Category Archives: Uncategorized

Response to Matt Ladner and Jay Greene

Over at Jay’s blog, Jay and Matt wrote two critical posts of portfolio management and harbormasters (our team calls them quarterbacks).

Jay and Matt think differently than I do, have different political orientations, and are sharp. Their writing makes me smarter.

I also find their post titles, writing tone, and evidence analysis to be a bit over the top. They sometimes overstate their claims and under appreciate the other side of the argument.

In these two posts, Jay and Matt use NAEP charter sector gains in Arizona, Michigan, and Texas – as well as the mediocre NAEP scores seen in Louisiana’s charter sector – to argue that portfolio management and quarterbacks aren’t working.

I found their analysis to be overly narrow. Instead of taking some new evidence in and synthesizing this with the broad set of evidence available, they anchored on to one set of data points and made too strong of claims (especially in the titles of their posts).

Don’t Look at NAEP in Isolation 

Matt is right to point out that some states with fairly loose charter regulations saw a lot of charter gains in NAEP between 2009 and 2017.

I think this should modestly increase our belief that being loose on charter openings and closings can lead, over time, to a healthy charter sector.

But the story is not that clean.

This CREDO paper, which looked at charter school performance in Texas between 2011 and 2015, found a small positive effect in reading and no effect in math. Given that CREDO tracks individual students across time, and NAEP does not, the CREDO data should make us cautious in interpreting the NAEP gains as a huge victory.

Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 9.57.03 PM

Another study found that it took Texas charters ten years to achieve the performance gains of their traditional school peers.

While it’s great to see the sector improving in Texas, perhaps with better regulation the sector wouldn’t have had to improve for ten years just to achieve neutral effects.

The story of the Texas charter sector is much more complicated than Matt’s piece indicated. The same is true for Arizona and Florida, where quasi-experimental research has found muted test score effects.

Given the different results of NAEP and CREDO, we should be trying to figure out the puzzle rather than claiming victory, as Matt tends to do.

Don’t Look at States in Isolation 

Looking at state level gains is not a great measure of whether portfolio and quarterbacks are working, as portfolio (to some extent) and quarterbacks (almost always) are city based endeavors.

For city based data, this CREDO study measured student learning effects in a bunch of cities across the country.

Washington D.C., Denver, New Orleans, and Newark all did very well. These cities are also some of the most mature portfolio cities.

Phoenix, Austin, El Paso, Forth Worth, Mesa, and San Antonio did not do well. These cities are all found in loose regulation states.

It hardly seems like a slam dunk to me that portfolio / quarterbacks are bad and loose regulation is good.

Of course, the CREDO analysis is not perfect: test scores aren’t everything and the virtual twin methodology may miss unobserved differences between students.

But looking at state based NAEP scores to make broad judgements on portfolio and quarterbacks is unwise, especially with so much other evidence available.

The portfolio / quarterback model seems to be doing some good in many cities.

Quarterbacks are a Step in the Right Direction  

Jay and Matt often criticize quarterbacks as vehicles for people who think they are smarter than everyone else (especially educators and families). I find this to be an overly simple critique.

Quarterback originated as a way to use expertise to aggregate and allocate philanthropy.

In many cities, philanthropists were funding low impact activities, often wasting it on the  pet projects of district leadership. A lot of money was spent for very little academic gain.

Quarterbacks have helped improve philanthropy: instead of just passively giving money to the district, philanthropists partner with expert management teams to try and launch and grow great non-profits.

I think this is a major improvement on the status quo. Of course, there are some drawbacks, and too much centralization of philanthropic capital poses risks. This is why I don’t think all of a city’s philanthropic capital should flow through one organization.

But quarterbacks are increasing, not decreasing, educator entrepreneurship and family choice. Yes, they do often use test score results selecting who to fund, but I suspect this will change if a better way to invest is developed over time.

In Sum

The NAEP data should not be ignored. It’s made me more open to the idea that looser regulations can lead to charter scale and quality, especially at the state level. And I found Matt’s data analysis to be quite helpful. I love it when smart people who think differently than me play with complex data sets and come to novel conclusions.

But I think there’s plenty of other state based evidence that should make us cautious, such as the CREDO Texas study.

