non-partisan than linking the Hoover Institute, doesn't it?

That's just scummy, Mr. Patriot.

You got a cite, don't try to hide it's origins, don't try to pass it off as reputable and nonpartisan, m'kay?

Posted by ScentOfViolets | May 15, 2008 1:07 AM

Now I'm confused. Exactly how are you defining 4? If 4 is (1+1+1+1), and 2 is (1+1), then in Z/Z3, it's true that 2+2=1, but 2+2=4 as well, since 4=1 ( (1+1+1+1)=(1+1+1)+1 = 0+1 = 1).

This is exactly right, which is why I specified that the group not be of finite order. Technically speaking, in Z/3Z, 1 and 4 belong to the same equivalence class, and to be more rigorous, one would say [2]+[2]=[1]=[4], but most of the time the square brackets are not written, just understood to be there in the context.

And four is four is four, btw, the successor of the successor of the successor of one (which is not the successor of any number.) And that is how it is _defined_, so what four 'means' doesn't change, though you may denote it with different symbols, of course.

You're free to dispute it of course, and I'll politely listen, but that's just the way things are, mathematically speaking (I should also add that four can be defined in many different ways, but all the definitions can be shown to be equivalent. I just used the Peano axioms, which are considered the default, since they're the simplest way to define natural numbers.)

Posted by ScentOfViolets | May 15, 2008 1:19 AM

SoV, I have read the original article. How many times do I have to say it?

As for the summary, the fact that it was at the Hoover Institution at Stanford is realy not important. It is by Robert Barro who is, by all accounts, among the most respected and cited economists in the world. And, incidentally, his original article was in the Wall Street Journal.

As it happens, I'm staying up late tonight, watching the Lakers, sipping whiskey, smoking the odd cigar etc... And when the Lakers agme is finished I'll watch some of The Wire. So I'm willing to keep this going. You can make a fool of yourself if you wish.

You are free to keep accusing me of not having read the Hoxby paper (which is very clearly written, I must say). If you ask me nicely, I might even tell you more about her paper, like, for example, the fact that she uses diferences in differences and IV, or the fact that she uses the dropout rate as a measure of school quality. But I'll give you more if you like.

Do you really wish to keep this up? I'll keep supplying the rope. I gave you a chance at an honorable exit from this. I'll offer it again, though this time I think perhaps I ought to demand an apology... No, on second thought, I am famously magnanimous and don't wish to sully my reputation.

So, I advise you to skulk away quietly. I repeat my offer to let you out of this.

Posted by rwe | May 15, 2008 1:36 AM

Uh-huh. Right. You screwed up. Big time. Don't offer a cite that's uncheckable, and then substitute in a hack source instead. I'll go back to another riff and say that behaviour like this is perhaps why you see so few conservatives in academia.

And no this is not whether or not you've read the paper - though don't you just wish it was; doubtless you'd then challenge me to prove you hadn't read it(that's your style) - this is about dishonest citing. Which you damned well know it is

But how about this? Why don't you just nab that paper off of J-store and post the bits that you are using, eh?

Save us all a bit of trouble.

Oh, and if you don't post it, I have no reason to believe you, given your past record, and every reason to believe you're reading someone else's paraphrases.

Your call.

(What is with this 'honorable exit' bilge? It makes you sound like 16 year old D&D dweeb, someone who's convinced himself he's 'doing battle'. Rather than merely posting on a blog and then being called on what you post.)

Posted by ScentOfViolets | May 15, 2008 1:56 AM

Okay, SoV, you want to keep this going. Fine. It should be entertaining for a while.

She started off the paper with two different models of union behavior. One is "rent-seeking" and the other is "efficiency-enhancing". In the latter, the union would be using its superior knowledge to correct for market imperfetions. An example she gives, if I remmber correctly, is that teachers might have superior knowlege of the effect of class size on student performace and use union power to force the appropriate changes in class size.

In the former model, the union would be using its market power to advance the interests of teachers at the expense of students and taxpayers.

