As a society we are inundated with so much information and so much advocacy that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the average person to understand the real issues and objectively evaluate them. This Education Scorecard is designed to provide interested citizens with a brief and concise background on the public policy challenges facing higher education and K-12; a brief discussion of policies that have worked and failed in addressing those challenges; an evaluation of proposed policies; and sources for additional information. In developing the scorecard we focused on examining the issue from the perspective of US competitiveness in the world and middle class families’ pursuit of the American Dream.
EDUCATION SCORECARD
| Issue |
|
Policy Problem and Brief Background |
Knowledge is power. On a macro level it is the most important determinant of economic competitiveness, innovation, and a well functioning democracy. On a micro level it determines individual success. Despite this recognition on the part of policymakers, parents, employers, and educators, the American educational system is under severe strain at all levels—K-12 and higher-education—from a cost and quality perspective.
Over the last fifty years, the American educational system, including higher education, has successfully made education available to all Americans irrespective of race, gender, nationality, or socio-economic class, thanks to federal and state policies, the civil rights movement, and seminal Supreme Court cases that desegregated schools and opened admissions for minorities at universities. As a society we have spent the last fifty years solving the “access” issue. Today’s pressing educational issues are focused around cost –cost to parents and students, and costs to the state and federal governments, and quality—quality of the education, and quality of the learning environment which determines the quality of the graduating student and therefore the success and competitiveness of the student. In addition, higher education is concerned with the type of job market which will await graduating students. These issues are complex and involve:
- Teacher quality and pay
- School choice/charter/vouchers
- Affirmative Action
- Tax dollars for public schools
- No Child Left Behind
- Student debt
- Role of federal government vs. state government
- Investment in Research and Development
- US v. China v. India, etc.
- Outsourcing and global wage competition
- Achievement Gap
- Immigration/bilingual education
- Visa restrictions on foreign students and talent
- School quality: urban v. suburban v. rural
Link to Brief Higher Ed Background
Link to Public Education Background
Link to Public Education Timeline: College of Saint Benedict/Saint John's University
Successful Higher Ed policies in addressing access, cost, quality and competitiveness:
- Land grants, starting with the Morrill Act of 1862 signed by President Abraham Lincoln, mandated that federal land be given to the states to establish colleges and universities. Amendments and additional legislation continued this practice and expanded the scope to include 17 historically black colleges and universities and Puerto Rico. (Source: University of Florida, http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/ls_grant/timeline.htm)
- Research and Development funding to academia began en force following World War II with the establishment of the National Science Foundation. Funding from the federal government accounted for an estimated 59% of the funding for R&D performed in academic institutions in 1998. After increasing from 55% in 1953 to its peak of just over 73% in 1966, the Federal support share declined fairly steadily until the early 1990’s. Since 1992, it has fluctuated between 59-60%. (Source: Science and Engineering Indicators 2000 Volume I; National Science Foundation.)
- Financial aid programs like the GI Bill, which followed WWII, subsidized and unsubsidized federal loans like Perkins and Stafford loans, introduced as part of the National Defense Education Act in 1958 and consolidated in 1965 under the Higher Education Act, and federal government grant programs such as the Pell Grant, introduced in 1972, have provided access and affordability to middle and low income families. Numerous changes to higher education finance policy have included the Direct Loan program in 1998, which consolidated student loans and effectively reduced interest payments.
- Affirmative Action has provided access to higher education for minority students.
- Title IX: created access for female athletes
Mixed Results for Higher Education policy in addressing cost, access, quality, competitiveness:
- Federal loans and grants: these programs have no doubt provided opportunities for people to receive a college education who would not have had the financial means to do so otherwise. However, federal loans have fueled the rising costs in higher education by essentially creating a vast money supply. As a result, students have access, but college education costs continue to escalate, and students take on higher burdens of debt. Federal grants like the Pell Grant have not kept up with the rate of tuition increases.
- Affirmative Action. Affirmative action has clearly provided access to disadvantaged minority groups. However, many believe that affirmative action has prioritized minority status over academic qualifications and has thereby discriminated against qualified white and male students, and compromised the quality of the educational experience.