I also think there’s a lot of evidence that the charter sectors in portfolio / quarterback cities are making a lot of gains. The NAEP data Matt and Jay site, which is state based and does not track individual students, is not convincing enough to make me deeply question our city based work.

All that being said, I look forward to reading more from Jay and Matt in the future.

I don’t take smart, critical friends for granted.

The Case Against My Own Education

Bryan Caplan just released a new book: The Case Against Education: Why the Education System is a Waste of Time and Money.

Instead of a doing a regular review of Bryan’s book, I thought I’d do a little introspection. Bryan’s argument is that education is a major waste of time and money.

Does this hold true for parts of my own education? If so, which parts?

Pre-K: Not wasteful!

My formal education started at a Montessori pre-k. It’s a little difficult to use introspection to determine whether this was a waste of time and money, as I don’t remember much about pre-k. I do have a vague memory of being confused most of the time. I didn’t understand what I was supposed to do there. But perhaps this is the point of Montessori. I don’t know.

But I don’t view this as a waste of time (what else was I supposed to do at the age of 3?) or a waste of money (the pre-k was not that fancy so I assume it was priced just a bit above the cost of babysitting). So seems like a decent use of mine and my parent’s resources. It allowed me to be confused in a safe environment and it allowed my parents to work.

Elementary School: Not wasteful!

At Parkview Elementary, I learned to read and write and do math, which have all been very useful in my life. Me being at school also allowed my parents to work, which provided our family with a home, food, and the comforts of a middle class lifestyle, which made for a happy childhood. If I had not been at school, I can’t really think of many productive uses of my time, so I don’t see many trade-offs in having attended Parkview Elementary. The combination of the school teaching me the basics and providing cost-effective babysitting (Indiana is not an extravagant spender on elementary schools) seem well worth the time and money.

Middle School: Not wasteful! 

At Ben Franklin Middle School, I honed my basic writing and math skills, as well as picked up some basic science and social studies, which probably helped ground me in the modern / liberal world order (science, democracy, etc.). I also was put in an orderly environment which helped prepare me for a society that values conscientiousness, agreeableness, and the maintenance of civilized social coalitions. If I had not been a school, I suppose I could have worked in nearby farms (labor laws permitting), which would have also reinforced conscientiousness, but probably have been lacking in math, writing, and more advanced form of social coalition building. I don’t think I was prepared to work at the types of firms that would have developed my professional skills, nor do I think that most firms would have found it cost effective to teach me math and writing, which would have been hard to teach myself.

Early High School: Not sure 

9th and 10th grade at Valparaiso High School were also good educational  years: I learned Algebra (which I still use) and further practiced writing, with an additional emphasis on research (which I still use).

However, at this age there were some real trade-offs in going to school. By the age of 14, I could have started contributing to companies at a rate that would have been worth paying me a minimum wage (if not more!) for roles that would have both helped the company and helped me build a lot skills. This is probably true at free market rates, and definitely true if the government took some of the money they were spending on me in education and used it subsidize employers paying my wages.

On average, I think you learn more about how to succeed in skilled jobs rather than in school, so I imagine I would have picked up a lot of useful soft and hard skills (goal setting, data analysis, project management, giving and receiving feedback, etc.) that I didn’t really pick up at school. And while I doubt most employers would have taught me Algebra, I imagine I could have taught myself in the future if the job required it.

So this feels like a toss up: I was learning things in schools that have helped me, but I also could have learned a lot by working at interesting jobs.

Late High School: Waste of time and money!

Most subjects I learned in high school (advanced math, science, literature, etc.) have been of very little use to me in life. Of course, I didn’t know what I would end up doing for a career at the time, but taking a bunch of advanced coursework seems like a pretty inefficient way to keep doors open for a wide breadth of future careers. For the most part, given my strong foundation in reading and math, I could have learned many subjects down the road if my chosen career had required it.

Probably 90% of what I learned in late high school I’ve forgotten and don’t really use.

I do think going straight to the work force would have been a much better education than school, but I worry a bit about making career decisions at such a young age. But a bunch of 3-12 months internships / travel experiences / short-term jobs likely would have been much better than learning Calculus, both terms of intellectual and social development.

Had I been working, I would have become a better person (in all senses of the word) faster.

College: Complete waste of money!