Hoxby's main purpose in the paper was to see which model fit the teachers' unions better. She also wrote about certain paradoxes that she wished to reslove...

Shall I continue? To borrow from Maggie Thatcher, "I'm enjoying this." Do you wish to continue rushing headlong into your own humiliation?

I'll go on. Just ask me. You'll have to forgive me the odd typo, mind you, as the whiskey is having some effect.

Posted by rwe | May 15, 2008 2:15 AM

Anyone who doubts that public-employee unions succeed in obtaining benefits for their members way beyond what the latter could negotiate in a competitive market ought to read Steven Malanga:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_taxpayers.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_new_jersey.html

Why those of us (i.e. most Americans) who have to compete in such labor markets ought to feel sympathy, much less solidarity for such entitled individuals is beyond me.

Hey, I'd like to retire at 55 too - too bad I can't get the taxpayers to pony up.

Posted by Benjamin.L | May 15, 2008 2:29 AM

She also says that there was a crucial legal change starting in 1960. She explains that from 1960 to 1990 there was a gradual increase in collective bargaining rights. Or, since you seem to want direct quotes:

Teachers' unions are largely a post-1960 phenomenon in the United States.

She uses a combination of differences-in-differences and IV to capture what she believes is a causal effect of unionization on both student acheivement and spending per pupil (she also breaks that sepnding down later).

As she explains:

What drives the differences-in-differences results is acceleration or deceleration in the time trends of school input or student acheivement that is associated with the discrete event of unionization.

And she has a very specific defintion of unionization, as Barro also noted.

Shall I go on? I'm happy to. Or have you decided to skulk away after all?

Posted by rwe | May 15, 2008 2:36 AM

Where are you SoV? I thought we were going to have a fun discussion of the Hoxby paper. Well, in case you haven't fled the discussion just yet, I'll go on a little longer before I retire.

Barro reported that Hoxby estimated about a 12% increase in per pupil spending due to unionization. The actual figure she gives is 12.3%. She points out that figure is "highly statistically significant," since it has a p value less than .001.

She found that this increase was mostly divided between teacher pay (up 5%) and the cost of a decrease in the student teacher ratio (by 1.7 students per teacher).

That sounds great, right? Unionization is increasing school budgets and teacher pay, while decreasing the student teacher ratio.

Unfortunately, she also finds that unionization brings a rise in the droput rate of 1.8 percentage points. That's not so good...

Well SoV, I'm not just going to go on typing for my own satisfaction. If you really want to know more about Hoxby's article--or you still insist that I never read it--I'll continue. Otherwise, I'll probably stop.

Since you were so persistent about accusing me of lying, though, I might not be quite so magnanimous about all this as I had originally intended. I'll have to think about it.

Posted by rwe | May 15, 2008 3:16 AM

You know, SoV, Its' not really to your credit that you just abandoned the thread without admitting that you were wrong. Regardless, I think I'll go on a little more. Perhaps you are still out there and anyway I'm feeling a second wind.

Hoxby concludes from the evidence that inputs (that is, increased expenditures) make a significant difference on student performance only in non-unionized schools. In unionized schools, increased spending has no effect on student performance. And the overall effect of unionization on both efficiency and student performance is negative.

As she argues:

Finally, the main effect of unionization is still to worsen the dropout rate. Although unions increase inputs, their direct effect on students plus the fact that productivity falls means that their overall effect on student acheivement is negative.

It reall is a well-reasoned paper isn't it? It's one of my favorites. Caroline Hoxby deserves great credit. Don't you think so SoV?

Again, please let me know if you want me to go on.

Posted by rwe | May 15, 2008 3:44 AM

What a dweeb. I'm up late - getting my final grades together, mind you - and this rwe character is crowing that trying to get to bed at a decent time instead up until after three in the morning is 'giving up'.

Sorry, Mr. Patriot, but I actually have a life.

I also notice that you didn't post any actual links to this supposed paper, nor did you do any cut and paste to show actual quotes, charts, or bibliography.

Chuckle. No, I think we all know by now that you're not 'on the other side, but sincere'. No, you're just plain old dishonest. And in the future, I'll happily bring this up whenever you stick your head over the edge. Just like with your patriot nonsense about Obama not being fit for office.

But it is nice that you confirm one thing - no one, not even objectionable partisans like yourself think right wing think tanks such as Hoover qualify as 'credible'.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | May 15, 2008 10:15 AM

Okay, let's go on. I have never read the paper you continue to claim--like a Creationist denying Evolution.

She went on from there to consider the differences between schools where unio power was low and schools where it was high. Where the monopoly power was high, she found that per pupil spending went 9%, the student teacher ratio went down by 2.5 and the dropout rate went up 2.2%.

As she says:

These results indicate that mobile parents may be able to constrain teachers unions to accept lower budget increases, leves of effort and add fewer administrative encumbrances.

If you want more about her paper, just ask. What was it you wanted, a bibliography? Here you go pal:

REFERENCES

Angrist, Joshua, "Instrumental Variables Estimation of Average Treatment Effects in Econometrics and Epidemiology," NBER Technical Working Paper No. 115, 1991.

Baugh, William, and Joe Stone, "Teachers, Unions, and Wages in the 1970s: Unionism Now Pays," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XXXV (1982), 368-76.

Betts, Julian, "Does School Quality Matter? Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth," Review of Economics and Statistics, LXXVII (1995), 231-50.

-----, "Is there a Link between School Inputs and Earnings? Fresh Scrutiny of an Old Literature," in Does Money Matter? The Link between Schools, Student Achievement, and Adult Success, Gary Burtless, ed. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1996).

Borland, Melvin, and Roy Howsen, "Student Academic Achievement and the Degree of Market Concentration in Education," Economics of Education Review, XI (1992), 31-39.

Card, David, and Alan Krueger, "Does School Quality Matter? Returns to Education and the Characteristics of Public Schools in the United States," Journal of Political Economy, C (1992a), 1-40.

Card, David, and Alan Krueger, "School Quality and Black-White Relative Earnings: A Direct Assessment," Quarterly Journal of Economics, CVII (1992b), 151-200.

Card, David, and Alan Krueger, "Labor Market Effects of School Quality: Theory and Evidence," NBER Working Paper No. 5450, 1996.

Eberts, Randall, "Union Effects on Teacher Productivity," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XXXVII (1984), 346-48.

Eberts, Randall, and Joe Stone, Unions and Public Schools: The Effect of Collective Bargaining on American Education (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1984).

Eberts, Randall, and Joe Stone, "Teacher Unions and the Cost of Public Education," Economic Inquiry, XXIV (1986), 631-44.

Eberts, Randall, and Joe Stone, "Teachers' Unions and the Productivity of Public Schools," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XL (1987), 355-63.

Farber, Henry, "The Evolution of Public Sector Bargaining Laws," in When Public Sector Workers Unionize, Richard Freeman and Casey Ichniowski, eds. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1988).

Freeman, Richard, and Casey Ichniowski, eds., When Public Sector Workers Unionize (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).

Freeman, Richard, and James Medoff, What do Unions Do? (New York: Basic Books, 1984).

Grogger, Jeffrey, "School Expenditures and Post-Schooling Wages: Evidence from High School and Beyond," NSF-Review of Economics and Statistics Conference Paper, 1995.

Hall, W. Clayton, and Norman Carroll, "The Effect of Teachers' Organizations on Salaries and Class Size," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XXVI (1973), 834-41.

Hanushek, Eric, "The Economics of Schooling: Production and Efficiency in Public Schools," Journal of Economic Literature, XXIV (1986), 1141-77.

Hausman, Jerry, "Specification and Estimation of Simultaneous Equation Models," in Handbook of Econometrics, Zvi Griliches and Michael Intriligator, eds. (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1983).

