kitchen table math, the sequel: why aren't more people going to college?

Thursday, June 12, 2008

why aren't more people going to college?

Let's ask Tyler Cowan.

I can only conclude that Altonji, Bharadwaj, and Lange have never taught Introduction to Composition to a large group of freshman in a public university in the United States. Anyone who has taught such a class -- or for that matter talked to anyone who has -- will have some inkling why more people are not going to college. Herein lie the roots of growing inequality -- on the bottom side at least -- and don't let anyone induce you to take your eye off the ball by playing switcheroo and bringing up the (separate) topic of the growing wealth of the top one percent.

factoid: I myself have taught such classes.

Clicking around the web, reading posts about The Race Between Education and Technology, I fear we are in danger of embarking upon yet another round of research papers and newspaper op-eddery finding that parent education predicts, causes, and fully accounts for the educational attainment of children:

Research summarized in Cunha and Heckman (2007) suggests that part of the explanation [for why the supply of skills is inelastic] might be that parental investment during early childhood shapes the potential to acquire additional skills later in life.

The anemic response of skill investment to skill premium growth

That's the kind of thing that will lead directly to Universal Pre-K, if the edu-world has its way.

Which it will:

It is well documented that people are diverse on a vast array of abilities, that these abilities account for a substantial portion of the variation found across people in their socioeconomic success, and that persistent ability gaps across children from various socioeconomic groups open up at early ages before children enter school. The family plays a powerful role in shaping these abilities through genetics, parental investments and through choice of child environments. From a variety of intervention studies, it is known that ability gaps in children from different socioeconomic groups can be reduced if remediation is attempted at early enough ages. The remediation efforts that appear to be most effective are those that supplement family environments for disadvantaged children. Cunha et al. (2006a), henceforth CHLM, present a comprehensive survey and discussion of this literature.
Cunha, Flavio and James J. Heckman, “The Technology of Skill Formation”, IZA DP No. 2550 (pdf file)

Once we've got 3 year olds constructing meaning in public pre-schools staffed by accredited teachers, we can wave good-bye to the skills gap.

Glancing through the Heckman paper, I can see the shape of things to come. Declining high school graduation rates will be viewed as a species of disability, the prescribed treatment being early intervention: universal pre-K.

School has no effect on children born to uneducated parents, but pre-school will.

Because it's early.

I wonder what Heckman thinks of Levitt and Fryer....

Compared with the results of previous studies, our findings provide reason for optimism. We find smaller achievement gaps, in both the raw and the adjusted scores, for children born in the early 1990s than others had found for earlier birth cohorts. It could well be that, as compared with earlier generations of students, the current cohort of blacks has made real gains relative to whites. Indeed, recent cohorts show smaller raw black-white gaps across multiple data sets—a truly promising sign.

Once students enter school, however, the gap between white and black children grows, even after controlling for observable influences. We speculate that blacks are losing ground relative to whites because they attend lower-quality schools that are less well maintained and managed as indicated by signs of social discord. Though we recognize that we have not provided definitive proof, this is the only hypothesis that receives any empirical support.

Falling Behind
Steven Levitt & Roland Fryer

Heckman doesn't seem too crazy about Levitt. So perhaps he disagrees with Levitt's & Fryer's paper.

Be that as it may, I despair.

Has none of these people had a child in public school recently?

Or spoken to a person who does?

Has none of them thought about the implications of rising within-group inequality?

[E]ven within groups with the same level of education, the gap between high and low earners has widened, too. Indeed, the more advanced the degree, the wider the gap becomes. A satisfactory theory must therefore explain not only why the demand for college educated workers has risen but also why "residual" inequality has increased, that is, the part that is unexplained by education and other observable factors.

Economic Inequality in the United States

The "powerful role" I personally have played in my typical child's educational attainment did not begin at birth and end at age 3. Those were the easy years.

Within-group inequality is not a mystery to me.


