Educating ourselves about education

OUR NATION'S strength lies in its human capital. This presidential election provides an opportunity to debate how to invest wisely in our children. While America would benefit from a Marshall Plan for its schools, current education research clearly elucidates the correct contours for such a plan. Indeed, the only education policy consensus appears to be that there are large gains from investing in early-childhood programs, such as Head Start.

Recognizing our ignorance gives us a starting point for designing a human capital program for America. While the ultimate point of a human capital program is to educate children, the key feature in structuring that program must be that it also educates policy-makers, principals, and parents about education policy.

The genius of Google is that it is a self-teaching program where information from Web visits on the Google toolbar makes the Google search engine more effective. Google is a tool that makes us smarter, but it also makes itself smarter along the way. A Marshall Plan for education should start by acknowledging that we don't know all the answers and that we need to learn quickly if we are going to radically improve this nation's schools.

The need to educate ourselves about education means that the program should start with some good ideas and then charge forward with the great knowledge - generating a trinity of experimentation, randomization, and evaluation. Experimentation means trying out bold ideas, such as providing incentives for children and parents or paying large bonuses to successful teachers or using Web-based learning in ways that many of us over 40 will never understand. Sticking close to the status quo will generate less new information than something more radical.

None of these new approaches needs to be imposed on unwilling schools - it is enough if a small percentage of schools are willing to experiment. If a few schools are willing to participate, then randomization should determine which districts will get the new approach and which districts will sit it out. Throwing dice to allocate education reforms across schools may seem unfair, but randomization is critical for the evaluation that will make the human capital program self-educating. Without randomization, we won't know whether it is the new approach that is responsible for good results or whether those results reflected something else about the school.

Of course, what works in Brockton may not work in Brookline. As successful approaches get brought to scale, ongoing evaluation is needed to learn whether something that worked in an initial sample of schools will work everywhere.

The great difficulty in public education reform is that the education of a child depends significantly on people who aren't on the government's payroll, such as parents, peers, and the children themselves.

Some researchers, such as my colleague Roland Fryer, are using experimental approaches to figure out how to get more out of parents and students. In New York, Washington, and Chicago, Fryer has been conducting experiments where children get direct rewards - such as cash or cellphone minutes - for doing well on tests.

Some critics think that these direct incentives will kill the children's love for learning. Maybe those pundits are right, but the important thing is that Fryer's experiments will provide real information about whether incentives work.

A self-educating education program shouldn't rule out bold approaches a priori, but should rely on hard, experimental evidence to discover what works.

Other interventions, such as the Bronx's "Mommy School," try to teach parents how to effectively teach their children. Although all parents can use a little help, I am skeptical that the government would be able to improve the parenting capacities of millions of adults. Perhaps randomized evaluation would prove that my skepticism is misplaced.

Any real reform must focus primarily on teachers and principals, the soldiers on the front line of the battle to educate children. Different ideological camps emphasize resources, incentives, and the need for better teachers. But ultimately, the best way to improve the human capital of children is to increase the human capital of educators. I will turn to that topic next month.

Edward L. Glaeser, a professor of economics at Harvard University, is director of the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston.