Contradictory arguments about “teacher equity” and the missing market analysis

Bottom line for this long post: few people take labor markets seriously in education. I mean seriously, not ideologically.1 We need some work in market design for the hiring of new teachers and the issue of teacher skill distributions.

On May 13, Allyson Klein wrote a brief but illuminating Ed Week blog entry about the federal government’s silence on a promise to promote “teacher equity” policies, following up on a February article. Essentially, it looks like the Department of Education first promised its non-profit/advocacy allies that it would Do Something about unequal access to good teachers, and now is having problems figuring out how it can mandate that. (Important note: the statutory language on this is from No Child Left Behind. This is not particularly an Obama administration problem, except it’s just the latest administration wrestling with the issue.) As the Arne Duncan era at USDOE lurches towards its final act, we are likely to witness sotto voce pullbacks on a range of policies where there is not enough time to manage the bureaucratic or political waters. Klein called it “logistical bandwidth,” but it’s as much a matter of political “bandwidth” as logistical. This is life for an agency where political appointees commonly make a broad list of promises. At some point, there either has to be pullback on some items or the unaccomplished list becomes an al-dente test of political and administrative viability.2

I hope that in the case of teacher quality and distribution, this provides an opportunity for some new ideas to emerge before the Next Big Thing in either the Jeb! or Hillary! administration.

Continue reading “Contradictory arguments about “teacher equity” and the missing market analysis”


  1. There is some very decent microeconomic work, but it is sparser than what you might think and misses some of the key market mechanisms discussed in this entry. []
  2. I.e., “you throw everything at a wall and see what sticks.” []

Graduations, honorary degrees, student protest, and advising students

Last week, I wrote an entry about William Bowen’s comments at the Haverford College graduation. I was there to watch my daughter graduate and kept my entry brief because spending time with family trumped any urge to pontificate. I’m back for my last week as a department chair at USF and wanted to follow up on some of the topics I mentioned last week, as well as respond to this morning’s argument of Michael Rushmore, one of the graduating students who wrote Robert Birgeneau some weeks ago.

  • The better speakers at Haverford this year. The publicity over Birgeneau’s withdrawal and Bowen’s remarks distracted from the other honorary degree recipients at Haverford this year, poet Elizabeth Alexander and Environmental Defense Fund head Fred Krupp. Alexander read one of her poems about nineteenth-century educator Prudence Crandall, and I will fully admit my bias as an historian of education in judging her as the best speaker.1

Continue reading “Graduations, honorary degrees, student protest, and advising students”


  1. The birds on the green agreed: they were singing through the poetry reading. []

Brief comments on William Bowen and Haverford College commencement


William Bowen at Haverford commencement, May 18, 2004

William Bowen at Haverford commencement, May 18, 2004

Above, my view of William Bowen yesterday

At yesterday’s Haverford College graduation, one of the honorary degree recipients was William Bowen, former president of Princeton University and longtime head of the Mellon Foundation (from 1988 to 2006). He took the opportunity to talk about the controversy at Haverford over the granting of an honorary degree to former University of California Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau. Birgeneau was one of four named honorary degree recipients, and after he was named, several dozen students and faculty wrote an open letter to him asking him to accept nine conditions surrounding the use of law enforcement against Occupy protesters at Berkeley in 2011. Birgeneau’s response was dismissive (“I do not respond to untruthful, violent verbal attacks”), and he eventually decided not to come to graduation. Given Bowen’s stature in higher ed, his commenting on the controversy was both perfectly understandable and instant news in higher ed.

Continue reading “Brief comments on William Bowen and Haverford College commencement”

Why has no one challenged Florida’s large voucher programs?

In the wake of this year’s legislative maneuvering to expand Florida’s voucher programs, there is a significant question floating over the future of voucher programs: since the state Supreme Court ruled a smaller program unconstitutional in 2006, why has there been no legal challenge to the other, larger voucher programs in the past 8 years? The brief answer is that lawsuits targeting education policies and practices have political ramifications, and are expensive, complicated, and subject to idiosyncrasies behind the scenes in how they develop.

Continue reading “Why has no one challenged Florida’s large voucher programs?”

The ultimate LIFO

I’ve been trying to carve out time this week to read José Vilson’s This Is Not a Test, and also continue with Thomas Piketty. The combination of the two has sparked a few musings in the back of my mind, including the fact that someone else has noted, that Piketty’s hundreds-of-pages-long book doesn’t have much on human capital.

And then I had this thought: the accumulation of wealth is the ultimate “last in, first out” (LIFO) practice. Those that have, get more. Those that don’t, don’t. Passing on wealth to further generations is anti-meritocratic, letting those who have inherited a sinecure rest on other people’s laurels.

I’m not a defender of the more absolutist versions of LIFO practices, or guidelines that give at least some protection to more senior teachers in a school in layoff conditions. I am also skeptical of claims that LIFO is the worst thing since … well, the last worst thing that education reformers complained about. I have seen no evidence that ending LIFO has improved schools where that policy change has happened.

Beyond that, it strikes me that if one is going to complain about LIFO policies in schools, one can ask about your approach to the retention of institutionalized privilege in society at large. Do you really believe that we need to eliminate the security of long-held positions, or does that only hold within school walls? If you truly believe in ending LIFO in schools, to be consistent you should also believe in and argue for ending LIFO outside schools, in terms of intergenerational wealth transfers and unearned wealth.

I mean confiscatory-level estate taxes — say, 100% above $3 million per family member that you transfer your wealth to. I’m not wedded to that as a definition of high estate taxes that ensure each generation only makes it on their own efforts; that is just an example.

So, while reading Vilson and Piketty, I have become curious whether anyone who has argued against LIFO has also argued in favor of confiscatory estate taxes. I’m not holding my breath, but it would be evidence of consistency in policy preferences.

Addendum: Since I’ve been asked: No, I’m not advocating confiscatory estate taxes here. I’m pointing out a bit of inconsistency, which is often the case when people talk about education policy issues in isolation from the rest of social policy.