I was an English major at Tulane. I learned very little. Writing papers about novels is not a very transferable skill; the courses weren’t that rigorous; and most of the good novels I read I probably would have read eventually throughout my lifetime. I would have learned so much more (and been happier) had I been working at a few great companies over this time.

People also always argue that college is a time for intellectual exploration, but I don’t buy that. Life is a time for intellectual exploration, and you either enjoy being curious or you don’t. Even if I had been working, I would have still read a ton and had a bunch of great conversations, which probably would have allowed me to explore more topics at deeper levels than I did at Tulane.

1st Year of Law School: Not wasteful!

The first year at Yale Law School is basically a one year bootcamp in a mental model (how lawyers think) and logic (outline the arguments of legal cases). Even though I don’t practice law, both of these things have been helpful to me. I’m a big believer that mastering professional mindsets (lawyer, entrepreneur, teacher, VC, etc.) helps you solve a diverse set of problems as you move up in your career, and I do think that logically ordering arguments is a generalizable skill in the modern day workforce.

I sometimes wonder if schooling from ages 16 to 20 should alternate between internships and 3-6 months of curriculum from a variety of graduate degrees that provide useful mental frameworks. This would also be a great way to meet a lot of interesting people.

2nd and 3rd Years of Law School: Wasteful

I just got deeper and deeper into a knowledge base that I never use.

In Sum

My personal experience has been that school was really valuable until about 10th grade, and then, save for the first year of law school, was pretty wasteful relative to what I could have learned in a bunch of internships and jobs.

Of course, what is true for me might not be true for others.

One last point: from a policy perspective, I do think that grades K-10 are very important for both individuals and society, and I’m grateful to be working at a job that is trying to make that experience more pleasant and productive for millions of children.

Did a federal grant to turnaround failing schools in New Orleans and Tennessee work?

Back when I worked at New Schools for New Orleans, we applied for a $30m federal grant to turnaround failing schools in New Orleans and scale the model to Tennessee.

CREDO just came out with a research study on our efforts. Their findings, and my analysis, are below.

The New Schools Were Much Better than the Ones They Replaced 

Here’s what CREDO found when they compared the schools we created to the schools we replaced:

In New Orleans, we replaced schools (“closing schools”) that were at 26th percentile in the state with new schools (“CRM schools”) that performed at the ~33rd percentile in the state at the end of the study.

In Tennessee, schools went from the ~17th percentile to the ~23rd percentile by the end of the study.

To quote the CREDO report: “the CRM schools in both New Orleans and Tennessee showed significantly higher academic growth compared to the Closing schools they replaced.”

Translated into days of learning, these are large effects: “Closing school students experience 63 fewer days of learning in reading and 86 fewer days of learning in math when compared to students in non-CRM schools… students in CRM schools make comparable academic growth to non-CRM students.”

The New Schools Performed About the Same as Other Schools in the City

When CREDO compared the new schools to other existing schools (rather than the failing schools they replaced), they found no statistically significant effects:

Screen Shot 2018-02-15 at 12.07.57 PM.png

In other words, the new schools that replaced the failing schools performed no better or worse than other existing schools in the city.

On one hand, this is disappointing. Our most ambitious targets included having the new schools be amongst the highest performing schools in the city.

On the other hand, this is still a major improvement: the new schools replaced failing schools and ended up achieving at the same level of most other schools in the city.

Building a System that Keeps Getting Better 

Replacing failing schools with new schools is a process, not a one-time intervention.

Ideally, a subset of the schools you created will do really well, and then, overtime, these schools will continue to grow. The ones that don’t do well will not be supported to do additional turnarounds.

Over the long-haul, gradually increasing the number and scale of high-quality school operators is more important than the average effect of the first wave of replacements.

Here’s what CREDO found across the new schools when they compared them to existing schools:

Screen Shot 2018-02-15 at 12.11.36 PM.pngIn New Orleans, 50% of the new schools had positive effects in both Math and Reading. This is really positive: half of our turnaround schools in New Orleans achieved significantly better results than existing schools across the city.

In Tennessee, only one school had positive effects in both Math and Reading, though a few other schools had positive effects in only reading.

This makes me optimistic that the school operator base in New Orleans will continue to have the capacity to replace more failing schools over time.

The early results in Tennessee are a bit more worrying on the operator quality front, and the next few years will be extremely important in ensuring that a healthy operator base emerges.

