MAY 2, 2012

The Patriot Can Do Better Than This...

Our friends at The Patriot-News here in Harrisburg just posted an online poll that asks the following question:

The state Senate has passed a school voucher bill that would allow parents to move their children to better schools at taxpayer expense. Do you support that?

With all due respect to a fine newspaper, that is just not neutral language.

First of all, Senate Bill 1, the piece of legislation in question, is not just about vouchers.  It would also expand the Educational Improvement Tax Credit, which is no minor issue, with this program having awarded more than 284,000 scholarships worth $335 million during its first decade.

Secondly, by alluding to doing something new and different "at taxpayer expense," the question implies that vouchers cost taxpayers extra money, but they don't.  The money students would take with them from violent, failing schools—to remind you, an act of violence occurs every 17 minutes in one of our lowest-performing public schools—would get spent no matter what, as it would come out of the state subsidy to their original schools.  The question is not whether taxpayers have to fork over the cash or not; it is whether students and their parents are forced to use it at a failing, violent school or take it elsewhere.  And, of course, in the long run, school choice saves money.

Thirdly, while I would certainly advance the argument that the schools voucher recipients would choose to attend are indeed better than those where an act of violence occurs every 17 minutes, that is also a non-neutral term.  "Different" would be more appropriate.

A better way to ask the question would be something like the following:

The state Senate has passed a "school choice" bill that would allow parents to move their children to different schools and have some taxpayer money follow them from the old school to the new. Do you support that?

Thanks to the Patriot for being part of this important discussion.  Let's make it as factual as we can.

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 03:30 PM | 1 comment

MAY 1, 2012

Philadelphia School District Faces the Budgetary Music

It doesn't take an advanced degree to figure out that something's rotten in the school district of Philadelphia—or that school choice is the antidote. More than half of Philadelphia's 249 schools do not make Adequate Yearly Progress—they are failing. The school district is also notoriously violent: In 2011 alone, it saw nearly 4,000 violent incidents, including 1,437 assaults on students, 1,076 assaults on staff, 116 indecent assaults, 87 robberies, 37 arsons and 642 weapons possessions. Last year saw 10 rapes in Pennsylvania's public schools and all 10 were in Philadelphia.

To cap it all, the school district is almost insolvent, trying to plug a $218 million budget gap that is set to balloon to $1.1 billion by 2017. Faced with such woes, the school district is proposing some serious restructuring:

The plan—subject to public comment and (School Reform Commission) approval—would close 40 schools next year and 64 by 2017, move thousands more students to charters, and dismantle the central office in favor of "achievement networks" that would compete to run groups of 25 schools and would sign performance-based contracts.

As it happens, school choice in the form of Philadelphia charter schools—which have nearly 41,000 students—already saves more than $200 million on public education. That's because charter schools, on average, spend just 83 percent of what traditional public schools spend per student. The School District of Philadelphia retains more than $5,000 in funding for every child that moves to a charter school.

Ultimately, Philadelphia needs more school choice, not less. Opportunity Scholarships or a significant increase to the Educational Improvement Tax Credit would allow parents to use education tax dollars at the school of their choice, and grant an immediate escape to desperate families trapped by their ZIP code in violent, failing schools. It's good that Philadelphia school officials finally see the need to spend more efficiently, but that's a small step toward comprehensive—and necessary— education reform.

posted by PRIYA ABRAHAM | 10:10 AM | 0 comment

APRIL 30, 2012

Big Government and the Higher Education Bubble

This past weekend I participated with some middleschoolers in a 30 hour famine to raise money for starving families. As we discussed poverty and debt the leader motioned to me saying, "After you graduate from college you will have to pay off a lot of student loan debt, like Elizabeth and I." I then, somewhat sheepishly, admitted I didn't have any college debt and the leader exclaimed, "What! How?"

Today, the average Pennsylvania college graduate leaves school with a bachelors degree and $28,599 in debt. So how did I get by without a penny of debt?

