Education Policy Brief Assignment

CHAPTER 10 KRAFT AND FURLONG

(PAGE 328) Chapter 10 Education Policy

Educated in debt. Reports in recent years show that about three-quarters of recent graduates finished school with a loan debt, and the average debt is now over $33,000. The photo illustrates how many students feel the weight of this debt.

(PAGE 329) In 2018, nearly forty-three million Americans held some form of student debt, with total loans approaching $1.5 trillion.1 Student debt has been in the news often over the past few years, particularly in accounts about how this debt affects individuals’ dreams and futures, both subjects of rising concern. In January 2014, the White House convened a higher education summit that included over one hundred college and university presidents and members of the administration to discuss the issue of increasing access to college for low-income students. During the summit, participants presented what their institutions were doing as a commitment to improving opportunities for poor students to access a higher education and develop themselves for a better future. Both President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama addressed the summit and shared their own stories regarding the importance of a college education. Ms. Obama stated, “Right now, we’re missing out on so much potential because so many promising young people simply don’t believe that college can be a reality for them.”2 There are many factors that may lead one to believe that college may not be a reality, particularly for a low-income student, but one of the more important factors must be the increasing cost of college. During his time in office, President Obama often raised concerns about the increasing cost of college times, and he attempted as well to use his bully pulpit to drive home this point and convince state governments to reverse the trend of decreasing public support for higher education and encourage colleges and universities to be more cognizant of the cost increases that so greatly affect their students. President Trump and his education secretary, Betsy DeVos, have also raised concerns about student debt and college costs, citing the rising cost of tuition and the push for four-year degrees when shorter technical training may be more effective for students’ future careers.3 State support for higher education is much lower than in the past, and among the reasons are the rising costs in other areas of state spending, such as Medicare and state prisons, and a desire to keep taxes low. These are seen as higher priorities than spending on public higher education. Public colleges and universities often are forced to make up for lost state dollars by increasing tuition, This, in turn, can lead to more borrowing by students to pay for their education.

Many high school students and their parents are well aware of the plethora of college ranking systems—perhaps the most well known being the assessment provided by U.S. News and World Report, although such rankings also are done by publications such as Forbes, the Princeton Review, and others. But how visible is one of the most important aspects of higher education: its cost? Colleges are ranked, of course, on everything from academic quality to prettiest campus to biggest party school, and there are multiple problems with measuring academic quality. Academic quality is difficult to define, and it is perhaps even more difficult to collect the appropriate data. Yet as concerns about the value of higher education have become more pronounced, policymakers have started paying more attention not only to these indicators but also to the importance of costs.4

The cost and value of higher education was a major theme in the 2016 presidential elections, particularly in the primary contests between Senator Bernie Sanders and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Each sought to offer a concrete plan to address rising student debt, a vivid sign that both understood well how much the issue affects younger voters. Others, such as recently elected congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have also spoken and campaigned on the idea of tuition-free college. Not only do these rising college costs affect students from low-income families who may not be able to afford a higher education, but they also can hamstring students with high levels of debt that (PAGE 330) they need to repay after graduation. Some questions remain as to what the federal government can really do to solve the problem. Terry Hartle, senior vice president for the American Council on Education, an organization that advocates for higher education, commented that “the federal government can ease the burden of tuition increases with financial aid, but there is no mechanism for it to force the states to maintain funding for highered.”5 On the other hand, Suzanne Mettler (2014) argues that while the states play an important role in keeping tuition down, there have been changes to the political and policy system at the federal level as well. These changes have shifted much federal higher education aid toward tax breaks and loan programs that have advantaged the rich and the lenders and have saddled students with an increasing amount of debt.

The issue of higher education cost is critical. Education has always been considered the great equalizer in the United States and an important aspect of its egalitarian and individualistic culture. A good education allows for social mobility and success, according to this perspective. If this access is decreased in the area of higher education—a level of education that more and more people believe is essential in our increasingly high-tech and changing world—then what happens to an individual’s ability to make ends meet and to the country’s ability to remain competitive in a global economy? Concerns about access to a quality education are also relevant for our students in the primary and secondary schools, but sometimes for different reasons

Education is one of the many public services that people take for granted. For some students, it provides the knowledge and skills that enable them to continue their studies in college. For many others, however, receiving a quality education is a difficult, if not impossible, task. Since the release of the federal report A Nation at Risk in 1983, there have been concerns about the quality of education in the United States. Although most people living in the United States are products of a public education system that has existed for almost as long as the nation itself, critics claim that the system is broken and that students are suffering from its inadequacies. Indeed, statistics suggest that U.S. students are not performing at the same levels as their counterparts in other countries. This chapter explores a number of different concerns associated with education in the United States at all levels including its quality, the costs of providing it, and the role of the federal and state governments in supporting it.

Background

Education, especially public education, fulfills many of the nation’s basic goals and has done so since the country’s founding. First, according to the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson, it provides an avenue to ensure the continuation of U.S. democracy (Mayo 1942). How can people be active, engaged participants in democratic processes if they lack the ability to read and understand the issues? Second, education helps to assimilate large numbers of immigrants. Finally, it is the primary mechanism for social mobility in the United States, as the educated are better able to secure jobs that raise their economic and social status. This goal fits nicely with the American ideal of upward mobility and rewarding those who work hard. An educated population has a better chance of being productive and taking care of itself. Such people are less likely to need government assistance.

(PAGE 331) Government took it upon itself to provide education for both moral and political reasons. Morally, education was seen as a way to help individuals and groups in the population understand the nation’s ideals and to give them a chance to better themselves. Politically, education not only informed people about the U.S. system of government but also imparted the nation’s political culture. In addition, it served the needs of certain political parties and helped those running for office to get elected. As we pointed out in chapter 1, public education also has been a response to market failure in that it is an example of a positive externality. Society benefits from a well-educated population, which justifies the government’s involvement and support. The reasons for providing public education that existed years ago are still relevant as government policymakers deal with education policy today.

Traditionally, public education has been in the hands of state and local government. Policymakers at these levels have guarded this responsibility throughout the years and raised concerns whenever the federal government has attempted to interfere in education policy, especially in primary and secondary schools. State governments have the major responsibilities in education policy with respect to curriculum, teacher training and certification, and—to a greater degree than before—funding public schools. And a great deal of education policy remains under local control. Schoolteachers employed by local government comprise the largest category of public workers. There are over thirteen thousand local school boards across the United States, all shaping education policy to some degree within their districts.6.

This is not to say that the federal government has been completely absent from public education, but its involvement is relatively recent, and growing. Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), its first major education legislation, in 1965. That law raised the amount of federal funding for primary and secondary education (N. Thomas 1975). According to the U.S. Department of Education, the federal government provided about 8 percent of all funding for levels K–12 in 2012–2013.7 Multiple agencies within the government are the sources for these funds, and they do not all come from ESEA.8 With federal funding came a variety of contentious issues, including whether the federal government could dictate what was taught and whether parochial schools should receive funding. ESEA also signaled the beginning of increased federal interest in public education. In fact, many elected officials and candidates for office from both political parties regard education as a high-priority issue and want to enact programs designed to improve it.

Historically, however, the federal government has demonstrated a greater interest in higher education than in primary or secondary education. Because education is associated with positive externalities, policymakers want to encourage individuals to attend college and to help defray the cost of doing so; in the end, the better-educated population stimulates economic growth. The national government also provides billions of dollars in research grants that cover nearly all disciplines to universities every year. These grants support basic research in the biomedical and other sciences through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Grants from the NSF and other agencies fund applied research in support of space exploration, national defense, and environmental protection, among other goals.

Among the early programs in support of higher education was the Morrill Act, approved in 1862. It helped to develop the nation’s land-grant (PAGE 332)college system, which in turn contributed significantly to economic development during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Land-grant colleges focused initially on practical fields such as agriculture and engineering, but they eventually broadened their scope to include the full range of arts and sciences. Institutions such as Cornell University, Rutgers University, and the University of Wisconsin were first established to foster research, development, and training to improve the practice and productivity of agriculture. These schools, and many others with similar backgrounds, have since blossomed into major centers of higher education. In addition, the federal government fully funds the service academies, such as the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, and the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland. This support is not cheap; it costs the government over $95,000 per year for each student attending the naval academy.9

The federal government also assists the general student population and specific categories of individuals by making money available through direct payments, subsidized loans, and tax breaks. Programs such as the GI Bill and the Pell Grant provide money directly to eligible students to make attending college more affordable. The GI Bill, originally the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, was instrumental in the decision of tens of thousands of veterans to attend college after World War II. Congress continues to update the law to help fund higher education programs for eligible veterans, and many veterans today rely on these funds to pay for their college education. The Pell Grant program offers awards—not loans—of as much as $6,095 (the 2018–2019 amount) to eligible undergraduates, depending on financial need and costs of attending college. Many other students benefit from guaranteed student loan programs. With federal guarantees for the loans, private financial institutions agree to lend money to students at a reduced interest rate, making college more accessible.

As even this brief introduction indicates, the federal government typically pays more attention to higher education than to elementary and secondary education, which state and local governments traditionally control. In recent years, however, the federal government has begun to respond to the problems in public education at all levels. For example, student performance statistics show wide variation in the quality of education from state to state, and the government has attempted to impose higher standards where needed. The federal government’s participation has raised not only suspicion on the part of policymakers who oppose it but also questions about equity and freedom. Does increased federal involvement represent a genuine concern about the quality of education for all students? Or is it an unwarranted intrusion by federal policymakers into an area of public policy where state and local government officials are better able to determine public needs?

The federal government’s role in primary and secondary education brings up many issues relating to the goals of education policy and the government’s obligations in ensuring an educated public. In today’s world, what are, or should be, the goals and objectives of education policy regardless of the level of government with primary responsibility? It would be easy to say that the goals of education policy are to provide a high-quality education to all students, but that statement raises many additional questions, the most basic of which is, what constitutes “high quality”? The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has its own perspectives regarding what a high-quality education should entail. These elements can be found in the box “Steps to Analysis: What Successful Education Programs Require”; see also UNESCO, “Education Transforms Lives,” available at https://en.unesco.org/themes/education.

(PAGE 334)Problems Facing Education

To provide the means for elementary and secondary schools to do the best they can for each student, policy analysts and policymakers need to address several problems and issues. Among them are funding for public schools, the separation of church and state, the quality of education, school vouchers, and the merit of a host of proposals—such as teacher standards and testing requirements—for improving the performance of public schools.

Funding

Traditionally, a significant portion of funding for public schools in the United States comes from local property taxes. In fact, it is this characteristic of education policy that has ensured that state and local governments maintain a large measure of control over school curriculums in their jurisdictions. This form of financing, however, has run into problems. First, in general, the property tax does not keep pace with the inflationary costs of providing an education; or, to use a tax policy term discussed in chapter 7, it is not buoyant. So while teacher salaries, textbooks, school supplies, and other costs continue to increase, the amount of money provided through property taxes remains unchanged. In essence, schools find themselves having to provide more services with fewer resources. This can be particularly problematic with increasing costs and an unwillingness of local or state government to increase revenue by raising property or state taxes.10

The second problem is equity. Property tax revenue directed to public schools varies considerably among the fifty states and within states. For example, in 2018, New York spent $23,894 per student on public education, while Idaho spent only about $6,809.11 The result is that students from some states or poor areas within a state may be receiving a lower-quality education. Differences within states have actually led to lawsuits where some states have been sued for inequitable funding distribution.12 Many believe that financing education with local property taxes is inequitable and should be replaced with a system of state or federal funding to ensure greater equality. Education funding is a topic ripe for policy analysis. The box “Steps to Analysis: State Education Funding” provides some guidance for engaging this topic.

(PAGE 335) Steps to Analysis State Education Funding

The discussion of how states fund their public education systems suggests the importance of the different evaluative criteria discussed throughout the book. Questions of equity, political feasibility, economics, and effectiveness are particularly pertinent to this discussion. Which criteria do you think are the most important in examining education funding? Is one typically the “driving force” in making decisions regarding funding sources? States use a variety of ways to finance public education. Policy analysis can help you learn about these systems and what issues may be most important for specific states. Using the criteria discussed throughout the text, examine how two states fund their educational systems (elementary and secondary) and what criteria seem to be driving these decisions.

