[Vision2020] The 2004 Fordham Prize for Distinguished Scholarship
Dale Courtney
dmcourtn@moscow.com
Fri, 6 Feb 2004 06:01:46 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C3EC76.B4467BC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The 2004 Fordham Prize for Distinguished Scholarship
Eric A. Hanushek: The economist of public schooling
University of Rochester economics professor Eric Hanushek was "stunned."
The year was 1981, two years prior to the publication of A Nation at Risk,
the landmark Reagan-era indictment of America's schools. For days, Hanushek
had been methodically sifting through more than 125 studies of school reform
done since 1965 to prepare a summary of the data for an upcoming
school-finance court case. But the results of the literature review by this
lifelong Democrat weren't turning out as expected. Most of the evaluations
showed no relationship at all between the amount of money schools spent per
student or per teacher and levels of student achievement. And for every
infrequent analysis that suggested spending could boost student performance,
Hanushek soon stumbled on another study that indicated more resources could
depress achievement, too.
Then there was the elephant in the room that education analysts had long
downplayed: since 1960, spending on students had soared and the number of
pupils in an average classroom had dropped sharply-yet test scores had
declined.
Hanushek's stark conclusions ran contrary to almost every tenet of both
the ed school establishment and the teacher unions. Not surprisingly,
Hanushek, who had never courted controversy before, was soon treated as "a
lonely kook." His heresy was to challenge what might be called the "'More'
solution": more funding and more teachers, leading smaller classes, would
enable poor children and minority youth to get the same educational
opportunities as affluent kids. But in the debate that ensued over decades
to come, a funny thing happened: Hanushek's unexpected, unwelcome findings
were confirmed over and over again.
In more ways than one, Hanushek was an unlikely dissenter from the
orthodoxy of the public school establishment. As a child growing up in the
suburbs of Cleveland, he attended public schools from kindergarten through
twelfth grade and developed a fondness for public education. A favored aunt
was a teacher and principal in Cleveland's schools and, years later,
Hanushek's own children would attend public schools from elementary school
to graduation. Hanushek's father, the manager of a small manufacturing firm,
never attended college himself, and both parents drilled into young "Rick"
Hanushek a sense of the importance of schooling at a young age. His
undergraduate years at the Air Force Academy reinforced his belief that
serving the nation and grappling with problems of inequality were worthy
causes. But it was not until Hanushek enrolled as a doctoral student in the
MIT economics department that he first studied issues of educational
inequality in a sustained way.
At the time Hanushek obtained his Ph.D., faculty and graduate students
down the street at Harvard were busy reassessing James Coleman's epochal
1966 study of equal educational opportunity under the tutelage of Daniel
Patrick Moynihan and Frederick Mosteller. Coleman's controversial conclusion
was that home environment and student peer groups outweighed school "inputs"
like facilities, curriculum, and personnel in determining student
achievement. Hanushek refused to believe it. Through the aegis of his former
economics instructor, John Kain, Hanushek enrolled in the Moynihan-Mosteller
seminar, and soon co-authored a paper with Kain casting doubts on the
methodological rigor and conclusions of the Coleman report. He devoted his
1968 Ph.D. thesis to the Coleman report and racial inequality in the
schools. "What drew me into the debate was that it seemed inconceivable that
schools didn't matter," says Hanushek. "And I thought-and still think-that
the inequality of outcomes in the educational system and the black-white
achievement gap was a disaster for the nation."
Hanushek has now reviewed some 400 studies of student performance and
school resources and more than 275 analyses examining the impact of class
size reduction on achievement. Under both headings, the vast majority of
studies fail to find any link between resource levels and student
performance. And in the small number of instances where a link is
detectable, there is no strong or consistent pattern as to whether more
resources help or hurt.
Meanwhile, the prima facie case against throwing money at school
problems continues to grow. As Hanushek has demonstrated, real spending per
student rose by more than 200 percent between 1960 and the 1990s, and the
pupil-teacher ratio fell from about 26 students per teacher to 17, a drop of
about a third. Yet achievement has at best improved marginally, mostly among
minorities.
Hanushek's debunking of the "More" solution has been especially
persuasive because he does not claim that schools are inconsequential or
that nothing works. "I came to believe that James Coleman mostly got it
right,'' he says. "The measured characteristics of schools, the usual
suspects, don't count. But people misinterpreted that to mean that schools
don't matter." Much to the frustration of his critics, who would prefer to
dismiss him as a right-wing naysayer, Hanushek has argued throughout his
career that there are huge differences in quality between teachers and
between schools. His research, dating back to 1970, has consistently shown
that good teachers have an oversized impact on pupil achievement.
In addition to his own groundbreaking research, Hanushek has had a major
impact on the methodology of education analysis. If economics is the dismal
science, education research might be said to be sometimes dismal but rarely
scientific. Inevitably, education researchers must tease out numerous
variables in their assessments of school reforms: Is family background, the
age of the child, the quality of the teacher, the size of the class, the
nature of the neighborhood, or some other factor at work? The
mishmash-evaluations that regularly follow have been likened to a soggy
waffle.
