Ken Reinert, co-editor, with Ramkishen Rajan, of the authoritative new reference THE PRINCETON ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE WORLD ECONOMY, has penned a fantastic piece about how to teach the world economy during one of the worst financial collapses since the Great Depression.  Hopefully, Ken’s piece can help our international economics teachers help their students understand the problems–and prevent it from happening again.  Enjoy!

Amid much fanfare, the embargoed title, Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America’s Public Universities publishes today. David Leonhardt offers the most provocative and arresting discussion of the book in the Economic Scene column of the NY Times. He is also responding to readers’ comments at Economix. I am itching to add on to the feedback, so here goes.

Hugh Fullerton questions whether we should focus on graduation rates so much. One of the most surprising findings in the book involves the intergenerational effect of college graduation. Students who have parents who completed a college degree (not attended some college), are more likely to graduate themselves. Slight improvements now, will have huge benefits for later generations.

And, David Crane mentions drop-out rates of freshmen, but the research in Crossing the Finish Line finds that 44% of drop outs occur after the sophomore year. Drop-out is a threat throughout college, but most universities focus their retention efforts on freshmen and sophomores. They might see good results if they extended this support through the complete collegiate experience.

Additional media coverage of the book

Chronicle of Higher Education excerpt
David Glenn writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education
Scott Jaschik writing for Inside Higher Ed
Justin Pope writing for the Associated Press
Education Next video interview with Matthew M. Chingos

Mary Beth Marklein writing in USA Today

On June 25th, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Horne v. Flores, the most important education case before the Supreme Court this year, in which, by a 5-4 vote, it reversed the lower court’s decision which had ordered the Arizona legislature to increase its funding for English as a second language programs.  An amicis (“friend of the court”) brief had been submitted which relied heavily on the newly published book, SCHOOLHOUSES, COURTHOUSES, AND STATEHOUSES by Eric Hanushek and Alfred Lindseth, even though it had not been published at the time.  The majority opinion cites the book, along with several other research articles written by Hanushek, in support of a key proposition in the case, namely, that court ordered funding mandates have not been that successful in improving achievement. Although this book has only been officially out for less than a week, it is already having a national impact. Cal Thomas agrees with the argument in the book and has written about it in his syndicated column, and Jim Wooten writes in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Not bad to have a book published one week and be cited by the U.S. Supreme Court the next.” In addition, check out the blog Effective School Funding, which is updated regularly with news of the book and its impact on this important debate.

In today’s San Francisco Chronicle, Eric Hanushek and Alfred Lindseth, authors of the new books SCHOOLHOUSES, COURTHOUSES, AND STATEHOUSES, discuss what’s really ailing California public schools, and a new way to think about funding.

Here is a sample of their article:

“The state could decentralize decision-making by stepping back from the myriad prescriptive regulations and by removing the strings on funding. This approach would ensure that money could be spent more productively. For example, the state could use existing stimulus funds to offer early retirement to expensive older teachers, thus reducing the wage bill when the stimulus funds disappear. It could also set up bonus pools for teachers who demonstrate that they are highly effective in the classroom. It could develop its data and analytical capacity so that it had some chance of ending ineffective programs and keeping effective ones. At the same time it could include student performance information in evaluating (and paying) teachers.

These are things that cost little or nothing but that hold some promise of improving the system. They are issues in other states also, but perhaps nowhere are the needs greater for improving the system - as opposed to just balancing the budget. What it takes is a commitment to improving student achievement as opposed to maintaining the ineffective system.”

Read the entire op-ed here.

From Jay Mathews’s Class Struggle blog over at the Washington Post:

I am reading an interesting new book from Princeton University Press: “Taming the River: Negotiating the Academic, Financial, and Social Currents in Selective Colleges and Universities” by four careful scholars.

It is about the barriers to selective college admission for poor and minority applicants. I may have other things to say about the book later, but one recommendation struck me as interesting. Their surveys found that minority students who were likely beneficiaries of affirmative action were less satisfied with college than others. The authors suggest college officials might be inadvertently creating a stigma that attaches to those students, that they had not deserved their acceptance letters. The authors recommended that “administrators at selective colleges and universities should take a cue from the other two affirmative action programs they currently run–for the children of alumni and for people with athletic talent–and present minority affirmative action in an equally positive and affirmative light.”

My reaction is this: many of the legacy admits I have known do NOT see their legacy status in a positive light. I know some who have tried to hide it, even though their applications were very strong, because they felt that people would assume they were admitted undeservedly.

What is your reaction? Share it on Admissions 101.

Eric Hanushek and Alfred Lindseth, authors of the soon-to-be-published book Schoolhouses, Courthouses, and Statehouses, pen their thoughts about whether or not the $800 billion+ federal stimulus plan will actually help our students and education system.

The Educational Stimulus Package
By Eric Hanushek and Alfred Lindseth

The administration and Congress are attempting to quickly hand out money around the country to stimulate the economy and bring us out of the current recession.  Because of its enormous price tag - $800 billion or more – the stimulus plan must be sold to the public as serving worthwhile purposes, and this explains why the education components have received considerable attention.

Whether or not education is stimulated by the new federal money rides almost entirely on the discretionary components of the package.  While over $100 billion is being doled out for education purposes, most of it is unlikely to improve student achievement and may even impede progress toward that critical goal.  The driving force behind the stimulus package seems to be to spend the money quickly, meaning that past spending priorities and patterns will be largely replicated, rather than spending it effectively to meet our educational goals.