Steve Levitt summarizes The Race in 2 sentences
Jimmy graduates

The anemic response of skill investment to skill premium growth
The declining American high school graduation rate: Evidence, sources, and consequences
Pushy parents raise more successful kids

The Race Between Education and Technology book review
The Race Between Ed & Tech: excerpt & TOC & SAT scores & public loss of confidence in the schools
The Race Between Ed & Tech: the Great Compression
the Great Compression, part 2
ED in '08: America's schools
comments on Knowledge Schools
the future
the stick kids from mud island
educated workers and technology diffusion
declining value of college degree
Goldin, Katz and fans
best article thus far: Chronicle of Higher Education on The Race
Tyler Cowan on The Race (NY Times)
happiness inequality down...
an example of lagging technology diffusion in the U.S.

the Times reviews The Race, finally
IQ, college, and 2008 election
Bloomington High School & "path dependency"
the election debate that should have been

18 comments:

VickyS said...

There are forces in my state pushing hard for universal pre-K. Some are even trying to change the terminology, talking now about E-12 education instead of K-12 (E being Early Childhood Education).

Anonymous said...

Here's my 100% anecdotal, personally derived, obervationally reinforced, teaching induced opinion on 'early' education.

STOP!

I had no pre-K or K. My early days were filled, sunup to sundown, with unsupervised play. I was fortunate to have parents who didn't put much in front of me but blessed me with a very long leash and a safe environment. I'm not talking about sitting in front of an Xbox though. My play was 95% imaginative; cardboard box as car, wooden block as construction material, woods and sandlots and backyards. Once in a while, mom and dad kicked an idea my way but mostly they let me loose to terrorize the neighborhood, something my friends and I were particularly adept at.

I'm convinced that this is far more powerful than early school. It grows intangible stuff in your brain and when you are ready (very important) to have it filled with more formal stuff there are way more connections thirsting to be made.

I find my young students today; incurious, unmotivated, lethargic, unimaginative, and incapable of the most minor craft. They are forced into 100 minute and longer edu blocks with 30 minutes for both recess and lunch and travel time to and fro. The trend lines are for more of the same. My kids have just three academic subjects per day (3 Rs) with just 40 minutes for 'specials' (1 quarter each of gym, music, art, computer).

We are making zombies in school then sending them home to an incomparably rich multimedia environment that intensifies the zombiness.

You want better prepared kids? Let them play but make sure it's propless. As soon as you attempt to formalize this early development, the magic stops!

Why do I feel strongly about this? I pursued a PhD in my 40s and I'm working on a Masters in Math in my 60s. Something made me a lifelong learner and it wasn't Pre-K or Kindergarten.

We've broadened curricula in math to the point where we are teaching 2nd and 3rd graders probability for God's sake. Please, please stop. They need to wonder, and discover magic, and stare at clouds, stars, and other imponderable things to even have a hope of really learning about them later on.

We need to grow up and acknowledge that some parents just suck at being parents. You can't correct this by sending their kids to schools that suck and anyway, it is not the job of a school to be nanny. Schools should teach a broad liberal arts curriculum to the kids who are ready for it, when they are ready for it. They should stop trying to be nanny, mechanic, and social conscience to the nation.

Dawn said...

Thank you Paul. Perfectly put.

It seems to me though, that the real problem is that parents have any say in raising their children. Forget early childhood education, simply take them at birth!

Anonymous said...

Take 'em at birth, exactly!

Plus, the all important, take 'em by 7:00AM and keep 'em all day school as day care center thingy.

Why are we providing free breakfast to kids wearing $150 sneakers with a $50 pair in the back pack for wearing home so they don't get the dress ones dirty? And why do all those free breakfasts include a little free time with their $350 portable game player interrupted by cell phone calls and Ipod music?

School is not what it is...

SteveH said...

Let me put a different spin on this.

I can't comment much about what schools think about early education (Pre-Pre-K), but most parents spend lots of time teaching their kids all sorts of things. At those ages, everything is educational. Our son was (and is) a sponge for knowledge, and we do everything we can to keep him saturated.

