Thoughts on Fredrick deBoer’s The Cult of Smart
How we can improve the U.S. education system
Fredrick deBoer’s recent book (2020) The Cult of Smart: How Our Broken Education System Perpetuates Social Injustice makes a lot of compelling and accurate arguments. What is rare about deBoer’s ideas is that he gets at inconvenient truths which many like to ignore.
Here are two central arguments that deBoer made on the EconTalk podcast with Russ Roberts:
“The illusion is that we can change, in mass and at scale, dramatically change the distribution of academic outcomes. So, when we look at any kind of a metric, any kind of an assessment, we have a certain distribution of outcomes. Some people do very well. Some people do very poorly. The whole system is predicated on the idea that someday we’ll be able to make it so that everybody does well.”
“And, in the most basic sense, the book is asking what if, instead of continuing to run into this brick wall that we keep running into, what if we assumed that the distribution is more or less something that we can’t change — that there will always be students who are two standard deviations below the mean, for example. And, that if we can’t change it, how can we perform harm mitigation to make the system less punishing on people who don’t do well?”
This argument is right because for a lot of the lowest achievers even the best schools can’t make dramatic changes in academic outcomes. This could be because of a difficult home life or intrinsic abilities. I’m not as pessimistic as deBoer because big gains can be made where is there a lot of mismanagement and bad teaching. Even small gains can add up to largescale improvements over time. But this is hardest to achieve in the lowest-performing schools.
This also relates to a reimagining of what “school” can be. The problem with large improvements is they are difficult to achieve and lead to unintended consequences. (See the history of a number of major policy changes for proof.)
Side note: A lot of smart people in business and science seem to think the biggest deficiency in a wide range of fields is limited human capital. This is related to the room education has to improve in a virtuous cycle with the labor market. As schools improve the labor market improves and vice-versa.
An important and controversial word in this context is egalitarian. Or the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Sounds great, and it’s hard to find anyone in a Western country who doesn’t believe in this at least a little bit. If not as a fundamental value. The problem is that from a moral perspective everyone is equal. But from an ability to succeed on standardized tests, for example, not everyone is equal. Both in terms of ability and outcomes.
As deBoer simply put it, there will always be a bottom 50% of any distribution. While this is statistically true, it doesn’t mean we can’t aim for 100% of students to get the basics of reading, writing, and math. And then go after larger areas of improvement.
This also has to do with understanding what is the purpose of a high school education. Which should mean being prepared for college or a job. And being equipped with the intellectual and social-emotional skills to prosper against the challenges of life. I don’t know if deBoer sees big gains as possible in this area.
Problems arise when we expect every student to do well in physics and reading Shakespeare. It’s okay if not everyone takes or even passes these types of classes. Both subjects are valuable for different reasons. But what ultimately matters for high school students is preparing them for life. This means being able to get a good job. And live a happy and well-adjusted life. If education focused on these things more centrally we would see better outcomes.
One of the problems with my idealism is the narrow path from high school to college. Which is deemed as the mainstream and “successful” path. More people are believing that there are different and suitable paths than an expensive secondary degree, but part of the problem is the culture.
Work is a central part of the American identity and how we view our prestige. If the “prestigious” jobs screen people out by their lack of a college degree or personal connections then the system is in that specific sense unfair. Theoretically, there is a role for businesses to broaden their definition of backgrounds they are willing to hire. But the flip side is people have to be skilled or fast learners to contribute positively. If schools can’t teach practical skills because of obstacles like institutional rigidity, they have to teach the ability to learn new things. This should be one of schools primary goals anyway.
Policymakers, principals, and teachers need to admit that there are intrinsic differences. From there teachers should be skilled enough to create an environment of learning and personal growth. Individualized for each student.
When it comes to students from difficult socioeconomic circumstances what should be done? deBoer makes the point that: “Students in abject poverty sometimes escape to lives of tremendous intellectual achievement.” But in today’s competitive economic environment many people are still left out. He also questions the meritocracy of the system. As a socialist, this leads deBoer to argue for strong redistribution policies. I don’t think this is on its face a terrible idea, but the welfare system doesn’t always work as intended and can do more harm than good.
I disagree with the claim that the bottom 25% in educational terms can’t succeed in our current capitalist system. This is not meant to underestimate the economic challenges of getting either a college degree or getting a good paying job in your twenties and thirties. But more of an argument for not tearing down a system that works for millions for a socialist one that has yet to truly work for the masses.
Overall Fredrick deBoer adds a lot of strong ideas to our educational discourse. Ideally we move as a society in the direction he puts forward.
Sources:
