Higher education is broken

Nevada System of Higher Education Regent Michael Wixom says "higher education is not broken" in protest to the Governor's state of the state address. Governor Sandoval is calling for a 7 percent cut in state appropriations to NSHE (17 percent if you include the fact that NSHE will not be receiving the Federal ARRA stimulus again).

Wixom argues "Certainly we have tough budget choices to make — but such policy discussions should begin with a correct statement of the facts." The problem is, he preceded this statement with less than honest facts about higher education in Nevada.

As Governor Sandoval stated, Nevada's higher education graduation rates are bad - in fact, embarrassingly poor. UNR's 8 year graduation rate is 54 percent - hardly stunning success. UNLV can't even get half their students to graduate on the Van Wilder plan.

UNLV Graduation Rates. Source: IPEDS 

First, lets understand what graduation rates are. Graduation rates typically look at a cohort of full-time, first-year students and track their progress over a period of 4, 6 and 8 years. Returning adult students and part-time students are excluded. Low-graduation rates occur at universities with high drop out rates, transfer out rates, and failing rates (though even the "tough" Ivy League schools have very high graduation rates).

UNR Graduation Rates. Source: IPEDS

Wixom seems to think it is unfair to count students who transfer out of the universities as part of the graduation rate. This is a silly complaint. When a student transfers they are signaling to the university that they can get a better education elsewhere or that the quality of the education is not worth the price.

Schools with lots of students leaving (ie transferring) are generally of low-quality. It makes no sense to exclude students transferring out - unless you want to obfuscate the truth.

Next, Wixom seems to think the budget cuts are entirely unfair. NSHE officials (most, but not all) don't seem to remember the massive budget increases they've seen in the last two decades.

Dr. Jay Greene of the University of Arkansas found that between 1993 and 2007, UNLV increased total spending by 140 percent (inflation adjusted) and UNR increased total spending by 69 percent. Adjusting for enrollment growth, UNLV had 59 percent more dollars and UNR had 21 percent more dollars per pupil in 2007 than in 1993 (and yes, that is adjusted for inflation too).

The growth had been so great, in fact, that the Delta Cost Project report "Trends in College Spending" ranked Nevada's system of higher education 15th best funded per-pupil in the nation (I do note that the bulk of this per-pupil money goes to UNR).

So what did UNLV and UNR do with all that money besides watch profoundly poor graduation rates continue to stagnate?

A: the schools built palatial buildings, expanded amenities for students, and hired legions of administrators. In fact, both UNR and UNLV grew their administrators (highly paid-non educators) faster than the student body. UNLV employs 1 adult for every 8 or 9 students while UNR employs one adult for every 5 students. They are certainly less bloated than many other universities, but they are considerably more bloated today than in 1993.

Greenspun Hall - funded partially by private donations and public money
- cost $780 per square foot

Don't forget, despite the budget cuts, UNLV is also talking about building a new domed football stadium.

Along similar lines, UNLV College Republican President and Founder of Right Pride, Mark Ciavola,  found that as the universities were whipping students into a frenzy about budget cuts they were also spending $240,000 to put on a concert.

Next, Wixom states that in order to make up for the budget cuts NSHE will have to raise tuition has high as 70 percent.

First, that amount is about the same as tuition increase students have already felt in the last decade. See UNLV and UNR's price increases between 2000 and 2010:

Source: IPEDS

But second, why does NSHE think they even deserve to have all that money? Not only has Nevada's economy taken a pounding - 15 percent unemployment - but despite 2 very large record setting tax increases in a decade, the state and NSHE have not shown any ability to spend the resources in ways that positively impact students. In other words, they aren't deserving of the money.

Finally, as I've shown in a previous blog, higher education doesn't necessarily result in greater economic development. States with top 100 universities according to U.S. News and World Report averaged negative migration rates and have significantly higher unemployment rates than states without such top universities.

Higher education is expensive and because they use resources inefficiently (building student amenities and expanding administrative force) they are ineffective at their main function - education and research. In other words, higher education is currently a BAD INVESTMENT. Nevada may actually wreck or retard economic recover by taking tax dollars away from productive sectors of the economy to spend on public sectors that have shown an unwillingness to actually serve their customers (employees and rent-seeking special interest groups ARE NOT customers).

Administrators at Penn State did not consider China to be worthy of "international" status,
thus complicating my ability to graduate within 4 years

Final note, NSHE's poor performance also stems from the fact that they admit students who aren't ready for college - this means they share some of the blame with K-12 education. Taking a look at complicated graduation requirements could also help.

For example in my undergraduate days, Penn State required me to take x credits in "international competence" and x credits in "multicultural competence" then had illogical definitions for what classes counted for what. For example, my "History of Modern China" class did not count toward international competency, but the "History of Gay and Lesbians" could cover both my international and multicultural competency courses. Not only was this silly and illogical, it made graduating on-time that much more difficult (I managed to walk away with 2 degrees on-time by fighting the silliness).

Andrew Coulson on education tax-credits

Coulson argues that tax-credits have certain advantages over vouchers:

1) more likely to be constitutional in states like Nevada with a Blaine Amendment
2) less likely to increase government regulations over private schools (which is already a problem in Nevada where private schools have max teacher-pupil ratios and minimum square foot per child regulations).

UNLV's lost priorities

On Monday night Governor Sandoval announced a 7 percent cut in state appropriations to higher education (17 percent if you include the fact they won't be filling in the lost federal subsidy, which itself filled in much of the cuts made in 2009).

Previously, President Smatresk of UNLV ran around the state announcing over-inflated budget cuts by ignoring the fact that he had accepted and spent the federal stimulus. He did so, on the ground that the federal stimulus was a one-time spending measure that wouldn't be repeated. In other words, he knew a real budget cut was coming.

But having ingrained this larger fictional budget cut number in our collective public heads, Smatresk and other higher-ed officials will be touting the bigger 17 percent figure (of which, they already included in their previous complaints). By being logically inconsistent with how they discuss budget cuts, university officials are encouraging the public to imagine bigger cuts than really exist.

And this annoys me.

But what annoys me more is the that after constant complaining about budget cuts and agitating students about tuition and fee increases and threatening to close classes, the university officials plan on building a new dome football stadium on campus.

What?

Let's put this in some perspective:

Between 1993 and 2007 UNLV cut instructor faculty while increasing the number of administrators faster than the student population growth!!!

And don't forget that UNLV had increased tuition and fees 74 percent (after adjusting for inflation) over the last decade (however, according to the U.S. Department of Education, credit-hour costs are up 92 percent and fees are up 771 percent over that same period).

Finally, don't forget that students are protesting budget cuts not just because it will result in higher tuition and fees, but students believe budget cuts will also mean fewer class offerings which, in turn, will result in more difficulty obtaining an undergraduate degree on time - of which only 12 percent of UNLV's full-time students are even able to accomplish anyway!

Have the UNLV officials ever heard of priorities?

Bueller? Bueller?

School Choice with Dr. Ladner

My good buddy and mentor Dr. Mathew Ladner talks about school choice and vouchers.

State of the State

Governor Brian Sandoval addressed the state legislature with the State of the State address on Monday night.

Among the pressing issues was how to deal with the state's budget shortfall. Current expenditures for the general fund stand at $6.2 billion with revenues expected at $5.3 billion. State agencies have requested $8.3 billion.

Governor Sandoval plans on closing the budget gap first by rethinking how we formulate our state budget. Instead of assuming current spending was all well spent and then tacking on inflation and other roll-up costs, governor Sandoval wants the state to examine the priorities and fund what works. He also wants the state to live within its means.

All in all, a great way to run a state.

K-12 education it looks like will have a 9 percent cut  (assuming I heard him correctly) and higher education will have a 17 percent cut (technically 7 percent because Klaich et al. have already added in the loss of the one-time federal stimulus during previous attempts to complain about budget cuts - note the media will completely miss this).

Neither of those cuts are all that big...all things considered. Clark County School District, for example has seen a decline of just 1 percent in its general operating budget per-pupil since 2007. Meanwhile, UNR saw an 11 percent decline and UNLV saw a 9 percent decline over that same period.

To put that in perspective gaming wins in Nevada declined over 21 percent over the same period. Unemployment has also more than doubled, rising to 14.3 percent. Higher education, by comparison, has reduced its staff by mere 5.5 percent and most of those job cuts were buyouts and retirees with sizable pensions.

In other words, public education has been relatively protected from the harsh blows of Nevada's severe economic downturn. They will face real cuts now, but even still these aren't the death blows that some have caterwauled about.

Higher education will be allowed to fill in lost revenue by raising tuition while K-12 education will see budget cuts mitigated by sweeping unused bond revenue $425 million and not using the 2009 room tax increase ($220 million) to increase teacher pay. (Now the real question is whether or not the 5 percent pay cut for teachers is really a pay cut or just the elimination of the promised pay increase).

Governor Sandoval has done a fine job in taking care of a scary budget shortfall. Yes, we can have a responsible state budget without a tax increase. Sandoval proved just that. Now the legislature just has to approve the budget - if they find the stones to stand up to the special interest groups that stand to lose out on $2 billion of taxpayer dollars (which by the way, doesn't exist in this weak economy). The governor's budget appears to be $5.8 billion - about the same size budget Nevada had before the economic crash.

For education reform Governor Sandoval called for more charter schools, reforming the Department of Education, ending social promoting, eliminating teacher tenure, eliminating seniority protections, grading schools A-F, evaluating teachers and principals on student value-added data and creating school vouchers.

The Governor was solid, in my opinion, on the budget and K-12 education, though I disagree on green energy subsidies and a call for high speed rail to California.

That is politics though.

Alright, time to get the horse trading started.


NOTE: The state's general fund is less than one half of all state spending. General fund appropriations to K-12 education and higher education make up just 1/4th of their budgets. 

Dr. Jay Greene on School Choice

Joel Klein on school choice

NJ one step closer to tuition scholarships

Governor Christie, an education reform heavyweight champion, is on pace to win a KO against "Big Union" and the "Status Quo" in New Jersey.

Tuition scholarships offering children in failing school the opportunity to escape and attend private schools pushed one step closer to reality when it passed the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee 8-5 (with some Democrats voting Yay). The bill heads to the full senate and then to the assembly.

If (or when) it passes through the legislature, corporations in New Jersey will  receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit when they donate to non-profit scholarship organizations. Better yet, children stuck in failing schools will get a scholarship to escape and attend a school of choice school and yes that includes private schools.

Governor Sandoval wants to create a voucher initiative and let the voters decide, but that could take anywhere between four and six years - assuming he beats the influential, highly organized, extremely wealthy and self-interested unions in two elections. Dr. Ladner tells me Governor Sandoval is "punting on first down."

Nevada's governor should make an issue out of this - push for it in the state legislature, make the Democrats and Republicans discuss the merits and hammer our any potential disagreement. Yes, hammer this issue - each year it becomes a bigger and bigger wedge issue with Democrats who find themselves stuck between with the wealthy unions who fund their campaigns and angry parents back home who vote for them.

More importantly, every year we wait is another year children sit in failing schools. There is no time to lose.

Question: Would tuition tax credits be constitutional in Nevada?
Answer: YES! says the legal team at the Institute for Justice

Edited for prematurely celebrating the arrival of another fantastic school choice program.  Still excited that it passed through step one with bipartisan support.

Disrupt the monopoly

Former governor Jeb Bush, along with others, proposes using technology to fundamentally change the way we think about public education.

So how will this work?

Glad you asked.

For many years (centuries really) the private sector has substituted labor with capital (labor saving machines). These machines - like the cotton gin, steam engine, robotics, computers - have made humans more and more productive. The more productive we become, the more we can produce at a lower cost (even while earning higher incomes). It is an amazing feature of economics that has persisted for centuries.

Unfortunately, thanks to monopoly power the transformative effects of technological innovation are ignored by government.

Instead of using technology to improve workplace productivity, government agencies use technology is used simply to increase costs so the revenue for next year is greater than or equal to this years revenue. The result is that government agencies require more and more labor (and thus more money) to do the same job - just look at K-12 or higher education.

Because public education is so slow at properly adopting innovative technology, the chalkboard still remains the greatest technological advancement of American public education

Properly using technology in the classroom can reduce the need for more teachers by making existing teachers more effective. Computer programs are already capable of teaching students, testing and grading the students work. Teachers could then use their free-time to group students based on ability and provide them small group instruction that caters to their individual needs.

Better education at a lower cost.

Oversold on higher education

I was listening to Steve Wark in the Morning...this morning, and Mr. Wark's guest (UNLV employee and secretary of AFSCME Local 44) argued that we need to invest more in higher education to create a better educated workforce so the state can attract better, high paying jobs. This is an argument we've heard before and it is wrong.

I looked up the top public and private universities as ranked by U.S. News and World Report and compared the states with top universities with their own net migration rates between 2000-2008 (net migration is the combination of people moving in and out of a state).

The median net migration rate for a state with a top 100 university was -5,700 while the median net migration rate for a state outside the top 100 was 15,000 between 2000 and 2008.  The combined net migration for the Ivy League states was -2.5 million over that same period. If the states with the elite Ivy League universities are bleeding residents is there really any hope for Nevada?

Nevada, with its best university considered Tier 3, saw a net migration of 378,000 - larger than the combined net migration of all 32 states (and DC) with a top 100 university.

Finally, I conducted a quick regression analysis by assigning a score of 1 for states with a top university and 0 for a state without a top 100 university and compared this with the states net migration rate. I found the relationship to be extremely weak, likely to occur at random but also negative. Basically, having a top university had no impact on net migrations over this period. In other words, people weren't moving to states because of their university system.

If you were wondering why net migration matters, it is simple: people vote with their feet. Americans are moving to where the jobs are or where they believe they can have a better life. It will be interesting to see the net migration data for 2009 and 2010 (Nevada has lost a lot of people over these last two years) but I doubt the overall results much will change.

Just to be sure, I also double checked the Top 100 universities against unemployment rates for 2009 (available on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website - 2010 data will be available March 2011). States with a top 100 university averaged an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent while the states without a top 100 university averaged 7.3 percent. A regression analysis shows that this relationship was statistically significant but still weak (only explaining about 7 percent of the variance). In other words, there is a small correlation between having a high ranked university and a higher unemployment rate.

The fact is this, investing more in higher education does NOT guarantee that Nevada will attract better jobs. It doesn't even guarantee that we will graduate better educated adults...especially since Nevada's university system already ranks 15th best in funding per-pupil.

Students First

Former DC school chancellor Michelle Rhee has a new education reform organization called Students First. Rhee, like her new organization isn't pulling any punches - they are going after everything that is broken with the public school system.

Student's First has three basic agenda items:

1) Evaluate teachers and principals using student testing data (and get rid of ineffective teachers and principals)
2) Empower parents with real choices and arm them with real meaningful information
3) Spend tax dollars wisely to maximize impact on student achievement (stop funding what doesn't work)

The full agenda is more detailed than this of course. You can read the full policy agenda report here.

If you don't have enough time to read (or can't sit still for longer than fifteen minutes), then enjoy this three minute clip from Oprah.

Education Savings Accounts for Nevada

Sued by the ACLU, Arizona parents recently lost the right to CHOOSE to send their special needs children to private schools. Interestingly, education bureaucrats are allowed (and required by Federal Law) to send special needs children to private schools if they cannot provide an adequate education.

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that because parents didn't have a choice on how to spend the money the voucher plan must be unconstitutional. The court reasoned that if parents took the money they could only spend it at a private school, which could be a sectarian private school, thus it violated the state's Blaine Amendment (secular education amendment that swept the nation in the 1800s on a wave of xenophobia and anti Catholic bigotry). Nevada has one too.

Born out of this defeat, however, was a very bright idea. Dr. Mathew Ladner and Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute came up with the idea of Education Savings Accounts. Under their plan, if parents were unsatisfied with public schooling they could be given the per-pupil funds that would have been allocated to their local school. The money would be deposited in a private account and used to pay tuition, books and supplies, tutoring or even saved and invested in a 529 plan (college saving account).

The idea brilliantly navigates the Arizona Supreme Court ruling which found vouchers unconstitutional because parents had only one choice - spend the money at a private school. Now you can spend the money on private tutors or even invest in your child's future while also paying private school tuition. Choices!

Yesterday, on Steve Wark in the Morning, I proposed not just Goldwater style Education Savings Accounts (which have also been picked up with excitement by Florida Governor Rick Scott) but a small change that would allow public schools to compete for the money. Regardless of parental satisfaction, parents are given the basic support per pupil for their district. They can choose how to spend the money - public school, private school, private tutoring, school supplies and or college savings.

It is up to the parent how to spend the money and it is up to the various options to compete for that money. If Nevada's public schools were more autonomous from their central office masters they could engage in agency thrift, lower cost and do the job for less allowing parents to invest the remaining money in a 529 account or pay for private tutoring.