Perhaps the problem comes with how formal you get about it. Some seem to think that it all has to be indirect learning. I don't. We were very direct about teaching our son lots of things; colors, numbers, the alphabet, phonics, geography, and so forth. Our son loved it (!) and soaked it all up. He would watch the video of Mrs. Phipps and Snoothy singing the alphabet over and over and over.

We read to him all of the time. We would sing to him. My wife and I both made up songs about him. We taught him the notes on the piano. We directly taught him phonics. By age four, he was reading. I directly taught him counting and basic math. By Kindergarten age, I would leave out math worksheets and he would walk by and start doing them. (The Kindergarten teacher was horrified.) By first grade, he knew all of the states and capitals and could find any country in the world. On car trips, he would demand (!) to be quizzed on geography.

The key to all of this is whether the learning is forced or not. Perhaps some parents think that we are trying to create a super student. I don't care. Actually, all we are doing is helping the super student come out. I don't believe in the idea that learning (what you need) is a natural process. You have to work hard to become a good student.

But, would I want our schools to assume this pre-pre-K role? No way. However, our schools did go to full-day Kindergarten and eveyone (teachers and parents) thinks it's a great idea. It's not like they get weird about academics, (actually it's the opposite) but it does give them time to evaluate the kids and help them get ready to start work right away in first grade.

Do I want our schools to teach probability in 3rd grade? I have no worries about that. In fact, it's the opposite. They are struggling with getting kids to master adds and subtracts to 20. They are staring at clouds and stars (in class) and writing in journals even though they don't know how to form letters properly, spell, or hold the pencil correctly. They might teach probability in 3rd grade EM, but they don't expect anything from it. They don't want to derail their creativity, and first grade teachers talk about kids discovering their "voice".

The proplem is that schools focus way too much on creative daydreaming, and not enough time on the basics and learning the value of hard work. Hard work, content, and mastery of skills are not anathema to lifelong learning. They are the foundation.

Catherine Johnson said...

Here's my 100% anecdotal, personally derived, obervationally reinforced, teaching induced opinion on 'early' education.

STOP!


I love it!

I grew up on a farm.

Nobody went to preschool.

I'm not sure there was a preschool anywhere close by.

Catherine Johnson said...

My play was 95% imaginative; cardboard box as car, wooden block as construction material, woods and sandlots and backyards. Once in a while, mom and dad kicked an idea my way but mostly they let me loose to terrorize the neighborhood, something my friends and I were particularly adept at.

Me, too, except I didn't have a neighborhood.

(Not quite true...we had funny situation where a long road of houses was built out from town on the other side of our farm -- I grew up in a small town/farm/subdivision-type setting, believe it or not...)

Catherine Johnson said...

This is how unique my home was: one of the neighbors on the "new house" road built an airstrip on their back lawn. Their son, who had various J.D. -type problems learned to fly and occasionally buzzed our house.

That sparked a family tradition in which any time any airplane of any type flew over head we kids would race out to the yard and dance around shouting, "Get out of here, Johnny Charter!"

That was his name -- I never met the kid; I have no idea what became of him, or where he is today.

Also, I bet he buzzed our house once at most.

Catherine Johnson said...

Has any of you read The Last Child in the Woods???

Catherine Johnson said...

Why do I feel strongly about this? I pursued a PhD in my 40s and I'm working on a Masters in Math in my 60s. Something made me a lifelong learner and it wasn't Pre-K or Kindergarten.

I'm in that category .... I'm teaching myself math & I FINALLY started taking tennis lessons.

I am absolutely the lifelong learner our schools are now dedicated to turning out.

I will say, however, that I wasn't much like Paul as a kid.

I was a bookworm. Always had my nose buried in a book.

I was also a tree-climber.

I would climb to the tops of 3-story trees (I shudder to think of it now) with a book and sit up there & read.

Catherine Johnson said...

