May 7, 2016 at 9:25 am #197
Post your link on public education here. One link per post, please.
Many are surprised to learn that compulsory education is not a part of the original vision of the founding fathers. True, there were some that saw benefit in public education, but the public as a whole felt it was a parental responsibility to educate their children. Despite the absence of public schools, in the mid 19th century, before public schools had become commonplace, an estimated 90% of all whites were literate and able to perform at least basic math. Children were learning information tailored to their specific needs (or the family’s, in many cases) and entering the workforce with little to no debt.
Massachusetts passed the first compulsory education law in 1852. Horace Mann, Massachusetts Secretary of Education, championed a statewide system for preparing professional teachers and compulsory school attendance laws. By 1900, 34 states had compulsory school attendance laws.
The early 20th century saw the beginnings of federal funding for public education, starting with the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 that promoted vocational schools. In 1944, the GI Bill was passed, providing post secondary education assistance to GIs returning from World War II. The National Defense Education Act was passed in 1958 in response to Soviet launch of Sputnik. NDEA included support for loans to college students in science, mathematics and foreign languages.
Finally, in 1980, President Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education cabinet level agency, solidifying the federal government’s role in public education. No longer were states and local governments in complete control of their educational funding. The US government could reward or punish local governments based on criteria it deemed necessary.
Since that time, education spending has skyrocketed. Unfortunately, studies have shown little to no correlation between spending and student achievement. Per student spending has practically doubled since 1980, yet metrics are largely flat. Even in current dollars, there seems to be no correlation between spending and results when comparing various metrics between states. New York spends the most per student, yet ranks 40th in graduation rates.
As if the government’s role in public education weren’t causing enough problems, for the past several years, government backed student loans have increased dramatically. Since the early 1990s, the average debt a college graduate incurs has more than doubled to nearly $35,000. The vast majority of those college loans are insured by and directly loaned by the federal government. Making matters worse, studies have been conducted to analyze the effects of the increasing availability of federal aid to undergraduates between 2008 and 2010. Some conclude the institutions that were most exposed to the increases “experienced disproportionate tuition increases.” By some calculations, there is about a 65 percent pass-through effect on federal student loans. In other words, for every $3 increase in such loans, colleges and universities raise tuition by $2.
If we are to correct the problems of our educational system, we must be willing to have an honest discussion about the results of past government interventions, rather than the intentions of more government programs going forward.May 7, 2016 at 9:30 am #200
Why the Government is to Blame for High College Costs.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/11/23/why-the-government-is-to-blame-for-high-college-costsMay 14, 2016 at 2:52 pm #341
Throwing Money at Education Isn’t Working
Report by State Budget Solutions, a Sunshine Review Project
Author: Kristen De Peña
“Each year, the United States spends billions of dollars on education. In 2010, total annual federal spending on education exceeded $809 billion dollars. That is amount is higher than any other industrialized nation, and more than the spending of France, Germany, Japan, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia combinediii. From 1970 to 2012, total average per pupil expenditures in the United States more than doubled.iv Between 1984 and 2004, real expenditures per pupil increased by 49 percent, mimicked by federal and state spending, which increased 138 percent since 1985. At the state level, K-12 education currently accounts for nearly a third of total state spending annually.
Despite higher levels of funding, student test scores are substantially lower in the United States than in many other nations. On math tests, American students scored an average of 474 on a 600-point scale, performing only slightly better in science, with an average score of 489. By comparison, Canadian students scored an average of 527 and 534 on the same
tests, and Finnish students scored 548 and 563, respectively.v Elevated education funding still produced mediocre performance measures, both internationally and domestically, in comparison to previous performance rates commensurate
with less funding.”May 29, 2016 at 5:53 pm #385
The Failure of American Public Education
Government is wholly unsuited to teach America’s students
by John Hood
“The history of public education reform is a story in which these groups—sometimes in concert and sometimes in opposition to professional educators with their own designs—jockey for position to make their indelible mark on the school policies of the day. Reform efforts have reappeared regularly; in the 1940s, the watchword was “life adjustment education.” Educators, worried about a growing dropout rate and the seemingly frantic pace of post-War technological innovations, sought to help students adjust to a changing world. One example of a class introduced in public schools during this period was entitled “Basic Urges, Wants, and Needs and Making Friends and Keeping Them.” That’s the 1940s, not the 1960s.
This “promising” development fell victim to the education scare that began when the Soviet Union put its Sputnik satellite into space in 1957. The focus shifted back toward learning basic subjects, though in new and sometimes misguided ways. A flurry of activity followed the Sputnik scare, exemplified by such innovations as new math, open classrooms, programmed instruction, and ungraded schools (which are now making a comeback). During the 1960s, these ideas began to filter throughout the American public education system (all the more susceptible to fads and trends because of its increasingly centralized nature). Some of these notions worked in particular schools, while failing dismally in others—another common result of school reforms generally. In the 1970s, some new ideas were added to this increasingly unwieldy mix, such as the behavioralism craze, whole-language reading instruction, mastery learning, and the spread of standardized testing of both students and teachers.
Finally, during the 1980s the school reform bandwagon got a new set of tires and a fresh coat of paint. Following the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983, governors instituted all sorts of teacher training and testing programs, curriculum changes, and higher performance standards for students. At the same time, states dramatically increased spending on all facets of public education. And President Ronald Reagan, promising to eliminate the U.S. Education Department during his campaign, actually helped administer a significant outflow of new federal money for public education, mostly directed toward specific programs for needy or minority students.”May 29, 2016 at 5:55 pm #386
The History Of Federal Government In Public Education: Where Have We Been And How Did We Get Here?