For example, even though Clark County schools are guaranteed about $5,000 per pupil from the Basic Support, schools may figure out how to do the job for $4,000.* This would leave parents with $1,000 in their account which could be used for school supplies, private tutoring, or saved and invested to pay for college tuition.

This is an exciting school choice option. Governor Sandoval should pick it up and run with it. Not only will it create real meaningful school choice, competition and encourage thrift (thanks opportunity costs!), but the Education Savings Account plan is very likely to pass constitutional muster in Nevada. Read more about it here on the National Review Online.


*Note: the basic support per pupil does not constitute all funds available for public schools. The basic support per pupil makes up only a portion of general fund revenue for each school district. General fund revenue, in turn, makes up only a portion of total revenue for the district. For example, while the basic support per pupil in Nevada is around $5,200 the average general fund spending is around $8,000 and total spending is around $11,000 to $12,000 per pupil. Additionally, public schools will have more dollars to spread around among fewer students for each student that defects to a private school.

Optical illusion

Which way is she spinning? I saw her spinning counter-clockwise, but if I look away from the picture and look back she can be spinning clockwise.

More on this optical illusion here - and no, it has nothing to do with left-brain vs right-brain as you may have seen in your chain emails.

The Illinois Blues

In what must be a collective political and economic suicide attempt, the Illinois state legislature has voted to increase the state's income tax by a massive, whopping,  titanic 67 percent. If you live in Illinois, the state will now keep 5 percent of everything you make (plus property taxes, fees, excise and sales taxes). The corporate income tax will also increase.

Interestingly, the vote was passed by the previous legislature just before the new legislature takes office (and many Democrats lose their seat). Governor Quinn (a Democrat) has already agreed to sign the massive tax increase.

If you were wondering, Illinois was one of the ten census losers - meaning, they lost a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives AND one very important electoral vote during Presidential elections. Raising the income tax won't help Illinois (who am I kidding, it will hurt them tremendously) or President Obama.

"You can go to hell, I'm going to Texas" - Many Americans thinking just like Davy Crockett (see, that is a thinking cap on his head) which is why Texas is growing fast while the high-tax blue states are losing jobs and taxpayers residents.

Guess which state had the biggest gain in the House? Texas with four brand new seats. Texas has no corporate or personal income tax and also spends less than Nevada per-pupil on higher education (how about that?). While it is true that Texas has a budget shortfall, it appears to be a mere 5 percent - most of which can be taken care of with the state's rainy day fund.

Turns out, controlling spending and using resources wisely (rather than spending money willy-nilly and raising taxes every time you "mysteriously" run out) matters.

Governor Mitch Daniels calls for education reform and school choice in Indiana

Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana is calling for education reform, education reform, and more education reform. He wants to grade public schools A-F, ensure the state's open enrollment policy uses a lottery system to avoid discrimination, promote more charter schools, reform collective bargaining so local schools have more autonomy and freedom from bureaucracy, and create scholarships so parents can afford tuition at private schools if they are not satisfied with their public school choices.

Read the full speech here. Read the relevant section on education reform below.

Advocates of change in education become accustomed to being misrepresented. If you challenge the fact that forty-two cents of the education dollar are somehow spent outside the classroom, you must not respect school boards. If you wonder why doubling spending didn’t produce any gains in student achievement, you must be criticizing teachers. If your heart breaks at the parade of young lives permanently handicapped by a school experience that leaves them unprepared for the world of work, you must be “anti-public schools.”

So let’s start by affirming once again that our call for major change in our system of education, like that of President Obama, his education secretary and so many others, is rooted in a love for our schools, those who run them and those who teach in them. But it is rooted most deeply in a love for the children whose very lives and futures depend on the quality of the learning they either do or do not acquire while in our schools. Nothing matters more than that. Nothing compares to that.

Some seek change in education on economic grounds, and they are right. To win and hold a family-supporting job, our kids will need to know much more than their parents did. I have seen the future competition, every time I go abroad in search of new jobs for our state, in the young people of Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China. Let me tell you—those kids are good. They ought to be. They are in school, not 180 days a year like here, but 210, 220, 230 days a year. By the end of high school, they have benefited from two or three years more education than Hoosier students. Along the way, they have taken harder classes. It won’t be easy to win jobs away from them.

It’s not just tomorrow’s jobs that are at stake. The quality of Indiana education matters right now. When we are courting a new business, right behind taxes, the cost of energy, reasonable regulation, and transportation facilities comes schools. “What kind of school will my children, and our workers’ children attend?” is a question we’re always asked. Sometimes, in some places, it costs us jobs today. There is no time to wait.

In 1999, Indiana passed a law that said schools must either improve their results or be taken over by new management. The little ones who entered first grade then, full of hope and promise, are eighteen now. In the worst of our districts, half of them will not be graduating. God bless and keep them, wherever they are and whatever life now holds for them. For those children, we waited too long.

And it's not just about the most failing of our schools. The last couple years have seen some encouraging advances, after years of stagnation. But the brute facts persist: only one in three of our children can pass the national math or reading exam. We trail far behind most states and even more foreign countries on measures like excellence in math: at the recent rate of improvement, it would take twenty-one years for us to catch Slovenia, and that’s if Slovenia stands still. That’s too long to wait. That's too many futures to lose.

In every discussion, someone says “This is very complicated.” Then someone says, “These changes won't be perfect,” and then you hear “The devil is in the details.” All true. But we can no longer let complexity be an excuse for inaction, nor imperfection the enemy of the good. When it comes to our children's future, the real devil is not in the details, he's in the delay, and 2011 is the year the delay must end.

We know what works. It starts with teacher quality. Teacher quality has been found to be twenty times more important than any other factor, including poverty, in determining which kids succeed. Class size, by comparison, is virtually meaningless. Put a great teacher in front of a large class, and you can expect good results. Put a poor teacher in front of a small class, do not expect the kids to learn. In those Asian countries I mentioned, classrooms of thirty-five students are common, and they‘re beating our socks off.

We won’t have done our duty here until every single Indiana youngster has a good teacher every single year. Today, 99 percent of Indiana teachers are rated “effective.” If that were true, 99 percent, not one-third, of our students would be passing those national tests.

Today’s teachers make more money not because their students learned more but just by living longer and putting another certificate on the wall. Their jobs are protected not by any record of great teaching but simply by seniority. We have seen “teachers of the year” laid off, just because they weren’t old enough. This must change. We have waited long enough.

Teachers should have tenure, but they should earn it by proving their ability to help kids learn. Our best teachers should be paid more, much more, and ineffective teachers should be helped to improve or asked to move. Today, the outstanding teacher, the Mr. Watson whose kids are pushed and led to do their best, is treated no better than the worst teacher in the school. That is wrong; for the sake of fairness and the sake of our children, it simply has to end. We have waited long enough.

We are beginning to hold our school leaders accountable for the only thing that really matters: Did the children grow? Did the children learn? Starting this year, schools will get their own grades, in a form we can all understand: ‘A’ to ‘F.’ There will be no more hiding behind jargon and gibberish.

But, in this new world of accountability, it is only fair to give our school leadership full flexibility to deliver the results we now expect. Already, I have ordered our Board of Education to peel away unnecessary requirements that consume time and money without really contributing to learning. We are asking this Assembly to repeal other mandates that, whatever their good intentions, ought to be left to local control. I am a supporter of organ donation, and cancer awareness, and preventing mosquito-borne disease, but if a local superintendent or school board thinks time spent on these mandated courses interferes with the teaching of math, or English, or science, it should be their right to eliminate them from a crowded school day.

And, while unions and collective bargaining are the right of those teachers who wish to engage in them, they go too far when they dictate the color of the teachers’ lounge, who can monitor recess, or on what days the principal is allowed to hold a staff meeting. We must free our school leaders from all the handcuffs that reduce their ability to meet the higher expectations we now have for student achievement.

Lastly, we must begin to honor the parents of Indiana. We must trust them, and respect them enough, to decide when, where, and how their children can receive the best education, and therefore the best chance in life.

Visiting with high school seniors, I discovered one new option we should be offering. A significant fraction of our students complete, or could complete, their graduation requirements in well under twelve years. We should say to these diligent young people, and their families, if you choose to finish in eleven years instead of twelve, we will give you the money we were going to spend while you cruised through twelfth grade, as long as you spend that money on some form of further education. In this year’s survey of high school students, three out of four said they would like to have that option. Let’s empower our kids to defray the high cost of education through their own hard work, by entrusting them with this new and innovative choice.