Successful K-12 Public Education policies:
- Universal access to a free education. The Brown v. Board Supreme Court case of 1954 is the seminal case of universal and equal access to public education.
- Some preparedness and readiness measures such as early childhood education and the school lunch program.
- Funding for professional development of teachers.
Each one of these policies has met its public policy objective, However their overall effectiveness is still debated due to fiscal constraints, lack of tangible improvement in student performance compared to past performance and international competitors, and politics and ideology.
Mixed Results K-12 Public Education policies:
Many policies have been introduced to address what many see as a deteriorating public education system in the United States. The policies have suffered from mixed results due to the classic tension between doing what’s in the best interest of the individual and doing what’s in the best interest of the society/community as a whole. For example,
- Property tax financing of public schools has allowed wealthier families to live in well-financed school districts. Although most states seek a funding formula that attempts to equalize the funding between districts, the equity issue remains.
- Charter schools have allowed some families to choose between traditional neighborhood schools and charter schools, but the choice is not a realistic one for some families while other states or school districts don’t have any charter schools from which to choose.
- Vouchers attempt to make private and alternative schools a realistic financial option for families, but there is debate around whether it’s proper to allow public monies to be directed to private and/or religious schools.
- No Child Left Behind is the seminal federal education policy which attempts to address public education quality through universal standards and accountability. (Link to NCLB Background)
- Results-based pay for teachers is being considered and piloted in some school districts to address complacency generally associated with tenure and teacher quality concerns. This idea is new and only time will determine its success. http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/tcomp/research/ Link to Denver Public School's pay plan
- Teacher’s unions and tenure remain contentious local issues and are often cited as obstacles to developing creative solutions to addressing quality and competitiveness issues. No real policies have been proposed to address these issues.
Education at its core is a values issue. At every level of the education supply chain—student, parent, teacher, principal, superintendent, state and federal government, potential employers—value must be placed on expecting and delivering a quality education. As values cannot be legislated, the only role public policy can play is to create incentives—incentives for kids to learn, and incentives for teachers to teach. |
Gap: the real problem
What's not being addressed/what is still unreslved? |
Higher Ed:
Despite efforts to provide financing to students, the cost of securing a higher education remains a critical public policy issue. Although politicians and the White House appear focused on addressing the cost issue, the impact of globalization, automation and declining US competitiveness seem to be neglected topics.
- Cost: When private colleges were out of financial reach of many Americans, they could always turn to quality state systems to fill the gap. Unfortunately, state funding of higher education programs has suffered debilitating budget cuts. Higher education today is a multifaceted problem. State colleges as a solution to high cost private schools are now under increasing pressure resulting mostly from state budget cuts. The average cost of a public four-year institution increased by 10% between 2001-2003, while average income only increased by 2% for the same period. Simultaneously, state appropriations for higher education increased by only 1%, the lowest increase in a decade and a significant decrease from historical increases of about 3.5%/year. The result is that college is more expensive for more families. For example, an average New Jersey family must commit 34 percent of its family income for tuition in 2004, compared with just 24 percent of income a decade ago. Online programs have emerged to provide a market solution to the rising costs of tuition, but are these programs designed to maintain US competitiveness? The programs generally offer degrees or certificates in business or trade related areas, as opposed to the math and sciences programs which traditionally fuel innovation.
(Source: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education “College Affordability in Jeopardy” Winter 2003)
- Job Market: The 2003 Statistical Abstract reported that according to the U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics, 3 of the 4 largest areas of job growth in the next 7 years will be in food preparation/fast food, customer service representatives, and retail sales persons. (Source for job growth: Statistical Abstract No. 617. Employment Projections by Occupation: 2000 and 2010; 2003). According to the 2004-05 Statistical Abstract, the top jobs that will grow the most in then next ten years are retail trade, employment services, state and local government education, and food services and drinking places. (Source: Statistical Abstract, No. 602. Employment Projections by Industry: 2002 to 2012; 2004-05).