Lastly: CREDO found that replacing failing schools with fresh start schools (that opened one grade at a time) had a higher success rate than whole school turnarounds. My takeaway here is that you need a mature operator base to do a lot of whole school turnarounds, and no city had enough capacity to really do whole school at scale. In hindsight, we should have done more fresh starts and less whole school turnarounds.

Was the Effort a Success?

At the outset of the project, I remember debating with our research partners at CREDO about how to set-up the evaluation.

I argued that we should ultimately be judged on whether or not the new schools we created were better than the failing schools we replaced.

I didn’t think we should be primarily judged on whether or not the new schools were better than other existing schools that weren’t failing.

Yes, we did include language in the grant application that had goals of schools performing much better than existing schools. And as we executed the project we tried to pick school operators that we thought could deliver top tier results. Our highest aspirations weren’t met. This is disappointing, but it does not mean the project was a failure.

Rather, I consider the project to be a positive step forward in improving public education in these cities.

Making Things Better

The result of the project strikes at the heart of what’s so difficult about education reform: our aspirations for our most at-risk children are incredibly high, but making progress in creating better educational opportunities is very difficult.

In roughly a five year period, we replaced failing schools with new schools that were on average 7 percentile points higher in state performance, which translates to an extra 60-90 days of learning per year.

If the process of opening and replacement continues, what is a modest success right now may eventually become a great success.

I hope that this occurs and that New Orleans continues on its impressive track record of increasing student achievement. As a reminder, the federal grant was just one piece of an overall effort that has radically reduced failing schools in the city:

Screen Shot 2018-02-20 at 5.47.30 PM

SaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSave

To renew or to relinquish? That is the question for New York City

DB

Sometimes the research gods shine down upon us. In this case, they gave us two NYC studies, each on a different strategy, within a few months of each other.

The studies tell us much about what’s happening in New York City. They also illuminate the rational for why I believe in relinquishment.

What to do with struggling schools?

Some people believe you should give struggling schools more support. Others believe you  should either replace them with charter schools or close them.

Bill de Blasio is spending $582 million on 78 Renewal Schools, a model built upon the support strategy.

Charter school supporters tend to support the replacement strategy.

Early evidence on Renewal Schools

Marcus Winters of the Manhattan Institute authored a recent study that found that Renewal Schools have seen around a .1 standard deviation increase in math and ELA scores. This is a healthy bump and it’s great to see modestly positive effects.

Winters also notes, however, that Mike Bloomberg’s closure strategy achieved about the same results at little to no cost.

Recent CREDO study on NYC charter schools

CREDO’s research found that charters in NYC achieved about .1 standard deviation effects as well.

And while CREDO did not put a price tag on the charter reforms, most estimates I’ve seen have charters coming in at a lower per school cost than the ~$8 million per Renewal School.

Is it worth it?

It can be painful to close schools and grow charter schools. This process undoubtedly causes some disruption to families and educators.

If I believed the Renewal Schools would continue to improve, I’d be open to the idea that they were worth it. Perhaps spending a few hundred million more dollars is worth the cost to avoid significant disruption to communities.

The Renewal Schools will not keep improving

Sometimes these blog posts write themselves.

Elizabeth Harris ended her NY Times piece on Renewal Schools with the following quotation:

“The thing we’re nervous about is losing any of these resources,” said Mr. Bradley of Renaissance School of the Arts. “Renewal is the bomb. I want to be renewed forever.”

I’m sure receiving $5 to $10 million to improve your school is the bomb.

But of course these resources will not last.

Additionally, because these schools are subject to the whims of changes in district policies, the strategies they implemented will likely fall out of the favor of a future administration.

Charter schools, on the other hand, receive most of the philanthropic support for start-up costs, not continuing costs.

Additionally, charter schools are governed by non-profit boards which can maintain strategic consistency through self-perpetuating boards.

To renew or to relinquish? In the long-run, relinquishment will deliver sustained gains for students. Renewal will not.

Philanthropy is a low accountability sector (and what to do about it)

In terms of accountability to stakeholders for continued survival, my ranking of sectors is as follows (from most accountable to least accountable):

  1. Politics: the people you serve vote on your fitness every 2-4 years.
  2. For-profit: the people you serve must give you their money.
  3. Non-profit: the people who care about your issue must give you their money.
  4. Philanthropy: people must be willing to accept your money.

Depending on the specific office / company / non-profit, these rankings might shift a bit, but at the median I think they hold true.

If you disagree, think about this question: which sector is the most ruthless? This is likely where this is the greatest accountability.

___

At the structural level, philanthropy is an extremely unaccountable sector. All you have to do to stay in business is have someone be willing to accept your money!

This is not the fault of anyone involved, it’s just the nature of the beast.

I think a few things follow from this structural condition:

Culture matters: Philanthropists, like all humans, care about what people (especially their peers), think of them. Given that direct accountability is not as strong of a lever in philanthropy, culture pressures will play a bigger role. I think the rise in status of evidence based giving has been a positive development on this front.

Governance matters: Certain organizational structures, such as foundations whose governance outlive their founders by 100+ years, should probably limited, as this further decreases accountability in an already low accountability sector.

Rigorous exits matter: In most cases, philanthropy can’t cover the permanent costs of its subsidies, and over time government will generally pick up the tab of continued social programs. As such, it’s government that controls when philanthropy can exit, and the more rigorous government is in its spending, the more accountable philanthropy will be for producing results.

___

Again, I don’t think philanthropy is to blame for operating in it a low accountability sector.

It is what it is.

But citizens and governments can increase accountability, and they should do so when feasible.

 

 

Personalized learning is a transformative idea without a transformative technology

Screen Shot 2017-07-11 at 4.59.53 PM.png

I just got back from vacation, which was a great time to read the The Three Body Problem science fiction trilogy, a wonderful series that revolves around the protoganist using first principles thinking to negotiate with an alien species.

Upon return, I read this Rand report on personalized learning, which was funded by the Gates foundation. The report covers a small set of schools in the early years of implementation, so best not to draw too firm of conclusions.

The report found:

  • Charters that adopted personalized learning strategies saw a +.1 effect in math and no statistically significant in reading.
  • District schools (very small N) saw no achievement gains.
  • Charter schools implemented personalized learning strategies with more operational fidelity.

Perhaps most interestingly, the authors noted:

In this theoretical conception, schools that are high implementers of PL [personalized learning]  approaches would look very different from more traditional schools. In practice, although there were some differences between the NGLC schools and the national sample, we found that schools in our study were implementing PL approaches to a varying degree, with none of the schools looking as radically different from traditional schools as theory might predict.

So in this sample, charters outperform traditional schools (thought by a lesser margin than urban charters as a whole outperform traditional schools); charters execute better; and the schools themselves don’t look radically different than traditional schools.

Hence the title of this post: personalized learning is a transformative idea without a transformative technology.

Without a technological breakthrough, the current personalized learning efforts will, at best, lead to modest improvements on the execution of common place ideas (using data to drive instruction, executing leveled small group instruction, investing children in goals, etc.). School will look the same and be a little more effective and pleasant for all involved.

This is fine and the world is in many ways built on modest improvements.

But for personalized learning to live up to its hype (as well as to its philanthropic investment), it will need a technological breakthrough.

Instructional platforms might be the first breakthrough, but even here I think the primary effects will be more around scaling great school models and content rather than deep personalization.

The crux of the issue is this: computers are simply not as good as humans in coaching students through instructional problems.

Your average person off the street remains a more effective grade school tutor than the most powerful computer in the world.

Until this changes, personalized learning will never realize its promise. The problem is one of technology, not practice.

How to work less hours and outperform your IQ

I. If you’re going to praise something, praise people who outperform their IQs

Everyone has an IQ. Just like everyone has a personality, a height, and an eye color.

IQ has definitional and measurement problems that make it more like personality than height, but, as with personality, research indicates that IQ is a predictive trait. People with higher IQs tent to have better life outcomes.

In our culture, we both fetishize high IQs and stigmatize low IQs. I wish this were not the case. Nobody selects their IQ from the IQ tree. It’s handed to them and then shaped by their environment (and nobody selects their environment from the environment tree).

To the extent you believe in free will, however, it is possible to proactively make decisions that can help you outperform your IQ.

If we are going to obsess over anything about IQs, we should obsess about people who outperform their IQs.