Another new kind of choice has come to Indiana parents the last couple years, as a byproduct of our property tax reductions. Families are now able to choose public schools outside the districts they reside in, tuition-free. Schools have begun advertising campaigns, touting their graduation rates and higher test scores. This competition is a highly positive development, as long as it is fair. I ask you to protect our families against any possibility of discrimination by requiring that any school with more applicants than room fill it through a lottery or other blind selection process.

Indiana has lagged sadly behind other states in providing the option of charter schools. We must have more of them, and they must no longer be unjustly penalized. They should receive their funding exactly when other public schools do. If they need space, and the local district owns vacant buildings it has no prospect of using, they should turn them over.

Widening parents’ options in these ways will enable the vast majority of children to attend the school of their choice. But one more step is necessary: For families who cannot find the right traditional public school, or the right charter public school for their child, and are not wealthy enough to move near one, justice requires that we help. We should let these families apply dollars that the state spends on their child to the non-government school of their choice.

In that gallery and outside sit the most important guests of the evening. They are children, and parents of children, who are waiting for a spot in a charter or private school. They believe their futures will be brighter if they can make that choice. Look at those faces. Will you be the one to tell the parents “tough luck”? Are you prepared to say to them “We know better than you do”? We won’t tell you where to buy your groceries or where to get your tires rotated, but we will tell you, no matter what you think, your child will attend that school, and only that school. We have the money to send our children where we think best, but if you don’t, well, too bad for you.

These children, and their parents, have waited long enough, for a better chance in life. And Indiana has waited long enough for the kind of educational results that a great state must achieve. I have spoken of the economic implications. But, at bottom, this is not about material matters. It is about the civil right, the human right, of every Indiana family to make decisions for its children. It's about the right of all Hoosier children to realize their full potential in life. Will you join me in saying, the waiting is over, change has come, and Indiana intends to lead it?

Higher (priced) education

 Don't cut our budget we have administrative bloat to pay for!

The Las Vegas Sun reports today that Governor Sandoval wants to let the universities increase tuition and fees (no word if he will fight to pop their bloat). The Las Vegas Sun, along with others, have argued that higher education in Nevada is underfunded. They point to (unsourced) data that says Nevada's per-capita spending on higher education ranks 46th in the nation.

This is misleading. Per-capita means "per person" in the entire state, not per pupil.  A large population relative to the number of college students can result in a very low per capita spending rate even if you spend a lot per-pupil.

When looking at actual per-pupil spending figures and adjusting for full-time equivalent Nevada ranks 15th in the nation according to the Delta Cost Project (see figure 13 on page 33) - which, btw, takes their data from the Federal IPEDS database, which in turn, comes directly from UNLV and UNR.

Spending more to achieve less in education

 One theory on how your tax dollars were spent on Nevada education

My latest column appears in Nevada News and Views today. Remember the Lied study from last month that called for more spending on K-12 and higher education? My article covers the missing facts - namely Nevada collects more in taxes and spends more money on education that several of the states the Lied Institute report suggests we copy.

Here is a little clip:

[A]ccording to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Education, Nevada’s total per-pupil spending on K-12 education is higher than that of Utah, Arizona and North Carolina. When excluding capital costs and debt repayment, Nevada’s per-pupil spending is still higher than Utah and Arizona and just $1 per child less than in North Carolina. Again, if these states are worth copying and spend less than we do, what are we doing with all that money?

If you are interested in learning more here are a few links with more details on the facts.

Brookings Institution - tax collection per-capita by state
U.S. Department of Education - per-pupil spending by state
Delta Cost Project - "Trends in College Spending" report

Why I...

The University of Arkansas is playing in the Sugar Bowl tonight against Ohio State (a school I loathe because they always beat Penn State) tonight. As it turns out, Dr. Jay P. Greene of the University of Arkansas invited me to apply to  his PhD program in Education Policy. As part of the application process, I'm required to write an essay about my experiences and why I want to earn a PhD in Education Policy.

I thoroughly enjoyed writing this essay and I think it turned out pretty well... so I'm sharing it with you here.