We need to grow up and acknowledge that some parents just suck at being parents. You can't correct this by sending their kids to schools that suck

oh my gosh

I wish I had a wit and wisdom page here on Blogger.

That's priceless.

Catherine Johnson said...

Schools should teach a broad liberal arts curriculum to the kids who are ready for it, when they are ready for it. They should stop trying to be nanny, mechanic, and social conscience to the nation.

hear, hear

Catherine Johnson said...

Now that I've roundly agreed, let me add that I would absolutely support EXTREMELY SMART preschool for disadvantaged kids....in fact, I would support preschool as we have it for developmentally disabled kids: preschool as Early Intervention.

Both of my disabled kids began public school before Kindergarten. Andrew began at age 3; Jimmy should have started then but I was in denial about his diagnosis so he started late.

My sense is that both Engelmann and Hirsch have done terrific work on exactly what you would want to give disadvantaged kids --- and it is not HOURS of probability.

Talking off the top of my head, these kids need an early academic curriculum that is as efficiently taught as possible & whose purpose is to give them the background knowledge they need to enter Kindergarten on par with their advantaged peers.

I'd put money on it such a program could be done in a handful of hours a day.

Catherine Johnson said...

Forget early childhood education, simply take them at birth!

When I had the twins we were required to see a social worker IN THE HOSPITAL.

I forget why, exactly. It had to do with the fact that they were premature & I'd been in the hospital for a month --- to tell the truth, I really don't know why we had to see her.

I recall purposely scandalizing the woman in some way and for some reason....sheesh. What did I tell her?

I think I told her I didn't have names for the babies or something....

Maybe I told her Ed and I were fighting about the names.

That sounds like me. I probably also told her that my Grandma was named "Icie" because she was born in July but her parents couldn't think of a name for her so in November they finally called her Icie because they had to think of name and it was cold outside.

True story!

Anyway, whatever I told her, she stopped bugging me.

I've had various encounters with social workers over the years because of my handicapped kids. With Jimmy, this was an education unto itself. All of a sudden, moving him (and us) into the "system," it was as if I'd become a single, black mother on welfare. Incredible!

At some point along the line I must have figured the whole thing out, because on the occasions social workers have seemed to want to straighten me out they pretty quickly decide not to straighten me out.

Catherine Johnson said...

Plus, the all important, take 'em by 7:00AM and keep 'em all day school as day care center thingy.

Yup!

That's what we're doing here!

Parents have funded and built a new $70,000 library renovation to the Grades 4-5 school which I'm sure will be filled with computers.

Next year kids will be able to go to school early so parents can get to work on time. Supposedly this is a service parents have been clamoring for.

I'm sure this is a service parents will appreciate; I doubt it's a service parents have been beseeching the school to provide.

Catherine Johnson said...

A friend of mine said, "I want to be the person using computers to babysit my kids, not the school."

Catherine Johnson said...

We read to him all of the time. We would sing to him. My wife and I both made up songs about him. We taught him the notes on the piano. We directly taught him phonics. By age four, he was reading. I directly taught him counting and basic math. By Kindergarten age, I would leave out math worksheets and he would walk by and start doing them.

By these standards C. was pretty deprived.

We did lots of reading, but that was about it.

We have an insane amount of TV watching in this house because both autistic kids are obsessed with Barney & Kidsongs videos.

If I had it to do over, I would definitely teach C. to read as early as possible.

I'd probably do some math, too.

Anonymous said...

Our elementary schools open their doors at 7:00 AM. These kids don't start school until 9:00 AM. By the time they get to a classroom they are already fried.

By the way, this is the time when they get free breakfast, most of which I see thrown out. Ask why and you discover they got something at home already. They basically pick the one that turns them on for that day and the other meal is wasted.

Another interesting tidbit is that many, many, of these moms can be reached for meetings at any time during the day (at home) and when it comes time for doctor's appointments, well those are always during academic time.

Yes Martha, there are parents that suck! Schools that cater to this are enabling sucky parenthood, not saving the children.