All of these require only on-the-job training, and no college degree. In addition, global wage competition is mounting as countries like China and India graduate equally skilled and capable people and command half to three-quarters the salary of his or her American counterpart. Lastly, the average income for recent college graduates is $27,000, while average 4 year public colleges in 2004-2005 cost $11,354. In constant 2004 dollars, over the 10-year period ending in 2004-05, average tuition and fees rose 51 percent ($1,725) at public four-year colleges and universities, 36 percent ($5,321) at private four-year colleges, and 26 percent ($426) at two-year public colleges. The median loan amount borrowed by undergraduate students in 2000 was $16,500 for the year. (Source for cost increase: College Board, http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/press/cost04/041264TrendsPricing2004_FINAL.pdf; Source for student debt: American Council on Education, http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=InfoCenter&CONTENTID=8391&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm)
- Competitiveness: In the post WTO world of relative free trade and generally floating exchange rates a country’s international competitiveness is theoretically measured by the relative strength of its currency. If a country is highly competitive foreign demand for its exports of goods and services will tend to grow faster than will its own demand for imports. This imbalance will tend to put pressure on the value of its currency increasing the price others pay for its exports and decreasing the price it pays for imports. There are, however, a host of other factors that in the short run can significantly distort such adjustments. The most significant factor for the United States is the role that the US Dollar plays as the international reserve currency. As global trade has grown demand for reserves has enabled the US to import far more than it exports. After decades of operating in this environment the US Financial Services industry has become highly competitive while most manufacturing and a growing variety of service industries have fought a continuously loosing battle with foreign competition. Initially technology and access to capital enabled US industry to maintain a competitive edge, however with the advent of WTO both capital and technology flow so quickly to the most profitable markets that fewer and fewer sectors of the US economy have sufficient profitability to be able to maintain any competitive advantage and yet the needed currency adjustments fail to take place.
As the center of industrial activity moves else where the human capital tends to move along with the physical capital. For the past 3 decades, Science and Engineering (S&E) degrees have made up about one-third of U.S. bachelor's degrees. The corresponding figures were considerably higher for China (59 percent in 2001), South Korea (46 percent in 2000), and Japan (66 percent in 2001). Europe’s = 24% Almost 30 percent of the actively employed S&E doctorate holders in the United States are foreign born, as are many post-doctorates. In 2004, the top 10 Private Sector Patent Recipients included four U.S. companies (1: IBM, 4: Hewlett-Packard, 5: Micron Technology, 7: Intel). Five of the top ten were Japanese companies (Matsushita Electric, Canon, Hitachi, Toshiba, Sony) and one Korean (Samsung). (Source:
http://www.awis.org/resource/statistics.html; Source: USPTO,
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_at.htm#PartA1_2;
http://www.uspto.gov/main/homepagenews/bak11jan2005.htm)
K-12:
The US clearly provides universal access to any child seeking a public education and has made great strides in early childhood education. There have been no shortage of policies to address the deteriorating quality of American public education, including:
- Deteriorating facilities
- The Achievement Gap
- Overcrowding
- Preparedness and readiness
- Student performance and quality
Cost: Compared to other G-8 countries, the US spends the most on education per/pupil --$6,043. Even though the US has the highest per pupil cost amongst its competitors; it ranks in the middle for percentage of GDP spent on education (US, 3.4%; France, high of 4.1%, Japan & Germany low of %2.8). (Source: NCES)
Due in part to standards-based reform and a new federal interest in educational attainment, funding adequacy has become an investigated area of school finance. According to the Maryland Commission on Education, Finance, Equity and Excellence “schools are being adequately funded when the amount of funding provided is sufficient to allow students, schools and school systems to meet prescribed state performance standards.” No Child Left Behind has forced states to be accountable for the poor performance of students, and provides funding to states in order to raise test scores of low-performing schools. Adequacy studies conducted by states examine whether or not the funding they receive (from all sources) will realistically raise test scores, and if not, what the adequate amount would be. All states that have undergone adequacy studies have discovered they would require more funding than currently provided in order to raise test scores to meet state prescribed standards. (Link to background…)
Link to information on Public School Financing
Quality:
Despite a high per-pupil investment in education, the US continues to fall behind its competition in terms of academic proficiency and achievement.