Application Essay

The sharp clattering ding of the school bell rang at 7:20 A.M signaling the start of another school day. While students in other classrooms took their seats, if at least reluctantly, I watched as an unruly group of hormonal teenagers commandeered a classroom for their own social experiments. Students yelled across the room, texted their friends, ate food – they did everything but notice a new teacher standing at the head of the classroom.

For over two weeks these students had been subjected to substitute after substitute teacher – no one had a background in history, the very subject these students were supposed to learn. The students ran this classroom; without even a teacher to pretend to teach, they didn’t even pretend to learn.

After wrangling some semblance of control our first lesson began: The Diet of Worms. “Where is Worms?” my blond haired, teenage agitator asked from the back of the classroom. I glanced at the map of the Holy Roman Empire and pointed to the city of Worms. The students finally had a teacher who knew history (and a little geography).

The students continued to test my knowledge (and patience) but soon it seemed like I was running a normal class. Six weeks into the semester my hair was already white (yes, white) in three places. Teachers near my classroom applauded me for the great job I was doing (they could no longer hear my students), but were my students actually learning?

I would never find out.

Despite a signed petition from my students and their parents, the school district was unable to offer an alternative teacher license because of strict certification rules in Virginia. Instead, the school district offered me a job in special education and hired a new teacher with a degree in education to run my former class.

My old students later told me they watched videos about medieval castles when they were supposed to be learning about the French Revolution. But that was the rule – certification, not competence, mattered. This was my first, but not last, experience with the nonsensical rules that govern American public education.

After earning a master’s degree and working in government affairs for the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs and Goldwater Institute, Dr. Mathew Ladner – vice-president of the Goldwater Institute - helped me earn a job as the education policy analyst for the Nevada Policy Research Institute; a non-profit research organization based out of Las Vegas, Nevada.

At first I was unsure if education policy was the right field for me. My previous interests were in international relations and military history, but as I gained an understanding of how dysfunctional America’s education system had become, I realized I chose a field where I could make a direct and positive impact on the futures of many people.

As an education analyst in a small state, I acquired an in-depth, behind-the-scenes understanding, through interviews of school principals, teachers, administrators and parents, of how public education works. More importantly, I witnessed how interest groups dedicated to the protection of the status quo skillfully manipulate the needs and concerns of many public education stakeholders.

Additionally, I learned about how financial waste and political skill, rather than the needs of the children, often dictate resource allocation. I saw bad teachers protected by tenure and younger – often good – teachers let go because of lower than expected tax revenues.

I witnessed a strong preference for palatial school buildings and the dexterous political ballet between district bureaucrats and special interest groups within local architecture and construction firms. I saw book sellers fight to protect a state mandated “minimum textbook purchasing” provision in state law.

School district administrators blatantly ignored or violated state laws they did not like while state bureaucrats cunningly interpreted statutes in order to neuter competition from public charter schools. Meanwhile, union leaders and other special interest groups protected the status quo by misleading the public about research on class size reduction, preschool education, charter schools and school vouchers.

I’ve seen a dismal high school graduation rate sink lower and lower and watched as NAEP scores for low-income and minority students in Nevada continue to stagnate at the bottom. I’ve watched as frustrated parents were thrown out of school board meetings when they became angry at the school board trustees unwillingness to listen and reform the failing schools.

I have seen years of failure despite millions of additional dollars spent on both K-12 and college education. Importantly, I’ve seen leaders with the institutions of education (at all levels) obfuscate budget figures and mislead the public with hyperbole about the impact of budget cuts. I have even seen Nevada’s institutions of education grow jobs for adults faster than the student population.

In the end, it seems, education policy became more about protecting jobs for adults than educating students. As a PhD candidate I want to discover more about what does and does not work. I would like to research and comprehend the best practices for hiring and training the most effective teachers and measuring teacher quality; how virtual education and blended learning can positively impact student achievement; and how competition and choice can improve school quality.

The University of Arkansas doctoral program affords a ground breaking opportunity to study and earn an advanced degree in education policy. The credentials of a PhD combined with dedicated time for research and association with education professionals provide the tools I'll need to contribute to much needed change for students in the American education system.

I believe your program will help solidify my research abilities and knowledge of education policies and norms, enabling me to become a more effective researcher, communicator, and facilitator of meaningful education reform. It is my hope that the skills I gain under your tutelage will generate a professional career to help improve the quality of K-12 education in public schools, charter schools, virtual schools, private schools and even in higher education.