I went to Grove City College, a western Pennsylvania school featured in Sunday's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. The four-year private school, which refuses to participate in government aid programs, charges $13,598 in tuition. This compares to the average posted private school tuition of $28,500, and it's less than the in-state tuition at taxpayer-subsidized Penn State.

How do they do it? Grove City refuses to participate in the government-driven higher education bubble that rewards schools for raising their tuition by increasing the amount of federal student aid.

Some may say it is just a coincidence that higher education costs skyrocketed when the government started handing out more grants and loans, but consider this astute point from Daniel Horowitz:

Since the DOE was created, the cost of college tuition has increased over 439% adjusted for inflation! The rate of increase is almost exactly commensurate with the rate of growth of DOE subsidization.

The higher education bubble is just one more example of how big government distorts the market and turns a good thing into an overwhelming burden. Sadly, it will probably get worse before it gets better. Remember that housing bubble that threw us into the grips of the Great Recession? The higher education bubble pales in comparison:

It is no coincidence; whenever you subsidize something you get more of it. In this case, subsidizing college tuition means more universities have a reason to raise tuition.

So what have colleges done with this extra cash? They've spent it on expansive building projects and additional administrative staff while four year graduation rates decline. In contrast, Grove City undertook one major construction project in the four years I was there, while 78 percent of its students graduate in four years.

posted by ELIZABETH STELLE | 01:44 PM | 0 comment

APRIL 17, 2012

Who are Teacher Unions Protecting?

The Patriot-News published my letter that questions whether teacher unions protect teachers.

Union lobbying to create an unsustainable pension program is directly connected to the Central Dauphin School Board's decision to let go more than 70 teachers and raise property taxes by more than 3 percent. Sadly, that's only the beginning of student, teacher and taxpayer pain.

Taxpayer contributions for school and state worker pensions will increase from $1.7 billion in 2011-12 to more than $6.1 billion in 2016-17 - a 257 percent increase. Next school year, the average homeowner will pay an additional $370 just for increases in required pension contributions.

Ultimately, the cause of this crisis is not an underfunding of education (education spending has doubled since 1995), but a failure of politicians to recognize they had surrendered to an unsustainable pension plan.

The union that had intended to protect teachers contributed to this crisis that threatens thousands of jobs. The PSEA not only lobbied for increases in pension benefits, but also for the 2003 and 2010 legislation to delay pension payments. That bill is now coming due. Teachers at Central Dauphin should be upset with their union for not only creating the crisis, but refusing to protect jobs.

Given the choice between teacher layoffs and forgoing a 3.75 percent raise next year, the union opted for layoffs. This makes one wonder, who are teacher unions really protecting? It was never kids or taxpayers, and it sure doesn't look like teachers, either.

posted by ELIZABETH STELLE | 10:50 AM | 0 comment

APRIL 11, 2012

School Choice: What the Research Says

As the benefits of current school choice programs become clearer, it is time to take our eyes off the past and look towards the future. Jay Green argues that despite many journalists' claims that the research on school choice is "mixed and inconclusive" there is "more agreement among researchers and analysts about the evidence on school choice than reporters let on."

In a piece Dr. Green and eight other researchers published for Education Week in February, four specific areas of agreement are emphasized.

• School choice improves student outcomes—voucher programs have a significant positive effect on graduation rates and lead to modest improvements in math and/or reading scores.
• School choice improves public schools—voucher programs have a positive effect on the performance of public schools in the area.
• School choice saves taxpayers money—even with conservative assumptions of the impact of school choice on state and district budgets, the results have been positive.
• School choice has not harmed students, taxpayers or schools—whether it be in studies of academic performance or public finances or the quality of public schools, voucher programs have not been shown to have any negative effects.

With the importance of educational success to keep America competitive, lawmakers need to embrace the school choice programs that have a proven positive effect. Expanding school choice will improve public schools and student performance, helping to adequately prepare the next generation.

posted by ALEJANDRO GARCIA | 04:37 PM | 0 comment

APRIL 10, 2012

Good Teachers Matter

According to the findings of a National Bureau of Economic Research report, teaching quality is closely reflected by test scores—when looking at a teacher's impact on students's test score gains from year to year. This concept called "value-added" (VA) is a helpful way to measure teacher quality by identifying the knowledge a child gained each year. Moreover, it illustrates the importance of skilled teachers.

The study uses school district test scores and United States tax data to follow a group of students from elementary school to early adulthood. It looked at 18 million math and reading tests for 2.5 million children from 1989-2009. It was able to link nearly 90% of school data to tax records on parent and students' future financial performance.

According to the report (emphasis added):

Students assigned to high-VA teachers are more likely to attend college, attend higher-ranked colleges, earn higher salaries, live in higher SES neighborhoods, and save more for retirement. They are also less likely to have children as teenagers. Teachers have large impacts in all grades from 4 to 8. On average, a one standard deviation improvement in teacher VA in a single grade raises earnings by about 1% at age 28. Replacing a teacher whose VA is in the bottom 5% with an average teacher would increase students' lifetime income by more than $250,000 for the average classroom in our sample. We conclude that good teachers create substantial economic value and that test score impacts are helpful in identifying such teachers.

Gov. Tom Corbett supports tying teachers' salaries to student progress, instead of tenure. One objection to relating teachers' salaries to student progress is that it will incentivize teaching to the test or cheating. But given how valuable good teachers are, it is appropriate to examine ways to reward and retain good teachers, restoring the focus of public education to student learning.

posted by KATRINA CURRIE | 02:53 PM | 0 comment

APRIL 5, 2012

I'm Bringing Some Gumbo to the State Capitol

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refused to let government unions push him around.  His reward?  A sweet victory not just for himself, but for the taxpayers, parents, and students of Louisiana.  Here's the word from our friends at the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice and CF's sister think tank, the Pelican Institute:

BATON ROUGE - Louisiana will be home to one of the nation's largest school voucher programs once Gov. Bobby Jindal signs legislation that recently passed his state's legislature. Today, by a vote of 60-42, the Louisiana House of Representatives approved Gov. Jindal's voucher expansion, which passed the Senate last night 24-15.

"This is a momentous day for the families of Louisiana," State Superintendent of Education John White said. "All students deserve a fair chance in life, and that begins with the opportunity to attend a high-quality school. These policy changes are aligned with that central belief, and Gov. Jindal and state lawmakers have demonstrated a clear commitment to prioritize the educational rights of Louisiana's next generation above all else."

The expansion of the Student Scholarships for Educational Excellence Program will allow low- and middle-income students in Louisiana public schools graded "C," "D," or "F" by the state accountability system to receive government-funded vouchers to attend private schools. Currently, that option is available only to children in New Orleans and students with special needs in eligible parishes.

Last month, a poll commissioned by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, an organization supportive of school vouchers, found that 60 percent of Louisiana voters surveyed were in favor of Gov. Jindal's plan to provide vouchers to more families statewide.

"In passing this measure, lawmakers listened to their constituents who are demanding high-quality education options for Louisiana families," Robert Enlow, president and CEO of the Friedman Foundation, said. Enlow's organization was founded by Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, who first developed the idea of school vouchers. "This measure puts control of kids' educations where it belongs-in the hands of their parents. We applaud Gov. Jindal, Superintendent White, and the legislative leaders who are making Louisiana a lead state in putting students first."

Currently, 18 states, including Louisiana, and Washington, D.C., provide some type of private school choice either through vouchers or the tax code. With more than half of its student population now voucher-eligible, the magnitude of Louisiana's voucher program rivals only Indiana's, which enacted a similar statewide program last year.

"Louisiana just opened the doors of opportunity to thousands of children," Kevin Kane, president of Louisiana's Pelican Institute, said. "By expanding school choice, our K-12 education system will be more effective, innovative, and fiscally responsible. Students and parents will be the immediate beneficiaries, but, in the long run, Louisiana as a whole will prosper with a better educated population."

