The subsidy for students going to state colleges keeps going up and up

Click on figure to enlarge it.

A lot is being made about the fact that students at public universities are covering a greater percentage of the costs of their education.  But students still only cover 25% of costs. The Washington Post makes a big deal about the fact that the share of state funded university expenditures that the students cover is more than that covered by states? 

The problem is that people are only covering a tiny fraction of the cost of their education. Going from 17% to 25% of costs is an improvement, but the absolute size of the subsidy has increased. Why should we be increasing the absolute size of the subsidy for the future wealthy (those who graduate from college will earn above average incomes)? All state college expenditures would have to go up by only 11 percent from 2003 to 2012 for the absolute subsidy to have gone up. In fact, inflation went up by 25% over that time. If that was how much state college costs went up (we can dream that they only went up that much), the total subsidy increased 13% faster than what students paid.

I haven't taken the time to look it up, but clearly university expenditures have gone up by much more than inflation over that period of time.

What those who put out salary data for college graduates don't tell you

Are the higher salaries for people from the Naval and Military Academies due to the quality of the schools or the quality of the students?  For example, might it be that the students who go to those schools are driven to work harder or is it because they are smarter?  Indeed, that point applies to salaries for all these top schools.  Often it is only those students who are driven who can make it into these top schools, but that extra drive might help them earn more anyway.  Unfortunately, the type of numbers shown below don't deal with those issues.  From the Wall Street Journal:

Top Schools, Median Starting Salary 

1. U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis ($77,100) 

2. U.S. Military Academy at West Point ($74,000) 

3. Harvey Mudd College ($73,300) 

4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology ($68,600) 

5. California Institute of Technology ($68,400) 

6. Colorado School of Mines ($66,700) 

7. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology ($65,100) 

8. Stevens Institute of Technology ($64,900) * 

8. U.S. Air Force Academy ($64,900) * 

10. Thomas Jefferson University ($64,400) 

Top Schools, Median Mid-Career Salary 

1. Harvey Mudd College($143,000) 

2. U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis ($131,000) 

3. California Institute of Technology ($124,000) ** 

3. Stevens Institute of Technology ($124,000) ** 

5. Babson College ($123,000) 

6. Princeton University ($121,000) 

7. U.S. Military Academy at West Point (120,000) 

8. Brown University ($119,000) + 

8. Harvard University ($119,000) + 

8. Stanford University ($119,000) +

The high pay for presidents of public universities

The Chronicle of Higher Education has an interesting list of how much university presidents are being paid.

What do Democrats mean by "choice"?

I would also add the choice of where one can go to school.  From the United Features Syndicate.

Unqualified public school teachers cheated on tests to get teaching jobs

It would be interesting to see if the teachers who cheated to get these jobs did as well career wise as those who didn't.  How could 60 some teachers being admitted over a 15 year period of time effect only  hundreds of students?  Surely, the number must be in the many thousands.  Take a high school teacher.  Even if the person only had three classes with 20 each per semester, that would come to a minimum of 120 students per year.  Just 10 high school teachers for only one year would be over 1,200 students.  Without trying very hard it seems as if you would easily be in the 5-digit range.  From Fox News:

. . . For 15 years, teachers in three Southern states paid Clarence Mumford Sr. -- himself a longtime educator -- to send someone else to take the tests in their place, authorities said. Each time, Mumford received a fee of between $1,500 and $3,000 to send one of his test ringers with fake identification to the Praxis exam. In return, his customers got a passing grade and began their careers as cheaters, according to federal prosecutors in Memphis. 

Authorities say the scheme affected hundreds -- if not thousands -- of public school students who ended up being taught by unqualified instructors.  

Mumford faces more than 60 fraud and conspiracy charges that claim he created fake driver's licenses with the information of a teacher or an aspiring teacher and attached the photograph of a test-taker.  . . . 

The hired-test takers went to testing centers, showed the proctor the fake license, and passed the certification exam, prosecutors say. Then, the aspiring teacher used the test score to secure a job with a public school district, the indictment alleges. . . .

Obama remains silent on Public School teachers strike in Chicago

Obama refuses to oppose teacher union in Chicago.  Teachers strongly opposed evaluating teacher quality, but Obama couldn't even make a public statement disagreeing with that position.

Canadian High School fires "exceptional" physics teacher because he gave some students zeroes

From the Edmonton Sun:

. . . Dorval is the 35-year classroom veteran who generated national attention last spring when he refused to adhere to his principal’s “no-zero” policy.Rather than resuming his Physics lectures, Dorval will instead be facing a hearing on Sept. 10 at which the superintendent of public schools, Edgar Schmidt, will decide whether or not Dorval should be fired for continuing to give zeros to students who refuse to hand in assignments despite his Principal Ron Bradley’s demand that he stop.
The true shame of this is that an exceptional teacher appears about to be tossed because of the educational establishment’s devotion to a theory that has almost no basis in research.
Not only is the public’s common sense offended nearly every time and everywhere it is revealed that educrats have implemented no-zero grading, according to a study released Monday by Winnipeg’s Frontier Centre for Public Policy the empirical research on no-zero policies “is surprisingly weak.”. . .

Gary Becker and Jim Heckman's strange, self-serving argument for more government funds for economists

Gary Becker and Jim Heckman's piece in today's WSJ makes a very strange argument.  Anecdotal stories of benefits doesn't show that those benefits wouldn't have been obtained anyway.  It also doesn't address or deal with any of the problems of government funded research, such as political biases or wealth transfers.  Nor do they even mention any evidence showing that government is particularly good at picking which projects to back.  Surely Gary at least would argue that with regard to government picking investments in general.

Given that people write op-eds for free, is there any reason to suspect that this research is going to be underproduced?  There are also obviously a lot of politically connected think tanks that have an incentive to produce research.  In addition, with all the huge subsidies given to research through public universities, even if there is a net benefit from subsidies, there could already be too much research being produced.  Subsidies are also already available in terms of the data the federal government provides.  

In any case, it is not like the vast majority of economic research requires much money.  I personally have done studies on crime after compiling the largest data sets used to study the subject, but it never dawned on me to get government subsidies.

The claim about the health care savings from reduced smoking are also wrong.  People have to die at some point.  Smokers die earlier and their illnesses are shorter before they die.  That saves Social Security payments for the government as well as medical costs.

The argument surely comes across as economists appearing self-serving.  It also shows how the temptation to get government money warps people's perspectives, and it provides a reason why the government should stay out of education.  From today's WSJ:

The federal deficit has ballooned in recent years, and even larger deficits are coming due to the expected growth of entitlement spending. There is little disagreement among members of both political parties that federal spending should be reduced. In such an environment it is crucial that the right criteria guide the cuts that will be made. Across-the-board cuts are not a thoughtful way to make choices. . . .
We cannot expect the market alone to support basic economic and social research, including data collection, since they are public goods that are difficult to appropriate privately. In cutting out the considerable fat from the public diet we should not cut the muscle that has helped make our economy the largest and strongest in history.

Headline from The Economist magazine: "Charter schools raise educational standards for vulnerable children"

From the Economist magazine:

charter school performance is not so “mixed” if you look at the data on a state-by-state basis, rather than across the country as a whole. States with reading and maths gains that were significantly higher for charter-school students than in traditional schools included Arkansas, Colorado (Denver), Illinois (Chicago), Louisiana and Missouri. . . . Since 1993 15% of charter schools have shut their gates, most because of low enrolment, a sign that the market is working. . . .

The national results would seem to work a lot better if they used fixed geographic effects.

The revolution in Louisiana's education system

In a couple of years Louisiana will have a pretty amazing educational system. The Milton Friedman Foundation put this out:

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. . . .

More evidence on Education Voucher Programs

From the WSJ's Political Diary:

According to the study, by Patrick Wolf of the University of Arkansas, enrollment in the [Milwaukee] program continues to grow. It doubled in size 11 times between 1997 and 2007 and grew by another 18% between 2007 and 2011. Today, more than 23,000 children participate. On average they score higher in reading and do no worse in math than similar students in Milwaukee public schools. They are also more likely to graduate from high school, enroll in college and make it through the first year -- an indication that the program is preparing students to succeed at the next level. . . .

NJ Public Teachers Union Chief makes embarrassing comment about vouchers for the poor

The life's not fair comment surely implies that the poor would have been better off with vouchers. Possibly life shouldn't be fair for the well paid union members. From Fox News:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called Wednesday for a state teachers union chief to resign, after the union boss said in an interview that "life's not always fair" while arguing against vouchers to send poor students to private schools.
Christie, who has clashed repeatedly with the union over his education proposals, called the remark "outrageous" at a town hall meeting.
The call from the governor was the latest fallout for New Jersey Education Association Executive Director Vincent Giordano, whose own salary tops $300,000.
Giordano made the comment on the local "New Jersey Capitol Report" program over the weekend. During the interview, he was challenged by the host on why low-income families should not have the same options as other families when their child is in a failing school.
"Those parents should have exactly the same options and they do. We don't say that you can't take your kid out of the public school. We would argue not and we would say 'let's work more closely and more harmoniously,'" Giordano said.
When told some families cannot afford to finance the shift to private school without government help, Giordano said: "Well, you know, life's not always fair and I'm sorry about that."
The interview clip swiftly spread on the web, along with reminders about Giordano's healthy salary.
The Newark Star-Ledger reported in 2010 that his salary was nearly $422,000, and total compensation roughly $550,000 when deferred compensation and other benefits are counted. . . . .

Will Obama be helping public colleges at the expense of private ones?

The key here is how the government defines colleges as being "too costly." Will it simply be tuition or the amount spent? Obviously public colleges cost much more than they charge. I also hate to think of how the federal government is going to determine quality. The article below also has a discussion about possible price controls. From Bloomberg Businessweek:

Saying “we just can’t keep on subsidizing skyrocketing tuition,” President Barack Obama proposed to have the government, for the first time, link federal aid to a college’s ability to control tuition costs and maintain education quality.

“We are putting colleges on notice -- you can’t assume that you’ll just jack up tuition every single year,” Obama said today at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “If you can’t stop tuition from going up, then the funding you get from taxpayers every year will go down.”

For institutions that control costs, the administration is proposing to increase campus-based aid to about $10 billion a year, up from $1 billion. The bulk of the money, about $8 billion, would be devoted to Perkins loans for students, with other aid set aside for work-study grants and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants.

Obama said higher education today is “an economic imperative” instead of a luxury. “College is the single most important investment that you can make in your future,” he said.

The administration’s proposal calls for $1 billion to entice states to help keep costs down at public colleges while encouraging an overhaul of state programs that help finance education.

Obama is also proposing $55 million for individual colleges as an inducement to improve education quality. . . .

Apparently, the public colleges are pretty upset all on their own.

Fuzzy math, Illinois State University's president called it. "Political theater of the worst sort," said the University of Washington's head.
President Obama's new plan to force colleges and universities to contain tuition or face losing federal dollars is raising alarm among education leaders who worry about the threat of government overreach. Particularly sharp words came from the presidents of public universities; they're already frustrated by increasing state budget cuts.
The reality, said Illinois State's Al Bowman, is that simple changes cannot easily overcome deficits at many public schools. He said he was happy to hear Obama, in a speech Friday at the University of Michigan, urge state-level support of public universities. But, Bowman said, given the decreases in state aid, tying federal support to tuition prices is a product of fuzzy math.
Illinois has lowered public support for higher education by about one-third over the past decade when adjusted for inflation. Illinois State, with 21,000 students, has raised tuition almost 47 percent since 2007, from $6,150 a year for an in-state undergraduate student to $9,030.
"Most people, including the president, assume if universities were simply more efficient they would be able to operate with much smaller state subsidies, and I believe there are certainly efficiency gains that can be realized," Bowman said. "But they pale in comparison to the loss in state support." . . .

Is Obama acting constitutionally with his changes in the "No Child Left Behind" Act?

An interesting letter to the president from Senator Marco Rubio is available here.

WSJ: "The Year of School Choice"

This WSJ piece is overly optimistic about some of the educational choice changes, but it is still a useful summary. For example, Tennessee removed the limit on charter schools, but it means nothing since none of the state's school districts are even close to the limit and the vast majority have almost no charter schools. The problem is that the teacher unions control the school districts and the districts determine whether there are any charter schools. The law should have instead concentrated on making easier for charter schools to get approved. As it is, the law accomplishes nothing really.

. . . No fewer than 13 states have enacted school choice legislation in 2011, and 28 states have legislation pending. Last month alone, Louisiana enhanced its state income tax break for private school tuition; Ohio tripled the number of students eligible for school vouchers; and North Carolina passed a law letting parents of students with special needs claim a tax credit for expenses related to private school tuition and other educational services.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker made headlines this year for taking on government unions. Less well known is that last month he signed a bill that removes the cap of 22,500 on the number of kids who can participate in Milwaukee's Parental Choice Program, the nation's oldest voucher program, and creates a new school choice initiative for families in Racine County. "We now have 13 programs new or expanded this year alone" in the state, says Susan Meyers of the Wisconsin-based Foundation for Educational Choice.

School choice proponents may have had their biggest success in Indiana, where Republican Governor Mitch Daniels signed legislation that removes the charter cap, allows all universities to be charter authorizers, and creates a voucher program that enables about half the state's students to attend public or private schools.

Florida, Georgia and Oklahoma have created or expanded tuition tax credit programs. North Carolina and Tennessee eliminated caps on the number of charter schools. Maine passed its first charter law. Colorado created a voucher program in Douglas County that will provide scholarships for private schools. In Utah, lawmakers passed the Statewide Online Education Program, which allows high school students to access course work on the Internet from public or private schools anywhere in the state.

Even in the nation's capital, and thanks largely to House Speaker John Boehner, Congress revived the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, a voucher program for poor families that the Obama Administration had wanted to kill at the behest of teachers unions. . . .

Liberals are upset about the victories for vouchers this year

The Left wing "Nation" magazine claims that they know why conservatives support vouchers: "the Friedmanites seem to have concerns that are less about children and good education than about privatization, small government and the blessings of the free market." Apparently left wingers don't understand that the reason some people support the market is that they think that it does a BETTER JOB providing products, including education. That means a lot better education for the children.

Early in May, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed what is probably the broadest voucher law ever enacted in this country. A few days later Oklahoma approved tax credits for those who contribute to a privately funded private school “opportunity scholarship” program. In New Jersey, on May 13, a voucher bill was approved by a Senate committee with bipartisan support. In Washington, DC, the voucher program, which was killed by the Democratic majorities in the last Congress, is all but certain to be restored. In Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, famous for his attack on union collective bargaining rights, is pushing hard to broaden Milwaukee’s voucher program to other cities and many more children.

Altogether, according to the Foundation for Educational Choice, a pro-voucher organization that lists Friedman as its patriarch, more than fifty-two bills have emerged this year, some passed, some still pending, in thirty-six states—among them Arizona, Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania—providing funding for vouchers, tax credits or other tax-funded benefits for private education. . . .

And early in April, using a procedural dodge, a bitterly divided Supreme Court further heartened the movement by upholding Arizona’s law providing tax credits for contributions to “school tuition organizations”—scholarship funds for private and religious schools. . . .

NJ Public School costs didn't count huge range of important costs

Do payments to teacher pensions and Social Security taxes count as part of the cost of running public schools in New Jersey? You would think so, but up until this week they weren't counted. How about school facilities and equipment costs? Or how about expenditures to send the student to public school in another school district outside of the one that they live in? Or the payment of debts by either the school district or the state? Is this even a serious question? If you pay for schooling costs immediately it is a cost but if you borrow the money, there is no cost to running the school?

The Christie administration has recalculated the amount it says New Jersey public school districts spend per pupil, increasing the state average rate by several thousand dollars to more than $17,800.

The figure, from the 2009-10 school year, has been adjusted to include costs such as transportation, federal funding, debt payments and legal judgments that can vary greatly from district to district. In the 2008-09 school year, using the previous calculation, the state average was $13,200 per student.

The Christie administration says the new figure is more transparent and complete. . . .

Teacher Unions fighting having competition between schools

This is an extremely biased article, but it shows how insane that public teachers get about any discussion about competition between schools for students.