A list of education-related laws passed throughout US hsitory.
http://lwv.org/content/history-federal-government-public-education-where-have-we-been-and-how-did-we-get-hereMay 29, 2016 at 5:56 pm #387
Decades of Increased State Spending on Public Education Yield Scant Results
by Bob Williams
“Despite pumping billions of dollars into public schools for more than 40 years, the most recent data show a public education system that cannot turn money alone into positive results.
Even after a decade of “No Child Left Behind” initiatives and a recent surge of more than $80 billion in federal stimulus since 2009 intended to lift student performance quickly, there is no significant gain.
A study by State Budget Solutions comparing state spending on education, standardized test scores and graduation rates shows both performance measures prove there was little aggregate cumulative improvement in America’s public school system when it comes to teaching our young.”May 29, 2016 at 6:01 pm #388
Surprise, Surprise: Higher Education Spending Doesn’t Correlate With Better Academic Performance, But Low Teen Pregnancy Does
by James Marshall Crotty
“Alas, while education spending in Sarah Palin’s home state of Alaska is the third highest in the land, Alaska ranked 49th in the rate of high school graduation and a dismal 34th in 8th grade reading. Moreover, California, our nation’s most populous state — and home to a rash of Edtech startups — ranked a ridiculous 47th in 8th grade math, 46th in reading, and 42nd in writing. One is tempted to shout, “If Google GOOG +1.15%, Facebook, Netflix NFLX +0.44% and Apple AAPL -0.06% really want to do good in their home state, they would wisely invest the billions on their balanced sheets in reversing these stats.” Unfortunately, if the B.E.D. infographic shows anything, it’s that money alone will not solve academic underachievement.
There are glimmers of hope. The Dakotas, for instance, seem to be getting the biggest bang for their education buck. North Dakota scored 1st in 8th grade math and science, 2nd in reading, and 4th in writing, even though the Roughrider State ranks 18th in education spending. Meanwhile, South Dakota scored 3rd in 8th grade math, 5th in 8th grade reading, and 2nd in 8th grade science, while ranking 41st in education spending. Besides impressive frugality, the common denominator between the two Dakotas is a low student-to-teacher ratio (North Dakota ranks first, South Dakota ranks eleventh).”May 29, 2016 at 6:03 pm #389
Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement?
By Dan Lips, Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. and John Fleming
“Given the significant increase in resources allocated to public Education, policymakers should consider whether government spending increases have led to improved student outcomes. This will help to determine whether future increases in education spending can be expected to yield tangible improvements for students.
A basic comparison of long-term spending trends with long-term measures of student academic achievement challenges the belief that spending is correlated with achievement. Chart 4 compares real per-pupil expenditures with American students test scores on the long-term National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading examination from 1970 to 2004. While spending per pupil has more than doubled, reading scores have remained relatively flat.”May 29, 2016 at 6:04 pm #390
Government Loans Make College More Expensive, Worsen Income Inequality
The best of intentions has made a mess of higher ed
by George C. Leef
“Authors David Lucca, Taylor Nadauld, and Karen Shen employed sophisticated statistical techniques to analyze the effects of the increasing availability of federal aid to undergraduates between 2008 and 2010. They conclude the institutions that were most exposed to the increases “experienced disproportionate tuition increases.”
By the authors’ calculation, there is about a 65 percent pass-through effect on federal student loans. In other words, for every $3 increase in such loans, colleges and universities raise tuition by $2.
It is very good to have a study by so unimpeachable a source as the New York Fed supporting the conclusion that quite a few others have reached over the years: Increasing student aid to make college “more affordable” is something of an impossibility. The more “generous” the government becomes with grants and loans, the more schools raise their rates.
Other studies have reached the same conclusion.”May 29, 2016 at 6:06 pm #391
How The Higher Education Industry Is Using Student Loans To Get Rich
“In the United States most of the cost of higher education is covered by students and their families, at least ostensibly. Much of the cost is financed through borrowing, and the share of this portion has been rising, particularly since the start of the 2007 recession. As we can see in charts 1 and 2 below, the share of students who borrow and the average balance have both been climbing steadily over the course of the past decade at rates much higher than inflation.
Chart 3 below gives us a simple view of the composition of student debt currently outstanding. The vast majority of these loans have been either insured by or issued directly by the federal government. “Federal” student loans outstanding had topped $1 trillion, 83% of all student debt, and another $200 billion in “private” student loans is also outstanding—these loans are not subsidized by the government.”August 5, 2016 at 7:45 am #439
The Student Debt Crisis Is the Predictable Consequence of Subsidies
by Daniel J. Mitchell
(Includes a Fox Business video interview with Dan Mitchell)
“Between 1975 and 2015, the real cost of attending a private college increased by 171 percent while the real cost of public universities rose by 150 percent. If the tuition, room and board, and other fees at a four-year private college in 1975 were projected forward to 2015, adjusting for the average inflation rate, the cost of college in 2015 would have been $16,213. Instead, the actual cost in 2015 was $43,921. A large share of rising college costs can be attributed to expanded administration, new non-educational services, athletic programs, and government regulation. Colleges have economized by switching to part-time adjunct faculty. The American Association of University Professors estimates that roughly 3 out of 4 college courses are taught by adjuncts.”August 5, 2016 at 10:10 am #440
FEE.org’s video on the student loan crisis.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.