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 01:50 PM | 0 comment

MARCH 22, 2012

Does School Choice Reduce Crime?

Yesterday, Charles noted a key Wall Street Journal piece on a Council of Foreign Relations report. That report concluded that educational failure is dangerous for our national security and national well-being.

Another recent study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, highlighted in the Spring 2012 Education Next, looks more directly at the quality of public education and future crime rates.

We know that criminal offenders often have low levels of education: only 35 percent of inmates in U.S. correctional facilities have earned a high school diploma, compared to 82 percent of the general population. Criminal activity is concentrated among minority males; it begins in early adolescence and peaks when most youth should still be enrolled in secondary school. The schools these young men would attend are typically in high-poverty urban neighborhoods, have high rates of violence and school dropout, and struggle to retain effective teachers. Such schools may be a particularly fertile environment for the onset of criminal behavior.

That lack of a quality education relates to future criminal activity is well established, but does school choice help? Dr. David Deming of Harvard University studied students in Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools in North Carolina who could choose the best school for themselves, if they won a lottery for the available seat. He writes (emphasis added):

I find consistent evidence that attending a better school reduces crime among those age 16 and older, across various schools, and for both middle and high school students. The effect is largest for African American males and youth who are at highest risk for criminal involvement. ...

In this study, I find that winning a lottery for admission to the school of choice greatly reduces criminal activity, and that the greatest reduction occurs among youth at the highest risk for committing crimes. The impacts persist beyond the initial years of school enrollment, seven years after the school-choice lottery was held. The findings suggest that schools may be an opportune setting for the prevention of future crime. Many high-risk youth drop out of school at a young age and are incarcerated for serious crimes prior to the age of high school graduation. For these youth, who are on the margins of society, public schools may present the best opportunity for intervention.

Indeed school choice has many benefits, and not just for students and parents, but for all of us.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 00:52 PM | 0 comment

MARCH 21, 2012

Violent, Failing Schools Will Lead to Unsafe, Ailing America

That's the upshot of a story in this morning's Wall Street Journal.  It begins:

Flaws in U.S. schools are increasingly causing a national-security risk, producing adults without the math, science and language skills necessary to ensure American leadership in the 21st century, warns a report issued Tuesday by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Warning that "the education crisis is a national security crisis," the report says that too many schools are failing to adequately equip students for the work force, and that many have stopped teaching the sort of basic civics that prepare students for citizenship. Resources and expertise aren't distributed equitably, often hurting the most at-risk students. The situation, it says, puts the country's "future economic prosperity, global position, and physical safety at risk."

What do we do, you ask?  Exactly what CF and many parents whose kids are trapped in failing, violent schools have been requesting:

The report urges wider use of charter schools and other alternatives to neighborhood public schools that are underperforming....

The report acknowledges the persistence of the problems it highlights, noting that many of the same risks were identified in "Nation at Risk," a 1983 report commissioned by the Reagan administration that warned of "a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people." But it cites reasons for fresh hope, including growing public awareness of the issues and bipartisan support for measures to address them.

"This country has a real but time-limited opportunity to make changes that would maintain the United States' position in the world and its security at home," it concludes.

Indeed.  And you can imagine what comes after that inspiring call to action:  whining from those who are profiting from the status quo.  Here's union boss Randi Weingarten:

Six members of the task force offered "additional and dissenting views," including Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, a leading teachers union. While praising the task force's goals and endorsing the report, she criticized it for "placing inordinate responsibility for school improvement on individual teachers" and for "promoting policies like the current topdown, standardized test-driven accountability that has narrowed the curriculum and reinforced the teaching of lower-level skills."

Memo to Ms. Weingarten:  Violent, failing schools aren't good for teachers, either.  And the amount of money—including from sky-high property taxes due to the pensions for which unions have pushed—that teachers' friends, family members, and neighbors are forced to put into schools that are not giving our nation what it needs is an outrage.  It's time for a new approach.  That would be the same approach we use in virtually every other important decision in life, including higher education:  choice and competition.

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 10:30 AM | 0 comment