Link to International comparison chart:
Preparedness/Readiness
Almost 30% of high school freshmen never graduate (National Center for Education Management Systems). Even the students who do finish high school are often unprepared for college or a job. More than 50 percent of high school graduates take at least one college remedial English or math class. (National Center for Education Statistics)
Achievement Gap
Today, the average black or Hispanic high school student currently achieves at about the same level as the average white student in the lowest quartile of white achievement. Black and Hispanic students are much more likely than white students to fall behind in school and drop out, and much less likely to graduate from high school, acquire a college or advanced degree, or earn a middle-class living. (Source: ECS, http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/issues.asp)
School Facilities
According to a survey of American schools in 1999, nearly one-quarter of schools, enrolling approximately 11 million students, reported at least one of their types of onsite buildings to be in less than adequate condition. Approximately 3.5 million of these students attended schools where at least one type of building was in poor condition or needed to be replaced. Looking across all the types of onsite buildings, 76 percent of the schools overall reported that all the types of onsite buildings at their school were in adequate or better condition. This did not vary significantly by school characteristics. Approximately 34 million students attended the estimated 59,500 schools that reported all building types in adequate or better condition. The remaining 24 percent of schools reported that at least one of their types of onsite buildings was in less than adequate condition. These 18,700 schools enrolled approximately 11 million students.
Approximately 3.5 million of these students attended schools where at least one type of building was in poor condition (defined as consistent substandard performance) or needed to be replaced because it was non-operational or showed significantly substandard performance.
Overcrowding
About half of public schools were under enrolled (approximately 40,500 schools nationwide), about one-quarter were within 5 percent of their capacity (approximately 20,400 schools), and about a quarter were overcrowded (about 17,400 schools), based on the capacity of the permanent instructional buildings and space. Severe overcrowding (enrollments greater than capacity by more than 25 percent) was generally most prevalent among large schools, schools in the West, and schools with more than 50 percent minority enrollment. Overcrowded schools were more likely than other schools to report that at least one type of onsite building was in less than adequate condition, to have at least one building feature in less than adequate condition, and to have at least one environmental factor in unsatisfactory condition.
(Source: NCES: “Condition of America’s Public School Facilities: 1999”)
|
|
Proposed Policy/Solution
Who?
What?
Why? |
Higher Ed:
Proposed Policy
Who: The Bush administration has proposed changes to federal higher education programs for 2005 which are aligned with developing an “ownership society”, in which individuals have a stake in something because they have ownership in it.
What: With regard to Higher Education, the Bush Administration has proposed the following:
- Community-based Job Training Grants. According to the President’s policy brief, these new competitive community-based job training grants would be used to train 100,000 additional workers at community and technical colleges for the industries that are creating the most new jobs.
- Increased Pell Grant Funding: If the President’s Fiscal Year 2005 budget is enacted, funding for the Pell Grant program, which provides grants to needy undergraduate students, will have increased $4.1 billion, or 47%, since 2001. In addition, the number of Pell Grant recipients has risen by approximately one million since 2001, and the maximum Pell Grant has risen from $3,750 in 2001 to $4,050 in the President’s FY 2005 budget.
- Enhanced Pell Grants. Approximately 36,000 low income graduating high school seniors would be eligible to receive an enhanced Pell Grant under this proposal. An additional $33 million would enhance Pell Grants to reward low-income students who participate in the State Scholars Program by taking a rigorous high school curriculum.
- Presidential Math and Science Scholars Fund. Approximately 20,000 low-income students who qualify for Pell Grants would receive up to $5,000 each to study math or science to ensure that America’s graduates have the training they need to compete for the best jobs of the 21st century.
- Increased Student Financial Aid. The President’s Fiscal Year 2005 budget would expand overall student financial aid available to $73.1 billion, an increase of $4.4 billion or 6% over the 2004 level. The number of recipients of grant, loan, and work-study assistance would grow by 426,000 to 10 million students and parents.
Source: The White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040902-3.html
Why: A Presidential Policy brief states that President Bush “believes that additional help can be provided to ensure that our Nation’s colleges and universities are graduating students with the skills and knowledge they need to compete in the 21st century. These policies attempt to address the cost challenges of low-income students.