Unlike medical researchers, or even social policy analysts who assess
welfare and housing policies, education analysts rarely employ random
assignment experiments to test K-12 interventions. They have similarly
looked askance at economists' efforts to evaluate the efficiency,
effectiveness, and productivity of school reform efforts. When Hanushek
began his 1981 review on school spending, economists who studied K-12
schooling essentially stuck to modeling the returns on human capital,
calculating the financial payoff to workers for extra years of schooling.
Almost single-handedly, Hanushek introduced the economists' study of
production functions (i.e., how much will a measured change in inputs alter
outcomes) into the world of education research.
In the two decades since a little-known economist at the University of
Rochester first reported his unexpected findings about school spending, much
has changed. Hanushek's work is now the touchstone for other researchers in
his field-a Google search for "Eric Hanushek" pulls up more than 13,000
references. Hanushek himself has gone on to serve on four committees of the
National Academy of Sciences, two of which he chaired, and an appointment at
the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in 2000. "In 1981, I was
offering more of a hypothesis about the allocation of school resources and
spending," Hanushek says. "Today, I think that hypothesis is pretty widely
accepted as fact." Thanks to Hanushek's ingenuity, thoroughness, and
tenacity, the one-time "lonely kook" of school reform now has plenty of
company.
To read Eric A. Hanushek's full profile, go to
<http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/page.cfm?id=201>
http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/page.cfm?id=201
------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C3EC76.B4467BC0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff><B>The 2004 Fordham Prize for Distinguished=20
Scholarship</B><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff><B>Eric A. Hanushek: The economist of public=20
schooling</B><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN =
class=3D404405513-06022004> =20
</SPAN>University of Rochester economics professor Eric Hanushek was =
"stunned."=20
The year was 1981, two years prior to the publication of<I> A Nation at=20
Risk</I>, the landmark Reagan-era indictment of America's schools. For =
days,=20
Hanushek had been methodically sifting through more than 125 studies of =
school=20
reform done since 1965 to prepare a summary of the data for an upcoming=20
school-finance court case. But the results of the literature review by =
this=20
lifelong Democrat weren't turning out as expected. </FONT><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000><STRONG>Most of the evaluations showed no relationship =
at all=20
between the amount of money schools spent per student or per teacher and =
levels=20
of student achievement. And for every infrequent analysis that suggested =
spending could boost student performance, Hanushek soon stumbled on =
another=20
study that indicated more resources could depress achievement,=20
too.</STRONG><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN =
class=3D404405513-06022004> =20
</SPAN>Then there was the elephant in the room that education analysts =
had long=20
downplayed: since 1960, </FONT><FONT color=3D#ff0000><STRONG>spending on =
students=20
had soared and the number of pupils in an average classroom had dropped=20
sharply-yet test scores had declined.<BR></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN =
class=3D404405513-06022004> =20
</SPAN>Hanushek's stark conclusions ran contrary to almost every tenet =
of both=20
the ed school establishment and the teacher unions. Not surprisingly, =
Hanushek,=20
who had never courted controversy before, was soon treated as "a lonely =
kook."=20
<FONT color=3D#ff0000><STRONG>His heresy was to challenge what might be =
called the=20
"'More' solution": more funding and more teachers, leading smaller =
classes,=20
would enable poor children and minority youth to get the same =
educational=20
opportunities as affluent kids.</STRONG></FONT> But in the debate that =
ensued=20
over decades to come, a funny thing happened: </FONT><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000><STRONG>Hanushek's unexpected, unwelcome findings were =
confirmed=20
over and over again.<BR></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN =
class=3D404405513-06022004> =20
</SPAN>In more ways than one, Hanushek was an unlikely dissenter from =
the=20
orthodoxy of the public school establishment. As a child growing up in =
the=20
suburbs of Cleveland, he attended public schools from kindergarten =
through=20
twelfth grade and developed a fondness for public education. A favored =
aunt was=20
a teacher and principal in Cleveland's schools and, years later, =
Hanushek's own=20
children would attend public schools from elementary school to =
graduation.=20
Hanushek's father, the manager of a small manufacturing firm, never =
attended=20
college himself, and both parents drilled into young "Rick" Hanushek a =
sense of=20
the importance of schooling at a young age. His undergraduate years at =
the Air=20
Force Academy reinforced his belief that serving the nation and =
grappling with=20
problems of inequality were worthy causes. But it was not until Hanushek =
enrolled as a doctoral student in the MIT economics department that he =
first=20
studied issues of educational inequality in a sustained =
way.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN =
class=3D404405513-06022004> =20
</SPAN>At the time Hanushek obtained his Ph.D., faculty and graduate =
students=20
down the street at Harvard were busy reassessing James Coleman's epochal =
1966=20
study of equal educational opportunity under the tutelage of Daniel =
Patrick=20
Moynihan and Frederick Mosteller. Coleman's controversial conclusion was =
that=20
home environment and student peer groups outweighed school "inputs" like =