Heckman, James, and Thomas MaCurdy, "A Simultaneous Equations Linear Probability Model," Canadian Journal of Economics, XVIII (1985), 28-37.

Hoxby, Caroline Minter, "Does Competition among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers? Evidence from Natural Variation in School Districting," NBER Working Paper No. 4979, 1995a.

-----, "Are Teachers' Unions and Parents Substitutes or Complements?" Harvard University, 1995b.

Huber, Peter, "The Behavior of Maximum Likelihood Estimates under NonStandard Conditions," Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, I (1967), 221-33.

Johnson, George, and Frank Stafford, "Social Returns to Quantity and Quality of Schooling," Journal of Human Resources, VIII (1972), 139-55.

Kasper, Hirschel, "The Effects of Collective Bargaining on Public School Teachers' Salaries," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XXIV (1970), 57-72.

Kleiner, Morris, and Daniel Petree, "Unionism and Licensing of Public School Teachers: Impact on Wages and Educational Output," in When Public Sector Workers Unionize, Richard Freeman and Casey Ichniowski, eds. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1988).

Murphy, Marjorie, Blackboard Unions: The AFT and the NEA 1900-1980 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990).

National Education Association, Research Division, Negotiation Agreement Provisions, 1966-67 edition (Washington, DC: National Education Association Publications Department, 1967).

Peltzman, Sam, "Political Economy of Public Education: Non-College Bound Students," Center for the Study of the Economy and the State Working Paper No. 108, 1995.

Perry, Charles, and Wesley Wildman, "A Survey of Collective Activity among Public School Teachers," Educational Administration Quarterly, I (1966), 133-51.

Saltzman, Gregory, "Public Sector Bargaining Laws Really Matter: Evidence from Ohio and Illinois," in When Public Sector Workers Unionize, Richard Freeman and Casey Ichniowski, eds. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Governments, 1972, 1982, and 1992: Finance Statistics and Employment Statistics Technical Documentation (Washington, DC: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census [producer], Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1976, 1986, and 1995).

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1980: School District Equivalency Files (MARF 3 and MARF 4) and Zip Code Equivalency File (MARF 5) Technical Documentation (Washington, DC: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census [producer and distributor], 1983).

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1980: Summary Tape File 3F, School Districts, Technical Documentation (Washington, DC: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census [producer and distributor], 1982).

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1970: Special Fifth Count Summary Tapes, Technical Documentation (Washington, DC: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census [producer and distributor], 1973).

United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, School District Data Book Reference Manual (Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, 1994).

Valletta, Robert, and Richard Freeman, "The NBER Public Sector Collective Bargaining Law Data Set," in When Public Sector Workers Unionize, Richard Freeman and Casey Ichniowski, eds. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).

Welch, Finis, "Measurement of the Quality of Schooling," American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, LVI (1966), 379-92.

White, Halbert, "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, XLVIII (1980), 817-30.

Posted by rwe | May 15, 2008 11:53 AM

And as for you "having a life," that's really wonderful for you, though your bilious disposition makes me think it's not much of one. And what can one say of your wit, when "dweeb is the best insult you can come up with.

Actually, your probably right that it's a waste to devote this much time to your scurrilous accusations. But I'm a little tired of you schtick--the harassment, the invidious insinuations, etc...

Mostly I've tried to avoid any unpleasant exchanges with you. But you made that impossible this time by repeatedly calling me a liar. Indeed, it's hard to think of any frequent libertarian or conservative here you haven't called a liar.

But it's really your veracity that's open to question. And your character. Rather than a fruiful civilized exchange, you want a brawl. Your essentially a left-wing thug and, in internet parlance, a troll.

Perhaps I should have heeded the saying "Don't feed the trolls." I'll start heeding it soon.

I do, as a matter of fact, have other things to do today, but I think that maybe, just maybe, it was worth it to refute your accusations and show you up for what you are. Really, I'd rather you just left me alone in future. I find dealing with you quite tedious most of the time.