K-12
Proposed Policy
Who: The Bush Administration has proposed changes to the No Child Left Behind.
What: NCLB is the seminal education policy which has been enforced for three years and focused mostly on elementary and middle school. The Bush Administration proposes revisions that extend NCLB to High Schools. NCLB seeks to address education quality and competetiveness issues through standarizaiton and accountability. President Bush recently called for high school students to take annual, state-administered tests in math and reading in Grades 9, 10, and 11. He also proposed that high school seniors be required to take the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) every other year. (Source: Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement)
Why: The President’s education agenda for 2006 focuses heavily on high schools, and seeks to raise graduation rates and prepare students to enter college or the workforce. There has been growing discontent with public high schools, and vocal advocates for reform join the President in improving secondary education. |
| How to Evaluate the Proposed Policy Solution |
|
Financial
How are programs funded/what are the financial resource constraints? |
Overall:
The President’s K-12 agenda for 2006 focuses mostly on high schools, as it is the hot topic in education policy. Mr. Bush’s budget proposal for fiscal 2006 includes $56 billion in discretionary money for the Department of Education. That would be a $530 million cut, or 1 percent, from the current budget. (Source: “Spellings Defends President’s Spending Plan for Education”, Education Week, March 16, 2005) Several programs have been proposed for elimination, or have been incorporated under Title I funding, the federal financial assistance funding to states. For an explanation of the President’s education agenda for the 2006 budget, go to: http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget06/summary/index.html
Higher Ed:
The cost of enhancing Pell grants under the Bush proposal is $33 million
The cost of increasing available financial aid over all is $4.4 billion.
The cost for the Math and Science scholars program could cost over $10,000,000.
K-12:
The line item for the High School initiative in the President’s proposed budget is $1.2 billion. However, this includes both existing programs and new initiatives. |
Customer/Voter/Taxpayer
How is value created for this stakeholder? How is this stakeholder's needs met by the policy? |
Higher Ed:
When evaluating federal education grants, there are several factors that would effect an applicant: Eligibility requirements based on family income, state tax tables, etc. Total amount of money available for all eligible applicants. Maximum award available for individual applicants.
State tax tables, which are used to determine Pell eligibility, will be changed in 2005 after 15 years of not being updated. As a result, approximately 89,000 applicants eligible for a Pell Grant under current tax tables would lose their Pell Grant using the new tables. An additional 1.3 million students will see a Pell Grant reduction of approximately $100-300. Despite this, the total number of Pell Grant recipients is estimated to increase slightly in the coming year because more eligible students are applying. Also, students adversely affected by this change are likely to work longer hours, borrow more money, or reduce their academic course load to compensate for the loss of funds. This has consequences difficult to measure with regard to achievement, comprehension, and likelihood of graduation. These dynamics make the increased availability of funds a “wash” when it comes to making college more affordable
As good public policy analysts, we recognize that to fund new programs, new tax revenue will be required, or existing programs must be cut. Although there’s no direct correlation between the programs we’ve analyzed and those proposed for cuts, we’ve provided some examples of programs proposed for elimination:
TRIO Upward Bound, $312.6 million
Provides grants to colleges to support intensive academic instruction for disadvantaged high school students and veterans to generate the skills and motivation needed to pursue and complete a postsecondary education. The proposed new High School Intervention initiative would provide a more comprehensive approach to improving high school education and increasing student achievement, especially the achievement of those most at-risk of educational failure and dropping out. Upward Bound received an Ineffective PART rating due to a lack of data on key performance measures and evaluation results that found the program has limited overall impact because services are not sufficiently well targeted to higher-risk students.
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants, $437.4 million
Provides formula grants to States to help create and maintain drug-free, safe, and orderly environments for learning in and around schools. The program has not demonstrated effectiveness and grant funds are spread too thinly to support quality interventions. The Administration proposes to redirect some of the program's funds to provide an increase for Safe and Drug-Free Schools National Programs, which is better structured to support quality interventions, and to permit grantees and independent evaluators to measure progress, hold projects accountable, and determine which interventions are most effective. The Administration's Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) rated this program as Ineffective in 2004.