Protestors from Philadelphia, Bucks County and Harrisburg made their way to Washington, D.C., this morning to protest at an education-related conference where Gov. Corbett was scheduled to speak.
About 200 demonstrators gathered shortly before noon outside the Washington Marriott Hotel, chanting "Save Our Schools," and holding signs, such as "Vouchers Aren't the Answer." . . .
Corbett's budget "is a sure-fire way to send the city back into more poverty," said former city middle school teacher, Lisa Haver, 55.
"Education is a human right, and this is an assault on public education," said Azeem Hill, 17, a student at West Philadelphia High.
Senate Bill 1, expected to come up for a vote soon, would "strip money from public schools," diverting hundreds of millions of dollars away from already hard-hit districts statewide, said Marc Stier, head of Penn Action, the group behind the protest.
Parent Tim Brown, waiting for the bus to D.C., said he saw vouchers as "cynical maneuvering" by "right-wing billionaires," who want to privatize all education in America.
"If they're complaining there's a budget problem, why are they turning around and subsidizing private schools?" he asked. . . .

Where is the consistency in the NAACP strongly opposing school choice but then taking this legal case?

The NAACP "vigorously opposed" the pilot voucher program for DC. Fighting against it as recently as this past March. The NAACP has condemned Charter Schools. Now the NAACP is taking what could best be called a school choice case. The only difference that I can see to vouchers is that this case involves government schools. I can't really see the difference with charter schools. The problem is that the NAACP will never see the logic here.

Tanya McDowell, 33, was arrested April 15 and charged with first degree grand larceny for allegedly stealing $15,686 in educational services from Norwalk Public Schools. Her 6-year-old son was enrolled in Brookside Elementary School in Norwalk, Conn., from September of last year until January of this year.

"The NAACP doesn't like that they're trying to attack somebody whose poor and doesn't have a good support system," said Scot X. Esdaile, president of the Connecticut State Conference of the NAACP. "This is discrimination."

McDowell claims that she's homeless and was floating between a homeless shelter, a friend's apartment in Norwalk and a home in Bridgeport when she registered her son for school. McDowell registered her son under her babysitter's address in Norwalk. McDowell told The Daily Norwalk that she simply wanted the best education for her son. . . .

Authorities were alerted to the alleged illegal enrollment when McDowell testified at an eviction hearing for her babysitter, Ana Rebecca Marquez, in January.

"This particular tenant, Ms. Marquez, was accused of allowing Ms. McDowell and her son to live with her," said Donna Lattarulo, an attorney for the Norwalk Housing Authority. "During that hearing, Ms. McDowell testified under oath that she did not reside at the premises where Ms. Marquez lived, but she resided in Bridgeport... She never testified that she was homeless."

Lattarulo said that she told the Norwalk Prosecutor's Office about Marquez's testimony, but did not file a criminal complaint. Officials from Norwalk Public Schools said that they did not initiate the eviction hearing or file a criminal complaint against McDowell. . . .

"We think that this is a major case of abuse of power by the mayor. We just found out that his daughter is head prosecutor in the case. There's also some foul play with police officers in town of Norwalk," said Esdaile from the NAACP. . .

.

My son Roger tries to explain some basic economics to Dartmouth students

Roger's latest piece for the Dartmouth school paper is available here. To me the points seem obvious: 1) the large aid programs impact incentives to save and 2) the subsidies are going to the future well to do (even if students come from currently poor families). It starts this way:

Thanks to Dartmouth’s outstanding financial aid program, my family and I pay only a small fraction of the College’s sticker price. While I’m grateful to have been handed the world’s finest undergraduate opportunities at so little personal cost, it’s unsettling to realize that in one year I’m sponging tens of thousands of dollars of other people’s money. As much as I like Dartmouth, I can’t say I value being here enough to justify the massive burden the College is bearing on my behalf. It may be time to make selfish free-riders like myself assume more financial responsibility for their educations.

Dramatic increases in grant-based financial aid have led to widening disparity in the prices students pay to attend Dartmouth. The growth in spending on need-based undergraduate scholarships from about $30 million in 2000-2001 to a projected $80 million in 2011-2012 has led to greater assistance for some, but has presumably contributed to the simultaneous rise in cost of attendance from $33,210 to $55,365. As noble as it is to want to help those with less, the College wouldn’t need to charge students from wealthier backgrounds so exorbitantly if others had to carry more of their own weight.

Those who pay full price have valid reason for resentment. . . .