Posted by rwe | May 15, 2008 12:06 PM

RWE -- don't bother debating with ScentofViolents (aka Dwight Thieme). You can see how he behaves -- you link to an abstract of an article from the Quarterly Journal of Economics (one of the top econ journals). Dwight, apparently unaware that most academic journals don't put their full text on the web, says that this "wasn't" even a cite at all (as if no citations can possibly exist in the real world, outside of the internet). Then you provide a link to a summary from Robert Barro (who happens to be a Harvard professor of economics). Oops, that doesn't count either, and he'll falsely accuse you of having read only the summary and not the real article. He's just egging you into wasting your time.

Posted by SB | May 15, 2008 1:30 PM

SB, thanks. You're right, I'm wasting my time. I'm not going to respond to him in future. I appreciate the sage advice.

Posted by rwe | May 15, 2008 1:46 PM

I gave up on him over a year ago, but he's so outrageous that I have to keep reminding myself of my promise.

Posted by Rex | May 15, 2008 3:04 PM

These are all familiar gambits.

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | May 15, 2008 3:46 PM

And four is four is four, btw, the successor of the successor of the successor of one (which is not the successor of any number.) And that is how it is _defined_, so what four 'means' doesn't change, though you may denote it with different symbols, of course.

You are wrong. 4 does not have one single definition. Sometimes people mean the 4 that's a member of the positive integers, sometimes they mean [4], sometimes they mean the ordinal 4, sometimes they mean any number in the halo of (4,4,4,...) in *R, and on and on. If you want to say the integer 4 has a unique definition, I'll agree. But 4 itself? No. You are not correct.

Posted by GF27 | May 15, 2008 5:07 PM

The level of ignorance expressed by the author of this blog is indeed frightening. Doesn't she know that class size reduction is one of very few education reforms that have been proven to work through large-scale randomized experiments? This completely contradicts her claim that the only reason that smaller classes are associated with high achievement is that wealthier kids tend to get them more often.

In fact, the US Dept. of Ed. cites class size reduction as one of only four reforms whose effectiveness have been proven through rigoruous evidence. And Direct Instruction is not among them.

The fact that wealthier kids do indeed receive smaller classes than poor kids should instead be sting the author's conscience as a sign that our education system is broken; and that we do not really care enough to provide equity in this nation.

Posted by Leonie Haimson | May 16, 2008 2:24 PM

As a long-standing member of the Scarsdale UFSD and as current Building Chair for the Scarsdale Teachers' Association (your version of the "union"), I have never negotiated nor taken nor know anyone who has taken a trip to Hawaii as a sabbatical. Your implication is ignorant and offensive.

Posted by Janna Fried | May 16, 2008 5:00 PM

Leonie, your opening sentence says you are more interested in making someone who disagrees with you seem stupid, but I'll take a stab anyway.

I noticed while living in Japan that the class sizes were quite large - yet the students seem to achieve more, at least in terms of traditional testable outcomes.

I have also read some research (from Harvard, if I remember correctly) that suggests that class-size is not likely the determinant of success and that other variables more likely explain the difference (selection effects, I think). Another study suggested that there were no class size effects in other countries, further buttressing the idea that class sizes correlate with some other more important factor here in the U.S. (googling, I see a paper by Woessman and West that addresses that point - but it isn't the study I saw before).

I'm sure, ceteris paribus, that smaller class sizes are even better (not just correlated with higher performers in the US), but I have never seen an overwhelming case made that it should be considered the sine qua non of education policy. And I very much doubt the case is so overwhelming that you can declare Megan's ignorance on that bass.

btw, of the public schools in my area, the charter school, which has the largest classes, is the best performing in standardized tests - particularly in math & science. Admission is by lottery and I would say the student body has a bimodal distribution of success factors.

Janna - that wasn't a statement of fact, it was an exaggerated hypothetical (she wouldn't *eve* care if..), which was quite clear from context. besides - she meant Edgemont!

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | May 17, 2008 10:24 AM