Weather Opportunity
by Dr. Michael Feuer, Dean of the Graduate School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University
About five years ago I published an article on educational assessment that started with reference to the blizzard of 2010. No, I wasn’t suggesting that our kids take a blizzard of exams or that the test items are flaky (although that would have been fun, I admit). Rather my point was that in observing how society manages events like a major snowstorm we may learn useful lessons about the costs and benefits of education reforms, including those that rely on test-based accountability. I’m taking the liberty of reproducing the opening paragraphs of that paper:¹
A good place to contemplate the virtues of rational human behavior was at the corner of Connecticut and Nebraska avenues, in Washington, DC, 5 days after the region was slapped with the worst blizzard of the past 100 years. Main roads were by then reasonably clear; traffic was returning to an almost normal (i.e., congested) flow, and many sidewalks were passable thanks to the spade work of homeowners who wanted to go outside without skis or who hoped their neighbors would drop by with bowls of hot soup. But at the corner of Connecticut and Nebraska, a notoriously busy and dangerous intersection even in the dry seasons, there was no way for pedestrians to cross the street. Mountains of snow created by the plows, coupled with the absence of a clear incentive for individuals to shovel through them, made the corner essentially impassable. The resulting mess, replicated at just about every such corner intersection in the city, required people to take great risks to climb 3 and 4 foot icy dunes and then slide down into the path of moving cars, or to trudge extra yards in biting wind in search of a narrow clearing. It was all a painful reminder that seemingly rational individual behavior can sometimes lead to calamitous social outcomes, and confirmed again why the theory of “externalities” has such a hallowed place in social science.
You can see where this is heading: the rest of the paper is about applying principles from the microeconomics of externalities to the consideration of the uses and misuses of tests. And now that we’ve had another major snow event, I am again drawn to possible lessons about education, society, the future of the human race…you know, the little things. (Too much snow seems to bring out my philosophical side.) Here are a few thoughts about how the blizzard analogy applies to the current state of education.
First, the storm of 2010 was the worst in almost a century. Maybe so, but Jonas has apparently broken that record, just 6 years later, which supports the scientific consensus that the world’s climate is changing. But shouldn’t global warming mean we’d have less snow? That’s what the “deniers” would have us think, but in fact the science is more complicated: “There is peer-reviewed science that now suggests that climate change will lead to more of these intense, blizzard-producing nor’easters,” according to a leading climatologist. In any case, these almost back-to-back winter whoppers should make even the harshest skeptics pick up their shovels—and hold their tongues.
The implications for education? The most important are that amassing good scientific evidence takes time, that its findings don’t necessarily sit well with partisan ideology or religion, and that the path from research to policy and practice is often long and tortured. Why does it take so long for scientific evidence to have an impact on policy? That’s a question education researchers often ask, and the topic of considerable debate. Thankfully, this question has spurred some serious investment in studies aimed at what might be called a “theory of use” (see here for example).
Coping with the problems of climate change and coping with the problems of impassable intersections after snowstorms have some common features in addition to the obvious fact that both relate to weather. On the global scale, it took a long time—too long by my lights—for the industrialized nations of the world to reach the remarkable accord signed in Paris last month, which essentially commits us all to serious emissions reductions and other steps needed to slow or arrest ozone depletion. The good news is that such an agreement was reached at all: somehow the world’s leaders, 195 signatories total, fought the forces of self-interest and competition and overcame obstacles to pursuing the common good. On the local scale, I saw similar impulses on my block and on TV, where neighbors got together to plow streets so that emergency vehicles could get through, clear sidewalks for elderly and disabled friends, fill the list-serve with names and numbers of available shovelers – all acts of genuine altruism oriented toward the public good. It seems that self-interest is not the only engine motivating human behavior.
Granted, I haven’t seen too many people shoveling in front of properties they don’t own (special thanks to my neighbor, Teddy, though, for interrupting the Patriots game and finishing up part of my walkway), or clearing paths at intersections. And there has been a natural outcry against business owners who are neglecting their sidewalks even though they risk losing customers or hearing from those prospective customers’ lawyers. But my sense is that people have again demonstrated an implicit appreciation for the public interest, which requires a combination of private altruism and government intervention.
What does this have to do with education? I’d suggest this lesson: education is a public good (although listening to some current and aspiring politicians you wouldn’t know it), which requires a steady blend of private support—through the efforts of volunteers in schools as well as the generosity of wealthy philanthropists—and sensible, sustainable, and serious governmental involvement. Maybe this sounds obvious, but I think it’s worth the reminder. On the importance of education in the quest for social change, I’d recommend a brilliant essay by Jim March, in a recent National Academy of Education volume. And for a poignant example of the spirit of the public good, I encourage you to read this wonderful interview with our own Roger Whitaker and his wife Susan; their record is a model of how dedicated service to education can help make the world a better place against rather significant odds.
Finally, there’s the problem of expectations. Whether or not Jonas was the worst in a century, it was surely an outlier event, for which we should be grateful. I certainly hope we don’t get Kayla next weekend with another walloping of snow. On the other hand, the next time we get five or even ten inches we’ll view it as trivial compared to Jonas, although I'll bet we close the schools anyway. One problem with outlier events is that it’s ridiculously hard—and expensive—to plan thoroughly for them and reduce their risk to zero. Not that we shouldn’t keep trying to forecast and prepare as well as possible; indeed, for this latest round the weather gang provided superbly valid and reliable predictions. My point is that there is still going to be disruption, slippery sidewalks at least for a while, bare supermarket shelves, and transportation delays. Some streets will be plowed quickly, others won’t, and public opinion will fluctuate accordingly.
I know the folks in DC government are working hard to minimize the pain, and maybe they could be doing more; apparently New York came through with flying colors this time. Luckily there were few power outages, but if there had been more we would again be hearing what has become an annual winter ritual—the call for burying all the electric lines, even if it costs in the multiple billions. Funny how we don’t hear much about that when everyone’s enjoying spring breezes in short-sleeved shirts. But unless we see evidence of rampant neglect and incompetence on the part of our leaders, I suggest we keep some perspective on the complexities of dealing with these tumultuous situations and think about how much it would cost to completely prevent the disruptions they cause. It’s just not reasonable, or fair for that matter, to hold public officials accountable to a standard that essentially translates to blizzard shmizzard or, in less technical terms, “our physical and social infrastructure should be built so that we experience zero effects from disasters of any magnitude.”
What’s that got to do with education? I would argue that one of the problems with education policy is our penchant for extravagant rhetoric, positive and negative. Evidence of poor performance in some of our schools, lagging results on international tests, and the persistent tragedy of our achievement gaps are problems even more challenging than dealing with extreme weather; and their complexity cannot be an excuse for apathy or inaction. On the other hand, claiming that this or that intervention, such as testing or choice or charters or class size reductions, will “solve” our problems is equally wrongheaded. In other words, we can’t give up in the face of our profound educational challenges, but we won’t get very far if we persist in our tradition of wild swings between exuberance and despair, between great expectations and great disappointment. Setting reasonable goals and sustaining the energy and commitment it takes to reach them is better than insisting on quick and complete solutions to problems that may, in fact, not really have solutions. Perfection in social and physical systems is a lovely aspiration, but it pays to remember Voltaire’s warning (reinforced by modern cognitive science), that “perfect is the enemy of good.”
The snow has stopped for now, so I’ll stop digging —for analogies to our educational scene —and wish you all a safe and nonslippery return to classes.
¹ "Externalities of Testing: Lessons from the Blizzard of 2010," Measurement, 8: 59-69, 2010.
1/27/2016