The working paper "The Economic Value of Breaking Bad Misbehavior, Schooling and the Labor Market" by Papageorge, Ronda and Zheng does raise an interesting point on behavior, schooling model and outcomes. We all have anecdotal evidence of rebellious kids (usually male) with bad grades and yet quite smart, the initial response usually is to reduce the misbehavior so the kid can adapt to the schooling system and bring the grades up. This study turns the assumption around. Abstract:
"Prevailing research argues that childhood misbehavior
in the classroom is bad for schooling and, presumably, bad overall. In
contrast, we argue that childhood misbehavior reflects underlying
traits that are potentially valuable in the labor market. We follow
work from psychology and treat measured classroom misbehavior as
reflecting two underlying non-cognitive traits. Next, we estimate a
model of life-cycle decisions, allowing the impact of each of the two
traits to vary by economic outcome. We show the first evidence that one
of the traits capturing childhood misbehavior, discussed in
psychological literature as the externalizing trait (and linked, for
example, to aggression), does indeed reduce educational attainment, but
also increases earnings. This finding highlights a broader point:
non-cognition is not well summarized as a single underlying trait that
is either good or bad per se. Using the estimated model, we assess
competing pedagogical policies. For males, we find that policies aimed
at eliminating the externalizing trait increase schooling attainment,
but also reduce earnings. In comparison, policies that decrease the
schooling penalty of the externalizing trait increase both schooling and
earnings."
The fact that schooling promotes, hinders and/or tries to stamp out both cognitive and non-cognitive traits is, I believe, general knowledge. Stories about successful entrepreneurs, inventors, artists and other that had low grades or difficult schooling abound. And yet, school systems are generally build around a specific set of traits they want to promote and note necessarily to help develop the full potential of the student.
This study highlights the impact of one non-cognitive skill, the externalizing trait of antisocial behavior and conduct disorders, usually displayed through aggression, delinquency and hyperactivity (the disruptor in a classroom environment). While this externalizing trait is generally seen as negative (as does reduce educational attainment, in the current schooling model), it also increases earnings overtime (it is a skill that adds value some employment sectors). Based on the non-linearity of this skill, the authors then compare two schooling policies: trait policy (teaching methods aimed at conforming the child to the desired/established behavior - structure centered) and schooling policy (focusing on the learning of the student - child centered)."Results from policy simulations show that the schooling policy delivers considerably higher earnings than the trait policy for boys". However, there is a gender bias in the results. For girls, the outcome results (in terms of earnings) are similar but with a different mix of wages and working hours (under the trait policy female work fewer hours and earn higher wages). To note that this comparison is done for boys and girls that display this trait and the results may not be equally applicable for children with a different set of traits.
Policy and programming implications include:
- Juvenile and 'youth at risk' interventions may need to be tailored specifically around the dominant trait they display. Also they will need to be gender specific.
- A school system that has a diversity of schooling methods may bring the full potential of students while minimizing negative effects of anti-social behavior (of course this assumes that the students will end up in the schools most apt to their trait)
- This finding may have large effects on other policy areas, from health, labour, welfare, to justice. One-size-fits-all approaches may actually be counter-productive and a careful re-evaluation of welfare/utility gains will be needed.
Interestingly there is no mention of the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment.
HT to Marginal Revolution
No comments:
Post a Comment