II. There are people out there with higher IQs than you 

Unless your IQ is extremely, extremely high, you will at some point be competing against, or working for, people who have higher IQs than you do.

This happens to me all the time. My guess is that both my current employers, as well as my last employer, have higher IQs than I do.

And yet I think I can perform my job better than they could (or at least it would take them a few years to get up to speed and outperform me).

Why?

Specialization.

III. Specialization 

I have a pretty specialized skill set. I know how to help cities transition from traditional public school systems to systems that rely more heavily on the non-profit operation of schools.

While the high level strategy of these types of transitions is not rocket science, the details are (at least it feels like it to me!).

It’s very difficult to build plans, marshal a coalition, and execute programmatic shifts in school development, talent, government, and advocacy – as well as develop a policy regime that fits within a state’s constitutional parameters.

I spent eight years doing this in New Orleans; one year doing this a consultant; and about two years doing this in philanthropy.

Now, when I come across a problem in a city, I’m bringing a decade of specialized knowledge and pattern recognition to the issue.

Even if you have a higher IQ than me, I’ll probably get the answer right more often (and quicker) than you will.

IV. You can work less too 

The more specialized your knowledge is, the less likely other people are to also possess this knowledge. This means you have less competitors. If you so desire, this should allow you to work less and still be valuable to your employer.

If you can get the right answer in less time than most other people, you’ll have some spare hours to play with. You could fill these hours with more work (and accomplish more great outcomes), or you could spend more time on other things, such as family and friends.

The key is that the choice is yours, not theirs.

Specialization is a marvelous thing!

Is Tyler Cowen right to be stubbornly attached to economic growth?

Screen Shot 2017-05-02 at 3.07.56 PM.png

Tyler Cowen just published Stubborn Attachments in e-book form.

With the book, you get deep exposure to Tyler’s mental model of the world.

As someone who attempts to collect mental models for subsequent application, I came away smarter for having read it.

Below I’ll try and restate Tyler’s main practical arguments (skipping over some of the philosophy) and then end with some questions and concerns.

Tyler’s Primary Thesis: Sustainable Economic Growth Should Guide Our Policy Making

Tyler argues that sustainable economic growth should guide much of our policy making because, over centuries, the gains from economic growth dwarf the gains of just about all other considerations.

He defines sustainable economic growth as gains in “wealth plus,” which “includes traditional measures of economic value, as would be found in gdp statistics, but also measures of leisure time, household production, and environmental amenities, as summed up in a relevant measure of wealth.”

Over let’s say a 5,000 years, consider two possibilities:

No economic growth: We stay the same. Poverty is all around us. People are starving. Billions of people barely get by. Life is hard for so many people.

Modest economic growth: We grow at 2% a year. In 5,000 years, future humans (assuming no population explosion) are crazy wealthy, have access to amazing technology, and even the poorest humans view the richest people of today as paupers. No one is losing sleep trying to make ends meet. Every person has every material need taken care of, plus the wealth to pursue their passions and interests.

In other words, the difference between poverty as we know it and each of us feeling like Bill Gates was materially poor is determined by one thing: sustainable economic growth.

So when we’re making policy decisions we should keep our eye on the prize: sustainable economic growth is what will allow us to flourish.

Of course, in order for you to accept this argument you have to be ok with two assumptions: future lives matter a lot (so we should focus on pro-growth policies that benefit future people), and, increased wealth leads to increased well-being (Tyler runs through the research).

While both of these assumptions are contentious, I believe both to be correct.

Other Considerations: Individual Rights, the Environment, and Social Stability 

Tyler’s provides guardrails and depth to the concept of sustainable economic growth.

First, Tyler argues that we shouldn’t harm individuals to achieve economic growth; i.e., no mass murder even if it helps us squeak out an additional point of growth.

Second, he argues that we shouldn’t destroy the planet in order to achieve economic growth; i.e., what’s the point of focusing on the future benefits of economic growth if there’s no place to live.

Third, he argues that societal stability is an important part of sustainable growth. So policies that might not seem purely connected to growth (such as welfare state) should be considered as part of an effort to maintain the continuity of our civilization.

All of these seem correct to me, though as I’ll argue at the end, I wonder if this last point (societal continuity) is actually what we should be most focused on.

