Education reforms can't ignore family influences

(Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 11/28/2010)

The newspapers are full of coverage on education reform. In last Sunday’s New York Times, Thomas Friedman went so far as to say the Department of Education was the “epicenter of national security.” His op-ed paints a dour picture of the US education system. He endorses the Obama Administration efforts to transform the US education system thereby indirectly endorsing the current efforts in Indiana. Friedmann points favorably to the educational systems in Denmark and Finland (Finland especially has a wonderful educational system). However, pointing to such “socialistic” countries isn’t much of a selling point.

Gov. Daniels’ penned an article in the November 7th Indianapolis Star. He wrote: “If there is one fact that every expert and all the data confirm, it is that the single most important predictor of a child’s academic success is the quality of the teachers he or she encounters.”

I’ll forgive Gov. Daniels for favoring politics over the known science on academic performance. The best predictor of a child’s academic performance is their parents. It is that inconvenient fact that “No Child Left Behind” treats as an excuse instead of explanation and thus ignores parental contribution (or subtraction) to a child’s academic performance.

Research on family type (a different measure than socio-economic status) shows consistent effects on child academic performance (and not just in the US). Children from larger families tend to underperform relative to children from smaller families. Children from single headed families are the most likely to underperform and that type of family is increasing across every category of socio-economic status in the US.

Friedmann’s article was 12 paragraphs long. He waited until the last one to mention parents. Other than the use of proxies, such as parent’s income and education, I couldn’t find any research on the “qualities” of parents that contribute to their children’s academic success. There is research on how parent’s educational goals for their children affect their children’s educational goals. Unfortunately nothing that connects any parent quality to test scores, other than the proxies of socio-economic status and family type. Talk to teachers, however, and one gets enough anecdotal evidence to suggest the need for more systematic research on the subject.

What do you think? Who is likely to perform better on standardized tests? Children who are or not read to at home? Children whose parents monitor their children’s homework and academics or not? How about the simple act of asking kids what did they learn today and not accept “nuthin” as an answer? Kids who eat breakfast in the morning or those who could eat at school, but whose parents can’t get them to school on time? Kids of parents who meet with and work with teachers when a child is struggling or those who refuse to meet with school officials, even when school officials are willing to meet outside the normal school hours? This list could go on and on, but I think the point is made.
Our leaders’ answer to this social problem is merit pay for teachers and school choice. To date, the largest experiment with merit pay for teachers is Tennessee, the results released this year, indicate merit pay (bonuses were significant averaging $9600 to $11,300) had little to no impact on children’s academic performance and what positive effects were found, diminished over time.

Just as Americans (and American children) are getting fatter and as a result diabetes is on the rise, do we conclude then that there is a problem with US doctors?

Those who are interested should find Hanushek and Rivkin’s article in the May issue of the American Economic Review. In short, they lay out very well the problems of tying value added measures of student performance to teacher pay, and examine the relationship between teacher quality and academic outcomes. And contrary to Andrea Neal’s claim in Thursday’s newspaper, Hanushek and Rivkin examine observed differences in teacher quality (GPA, their own tests scores, etc) and find no difference on student outcomes. This is not to say there are no bad teachers. According to Hanushek and Rivkin, just replacing 6-10 percent of the worst teachers and replacing them with average ones (in terms of student outcomes), would make a significant impact on our education system.
Reformers commonly say the US has a good education system for 1950. Arguably, the US had better family situations and fewer distractions for academic performance then than we do today. The education problem can’t be solved by ignoring the contributions, good and bad, of parents and families.

Note: Steiger is married to a public school teacher.

Making a choice had never been so complicated

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, May 11, 2008

May 4. In less than 48 hours the polls open for the much anticipated Democrat Presidential Primary. As has been pointed out endlessly, Hoosier votes count in this one.

Although I am not a lifelong Indiana resident (this is my ninth Presidential vote, fifth in Indiana), I have lived in states that had late primaries, so I am used to having my choices for the November ballot selected by others. That fact never bothered me. I just shrugged my shoulders and went about my business. The eventual nominee has never been my primary choice. In the past I would naively cast a vote for a candidate who could not win the nomination hoping to influence the platform. As I said, “naive.” Were I still so naïve I would ask for a Republican ballot and vote for Ron Paul.

As I write this I do not know who I am going to vote for. A couple of weeks ago I decided that I’d probably just flip a coin the morning of the election. I mean, why not? The policy differences between the two Democrat hopefuls are slight. My list of pros and cons for each candidate balance each other out, closer than the Guam caucuses.

The narrow test of who is offering “me” the best deal, has never been my test. No, I embraced those high school citizenship classes too eagerly, I really think we should be choosing who is best for the nation, and what is best for the nation is not necessarily always the best for me. At the same time, the historic and sociological implications of this election are not lost on me. In one sense, any vote contributes to an historic outcome. We are either going to elect the first African American, the first woman, or the oldest to the Presidency. One the other hand, I’d like to contribute, to be part of, in my small way, the historic outcome. Hence, I want to vote for the eventual winner.

Normally, endorsements mean nothing to me. I think they say more about the endorser than it does the endorsee. Endorsers are more odds makers than anything else; until Lee Hamilton endorsed Sen. Obama. That endorsement made me pause. Never before has any endorsement had such an impact on me.

I think Sen. Obama is what I want our president to be. I like his current advertisement where he characterizes Washington as unwilling to take on the hard questions and solve them, instead opting for political gimmicks like the gas tax holiday proposed by Sens. McCain and Clinton. At the same time, Sen. Clinton is a fighter and is willing to do whatever it takes to win. I understand that is part of why Republicans best Democrats because Democrats are often too idealistic. “Too idealistic” or “unrealistic’ is what many see in Sen. Obama. I share some of that skepticism, too. Argh!!!

Election day. As I drove into Roselawn Cemetery to vote early this morning, I thought to myself, “how fitting for what has become a “grave” decision for me.” I had an easier time proposing marriage! When asked which ballot I wanted, I replied “Demopublican or Republicrat.” I was told they would have those in November but right now, only the donkey or elephant. Along with everyone else, I asked for a Democrat ballot. I took my ballot over to the little stand and there it was, the “choice.” I quickly ran through the others races and in a minute or so am back to the “choice.”

I noticed others come in and get out pretty quick, while I stared and pondered the “choice.” I began to worry that there might be a time limit on how long I could stare at my ballot.

Finally I made a choice. I decided to pretend that Indiana was the first primary; that the previous elections had not happened. Who would I vote for if I got to be one of the first to make a choice instead of one of the last. And sure enough, as my past favorites end up, I voted for the Indiana loser (though, strangely, Sen. Obama seemed to win Tuesday overall--his narrow defeat in Indiana viewed as something of a win.) Democrat politics are more complicated than Republican politics; though 24% of Republicans still voted against Sen McCain.

I thought both Democrat victory speeches Tuesday night went a long way toward building a united front for the eventual Democrat nominee. I hope Indiana doubles the number voting in the November election.