facilities, curriculum, and personnel in determining student =
achievement.=20
Hanushek refused to believe it. Through the aegis of his former =
economics=20
instructor, John Kain, Hanushek enrolled in the Moynihan-Mosteller =
seminar, and=20
soon co-authored a paper with Kain casting doubts on the methodological =
rigor=20
and conclusions of the Coleman report. He devoted his 1968 Ph.D. thesis =
to the=20
Coleman report and racial inequality in the schools. "What drew me into =
the=20
debate was that it seemed inconceivable that schools didn't matter," =
says=20
Hanushek. "And I thought-and still think-that the inequality of outcomes =
in the=20
educational system and the black-white achievement gap was a disaster =
for the=20
nation."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN =
class=3D404405513-06022004> =20
</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=3D#ff0000><STRONG>Hanushek has now reviewed =
some 400=20
studies of student performance and school resources and more than 275 =
analyses=20
examining the impact of class size reduction on achievement. Under both=20
headings, the vast majority of studies fail to find any link between =
resource=20
levels and student performance. And in the small number of instances =
where a=20
link is detectable, there is no strong or consistent pattern as to =
whether more=20
resources help or hurt.<BR></STRONG></FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D404405513-06022004> </SPAN>Meanwhile, the<I> =
prima=20
facie</I> case against throwing money at school problems continues to =
grow. As=20
Hanushek has demonstrated, </FONT><FONT color=3D#ff0000><STRONG>real =
spending per=20
student rose by more than 200 percent between 1960 and the 1990s, and =
the=20
pupil-teacher ratio fell from about 26 students per teacher to 17, a =
drop of=20
about a third. Yet achievement has at best improved marginally, mostly =
among=20
minorities.<BR></STRONG></FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D404405513-06022004> </SPAN>Hanushek's =
debunking of the=20
"More" solution has been especially persuasive because he does not claim =
that=20
schools are inconsequential or that nothing works. "I came to believe =
that James=20
Coleman mostly got it right,'' he says. "The measured characteristics of =
schools, the usual suspects, don't count. But people misinterpreted that =
to mean=20
that schools don't matter." Much to the frustration of his critics, who =
would=20
prefer to dismiss him as a right-wing naysayer, Hanushek has argued =
throughout=20
his career that there are huge differences in quality between teachers =
and=20
between schools. His research, dating back to 1970, has consistently =
shown that=20
good teachers have an oversized impact on pupil =
achievement.<BR></FONT><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff><SPAN class=3D404405513-06022004> =
</SPAN>In=20
addition to his own groundbreaking research, Hanushek has had a major =
impact on=20
the methodology of education analysis. If economics is the dismal =
science,=20
education research might be said to be sometimes dismal but rarely =
scientific.=20
Inevitably, education researchers must tease out numerous variables in =
their=20
assessments of school reforms: Is family background, the age of the =
child, the=20
quality of the teacher, the size of the class, the nature of the =
neighborhood,=20
or some other factor at work? The mishmash-evaluations that regularly =
follow=20
have been likened to a soggy waffle.<BR></FONT><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D404405513-06022004> </SPAN>Unlike medical =
researchers,=20
or even social policy analysts who assess welfare and housing=20
policies,</FONT><FONT color=3D#ff0000><STRONG> education analysts rarely =
employ=20
random assignment experiments to test K-12 interventions. They have =
similarly=20
looked askance at economists' efforts to evaluate the efficiency, =
effectiveness,=20
and productivity of school reform efforts. When Hanushek began his 1981 =
review=20
on school spending, economists who studied K-12 schooling essentially =
stuck to=20
modeling the returns on human capital, calculating the financial payoff =
to=20
workers for extra years of schooling. Almost single-handedly, Hanushek=20
introduced the economists' study of production functions (<I>i.e.</I>, =
how much=20
will a measured change in inputs alter outcomes) into the world of =
education=20
research.<BR></STRONG></FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D404405513-06022004> </SPAN>In the two decades =
since a=20
little-known economist at the University of Rochester first reported his =
unexpected findings about school spending, much has changed. Hanushek's =
work is=20
now the touchstone for other researchers in his field-a Google search =
for "Eric=20
Hanushek" pulls up more than 13,000 references. Hanushek himself has =
gone on to=20
serve on four committees of the National Academy of Sciences, two of =
which he=20
chaired, and an appointment at the Hoover Institution at Stanford =
University in=20
2000. "In 1981, I was offering more of a hypothesis about the allocation =
of=20
school resources and spending," Hanushek says. "Today, I think that =
hypothesis=20
is pretty widely accepted as fact." Thanks to Hanushek's ingenuity,=20
thoroughness, and tenacity, the one-time "lonely kook" of school reform =
now has=20
plenty of company.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff><I>To read Eric A. Hanushek's full profile, =
go to</I>=20
</FONT><A =
title=3Dhttp://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/page.cfm?id=3D201=20
href=3D"http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/page.cfm?id=3D201">=
<FONT=20
title=3Dhttp://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/page.cfm?id=3D201><=
I=20
title=3Dhttp://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/page.cfm?id=3D201>h=
ttp://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/page.cfm?id=3D201</I></FONT>=
</A></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C3EC76.B4467BC0--