Major Shifts in How We Think and Feel: Redistribute for Growth Only 

Perhaps the biggest practical implication of Tyler’s thesis is that, according to him, “we should redistribute only up to the point which maximizes the rate of sustainable economic growth.”

In other words, we should only give a starving person food if this can be tied to maximizing the rate of sustainable economic growth, not because we feel that the starving person deserves something to eat.

While this rationale logically follows from his assumptions, this line of thinking departs greatly from current values. Most of us justify the welfare state in terms of our care for living and breathing humans, not for future humans.

Tyler’s argument for redistribution is a monumental shift from our current moral calculus.

That being said, it’s possible the our current lack of opportunity is reducing sustainable economic growth, so for now Tyler’s thesis may actually call for an increase in certain types of charity and transfers.

But I predict that most people will find his logic emotionally unappealing.

Anti-Fragility > Sustainable Economic Growth 

As much as I appreciated Tyler’s argument, I think I disagree, though I’m not sure both because I’m still grappling with the text.

Ultimately I believe that “anti-fragility,” rather than “sustainable economic growth” should be the language we use to guide our policy decisions, and I think, though I’m not sure, that this puts me at odds with Tyler.

Consider this hypothetical: would you rather have rather have a million years of infinitesimal  economic decline (.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% a year) and then human extinction or a thousand years of 5% economic growth and then human extinction.

I think almost everyone (including Tyler?) would choose the former.

While economic growth will likely make our society less fragile, this is not inevitable, and we need to incorporate this understanding in choosing guiding principles.

This thought experiment points to the idea that it’s actually the sustainability of a healthy society, and not the sustainability of economic growth, that we desire.

Most of us would accept small amounts of negative economic growth for hundreds of thousands of years of additional existence.

Similarly, I don’t think most of us would take high economic growth and a population explosion that had most people living at substance levels, even if this led to a sustainable society with high amounts of leisure.

So I would argue:

  • Sustainable economic growth is a sub-goal of anti-fragility; it should not be the primary goal in and of itself.
  • Economic growth should be considered in both societal and per-capita terms.
  • I would maintain Tyler’s support for individual rights.
  • I would make environmental sustainability, like economic growth, a sub-goal of anti-fragility.

In sum: anti-fragility and individual rights do all the work. Everything else follows from these two principles.

Thanks + Do the Work Yourself

All that being said, economic growth is clearly one of the primary ways to make our civilization less fragile, so in this sense I agree with many of the practical implications of Tyler’s worldview.

And Tyler’s mental model will be present in my head next time I’m trying to unpack an efficiency vs. equity argument on a specific policy.

Lastly, I do think that everyone should go through the process Tyler went through; ultimately, each of us should understand the philosophical underpinnings of our policy preferences.

I thank Tyler for his contribution.

What will be the stable charter school and teacher union equilibrium?

It appears Kentucky may pass a charter school law.

News recently broke that Noble charter schools may become unionized.

Where is this all heading?

The Forces at Work: Charter Market Share will Continue to Rise 

Charter market share will continue to rise because (a) 40+ states allow charters and this number is increasing and (b) once a charter school is open it is difficult to close.

Yes, policies like charter school caps and moratoriums may slow charter growth down, but it will be incredibly difficult for union leaders to fully stop charters from growing in a world where charters are legal in 90% of states. Rolling back laws in this many states is unlikely.

Charter market share will continue to grow.

The Forces at Work: Unions Organize Where the Teachers Are 

A simple consequence of rising charter market share is a rise in the number of teachers who work at charter schools.

Unions received dues (and power) from having as many teachers as possible enrolled as members.

The more charter schools there are, the more it will be be worthwhile for unions to attempt to organize these teachers, for both financial and political purposes.

The Future of Union Incentives 

So we’re basically going to be in multi-round unionization game between unions and charter schools.

Most importantly, this new game (unionizing a lot of charters) will have very different incentives than the old game (unionizing a local monopoly).

Under the old game, the unions paid a relatively small price for being obstructionist: with only one school operator in town (the district), they didn’t have to worry too much about how their actions affected the performance or reputation of that school operator.

In the new game, the union has a new incentive structure: if they are overly obstructionist, they will reduce their ability  to unionize more charters in the future; however, if they are not obstructionist enough, unionizing a charter won’t slow down the growth of that operator (which is in the unions interest, as they want the district to last as long as possible, as it’s the easiest entity to unionize).

