The Hamilton Project, a Brookings initiative, approaches education as one facet of economic reform—and produces work with a refreshing attention to the cost-effectiveness and economic impact of education reforms. See, for example, a series of papers released last month from some of the most accomplished scholars in education. UChicago whiz Derek Neal, for instance, proposes changes to standardized tests—eliminate multiple-choice, vary test formats, never repeat questions from previous years—that can boost student achievement. Jonah Rockoff and Brian Jacob use cost-benefit analyses to argue convincingly for later school start times, more K-8 schools, and increased teacher content specialization, particularly for young teachers. The most ambitious paper, by the Harvard team of Bradley Allen and MacArthur genius Roland Fryer, navigates what works and what doesn’t with incentive programs. The duo concede that incentives for teachers and outcomes have poor track records, but still lobby hard for carefully designed rewards for student behaviors that can affect higher performance: Kids should get paid—and paid well—for reading books, not acing tests. Give these papers a look.
Adam Looney, Michael Greenstone, and Paige Shevlin, “Improving Student Outcomes: Improving America’s Education Potential,” (Washington, D.C.: The Hamilton Project at Brookings, September 2011).
Derek Neal, “New Assessments for Improved Accountability,” (Washington, D.C.: The Hamilton Project at Brookings, September 2011).
Brian A. Jacob and Jonah E. Rockoff, “Organizing Schools to Improve Student Achievement: Start Times, Grade Configurations, and Teacher Assignments,” (Washington, D.C.: The Hamilton Project at Brookings, September 2011).
Bradley M. Allen and Roland Fryer, Jr., “The Powers and Pitfalls of Education Incentives,” (Washington, D.C.: The Hamilton Project at Brookings, September 2011).