Educational Technology State Grants, $460.0 million
This program provides funding to States and school districts to support the integration of educational technology into classroom instruction, technology deployment, and a host of other activities designed to utilize technology to improve instruction and student learning. Schools today offer a greater level of technology infrastructure than just a few years ago, and there is no longer a significant need for a State formula grant program targeted specifically on (and limited to) the effective integration of technology into schools and classrooms. Districts seeking funds to integrate technology into teaching and learning can use other Federal program funds such as Improving Teacher Quality State Grants and Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies.
For a complete listing and explanation of education programs that have been eliminated in President Bush’s 2006 budget, visit the Department of Education website at: http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget06/summary/edlite-section3.html#vocst
The President’s proposal to award grants to community colleges that will train workers for the sectors of the economy growing the fastest could result in training the next generation of food preparation/fast food, customer service representatives, and retail sales persons, since these are the sectors the government has identified as the fastest growing. In addition, according the Bureau of Labor Statistics, over the past four years, there has been roughly 126 million new jobs and 128 million lost jobs for a net loss of 2 million 4 years through 3rd quarter of 2004. Retraining 100,000 workers, as the President proposes to do, makes a small dent in this job shortage problem.
The maximum Pell grant award is currently set at $4,050. President Bush has recently proposed raising this limit $100/year for 5 years, so that by 2010, the maximum received could be $4,550. The average grant awarded ($2,421) typically covered 25% of the total charges at the average four-year public institution.
Source: The College Board “Trends in Student Aid” (October 27, 2003)
K-12
The idea that student achievement will be raised by establishing a system of standards and accountability is not new, but was recently given federal endorsement with the implementation of No Child Left Behind. The President’s proposals for 2006 extends this idea to high schools, mandating standardized tests and consequences for high schools that fail to raise test scores out the unsatisfactory zone. |
Resources
Are the government agencies/organizations able to implement the policy? |
NCLB is administered by the Department of Education. The structures and systems for administration of the program have been in place since 2002 when the act was passed. NCLB portents to address US competitiveness and the declining quality of American public education. However, many state, localities, and teachers complain that not only is NCLB unfunded, but it doesn’t necessarily solve the competitiveness and quality problems, because what it does well is prepare kids to take tests, not to be better thinkers or more creative. NCLB is an accountability tool, that may not be measuring or encouraging the right behavior. |
Questions voters should be asking |
Higher Ed:
- Will middle class Americans be able to afford to send their kids to college in the future?
- Will a college degree guarantee social and economic success in the future and merit the financial investment?
- Will my child benefit from a grant program to community colleges? If so, what kind of employment is he/she being trained for?
- Does this accomplish the goal of increasing competitiveness internationally?
- Will my child be prepared to compete for high-paying jobs with an international work force?
- Since Pell grants are typically awarded to families (of four) who make less than $35,000/year, is it likely that my child will benefit from increasing the Pell grants? If not, have there been any other policy proposals that will help me finance my child’s college education?
- Will my child have a reasonable chance of getting a job after graduation that will allow him/her to pay off his/her student debt with relative ease?
K-12:
- Do I agree with the standards No Child Left Behind?
- Is the President’s emphasis on improving High Schools going to be effective without strengthening elementary and middle schools?
- Will No Child Left Behind improve the United States standing in international testing?
- Why is the cost per pupil increasing while American student achievement is decreasing?
- How does NCLB address funding discrepancies between poor and wealthy neighborhoods?
- What is the best way to improve teacher quality?
- How are taxpayer dollars allocated to K-12 education?
|
Where to go for information |
National Center for Education Statistics: http://nces.ed.gov/
Education Commission of the States: http://www.ecs.org
Education Week: http://www.edweek.org
The College Board: http://www.collegeboard.com
Institute for Higher Education Policy: http://www.ihep.com/
National Science Foundation: http://www.nsf.gov/
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education: http://www.highereducation.org/
American Council on Education: http://www.acenet.edu//AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home
Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement: http://www.csrclearinghouse.org
The White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov
Department of Education: http://www.ed.gov
Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/
Statistical Abstract: http://www.census.gov/statab/www/
|
|