The unions thus want to add value to unionized teachers and at the same time hobble charter school growth.

The ideal play for unions is to: (a) unionize charter schools  (b) demonstrate value to their unionized charter teachers so they can unionize future schools (c) slow down the enrollment growth of unionized charter schools  (d) avoid having unionized charter schools go down in flames so they can unionize future schools.

My Guess

The conditions for charter school unionization are favorable compared to other sectors of the economy: you have a long history of unionization, strong and well-financed existing unions, an inability to outsource to other states or countries, and weak accountability for performance (compared to the financial market).

All of this bodes well for unionization.

But unionizing charters will require unions to moderate their behavior and become less antagonist with management, as they will be working in a market of providers rather than a district monopoly. This will require significant change in their leadership and culture. This is hard to do.

So where are we heading?

One interesting comparison group is nurses, which generally operate in a non-profit, physically anchored, and heavily regulated environment.

Overall, about 20% of nurses belong to a union.

And while most industries have seen declining union membership, nursing union membership has risen over the past 15 years.

nurse-union-fever

I think we will see the same thing happen in the charter sector.

That being said, given that unions have to independently organize each charter organization (which is very expensive), and that their success will be predicated on cultural change, I don’t think we’ll quickly move into a world of 100% charter unionization.

But will we see 20% of charter school teachers (compared to ~7% right now) organized in unions over the next decade or so?

I think so.

Book Review: Homo Deus

414jwlgtxgl

Homo Deus is Yuval Harari’s follow-up to Sapiens, which was excellent.

I. Book Summary 

The Past 

For most of time, humans struggled to overcome three evils: famines, plagues, and wars.

In part because humans really had no good answers to these problems, God became the center piece of coping with this evils. It was God’s will, rather than human agency, that was the causal foundation for what happened on Earth.

The Turning Point 

The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution changed all this – rationality and science allowed humans to begin taming famines, plagues, and war – which also eroded God’s standing.

The Present 

Together, the emergence of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution – as well as the decline of religion – led to a very turbulent 20th century, where numerous countries and societies experimented with new social structures.

Ultimately, capitalistic welfare states won out on the economic front, and Humanism (seeking meaning by looking inward rather than by following God’s will) is winning out on the social / spiritual front.

Because we’ve made so much progress defeating famine, plagues, and war – we’re now turning our attention to achieve immortality, happiness, and, ultimately, god like abilities.

The Future

Humanistic capitalism will be threatened by the rise of robots / computers that will undermine the foundations of both humanism and capitalism.

Because machines will be become more advanced than us, it won’t make sense for human intuition and reasoning to be the foundation for morality; and because machines will takeover the human economy, human centered capitalism / welfare states will no longer be the optimal way to structure an economy.

The two most likely futures are: techno-humanism (humans become part machine) or data-ism (humans become functionally obsolete and are replaced by intelligent machines that will likely not be conscious).

Harari indicates that techno-humanism would likely collapse on itself pretty quickly and that data-ism is our more likely future.

II. Harari is a Great Writer and Historian

It’s hard not to envy Harari as a writer: he’s logical, funny, insightful, and has an uncanny ability to elucidate complex subjects through pithy one-liners, stories, and thought experiments.

We’d all be a lot smarter if more non-fiction writers wrote with his intelligence.

Harari also does an incredible job of identifying and explaining the drivers of human material and cultural development.

III. Harari Adds Little to Futurism

Most of the main ideas in Harari’s analysis of the future can be found in deeper and more expansive works (writers along the lines of Ray Kurzwel, Robin Hanson, etc.)

While Harari’s writing and analytical abilities make him a first class historian, these skills do less work in enabling him to make insightful predictions about the future.

What I would have thought would be obvious topics of deep exploration – such as technical analysis of the computing power needed for a singularity type event, as well as the underpinnings of consciousness – receive very little treatment.

Harari just argues that data-ism will likely occur and that we can’t really predict what that will be like.

I would have loved to read a much deeper analysis of on how and when data-ism might occur, as well as some hard thinking about what economics and values might govern this new world.

Sapiens is required reading.

Homo Deus is worth reading, but, unfortunately, it’s not groundbreaking.