School funding can have a direct bearing on the quality of education. School districts have to deal with growing costs and flat budget resources; some must face the low end of unequal funding. Without adequate resources, schools cannot hire well-qualified teachers and other staff, provide the needed books and supplies, make use of computers and other technological resources, or even give students a clean and safe building in which to learn. It may also prevent adequate raises for teachers, which recently has led to high-profile teacher strikes in places such as West Virginia; Phoenix, Arizona; and Los Angeles. Many states have seen inflation-adjusted school funding fall since 2008 (see box “Steps to Analysis: State Education Funding”). On the other hand, some argue that it is expenditure waste that is the problem and not so much lower funding.13

Quality

Certain statistics support the concern about the quality of education in the United States, but like many types of data, it partially depends on the specific criteria analysts examine. Data collected from the 2015 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study showed that eighth graders in the United States performed below those in eight other countries but above those in twenty-four. These math scores show a (PAGE 336)gradual increase since 1995.14 Another test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), showed slight increases for fourth and eighth graders in 2013 in reading and math compared to previous years, but the 2017 results were slightly lower than those of 2013.15 Yet, the most recent results from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) found that fifteen-year-olds scored in the “middle of the developed world in reading and science while lagging in math.”16 These results seem contradictory on their face, but notice that they are presenting information on different groups of students and in some cases different subjects; you can see why you can report both good and bad news regarding educational quality. In addition, SAT scores, often used as a measure of college preparedness, went down for a number of years during the 1980s. Scores rebounded slightly during the 1990s and continued into the new century, but more recent years (2006–2016) have seen small decreases in performance in the reading and math scores.17 Although these statistics may be questioned in terms of the validity of the measurements used, they do correspond with qualitative accounts of public education’s failings in the United States. Does the information in the box “Steps to Analysis: Civic Knowledge” prove that the lack of competence extends to social studies?18

One problem is that defining a quality education is not so easy, but as public policy students have learned, it is necessary. The way a public problem is defined affects the appraisal of it, the alternatives that are considered, and the policies that might be adopted to deal with it. In that regard, education is no different from any other policy area. One positive measure for quality is the increasing percentage of high school graduates, which hit 85 percent in 2016–2017. But other information suggests that a high school diploma is not a guarantee that students are academically prepared to enter college or have the skills necessary to enter the workforce.19 Education traditionalists suggest that quality is decreasing because schools are not emphasizing the basics such as math, English, reading, writing, and science in their teaching. By offering flexibility and electives, especially for secondary school students, the traditionalists say that the education system has moved away from its responsibilities of teaching the fundamental skills and subject matter and allowed quality to slip. Others argue that students need to be encouraged to learn and provided with opportunities to pursue their interests. The abilities to access, understand, and judge information; be critical thinkers; and work with others are more important than simply memorizing geometric theorems, chemical formulas, and the steps for how a bill becomes a law. These kinds of skills, proponents argue, create lifelong learners and will ultimately be of greater value to society.20 Such goals are much more difficult to measure and typically are not “tested” through the traditional quality measures.

PAGE 337 Steps to Analysis Civic Knowledge

The standards movement may be a direct result of national surveys of academic material that educators (and others) believe everyone in the population should know. But a strong emphasis has also been placed on English and math skills and knowledge development that may be hindering education in other important areas. According to a study by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), eighth- and twelfth-grade students have not made any significant progress (and twelfth graders have actually decreased) in their knowledge of civic education since 1998, when their scores were already quite low. In a democratic society, civic education is extremely important to ensure active and meaningful engagement in the political and governmental process. This is especially true in today’s highly polarized political culture where inaccurate and outright false statements about government and public policies are widely reported, especially on social media. To give you a sense of the kind of information that students were being tested on, we provide some of the standards as determined by the NCES for different levels of proficiency. Eighth graders at the “Proficient” level should be able to understand the separation and sharing of powers among the branches of government, know how citizens influence government, and describe events that have international consequences.

So is the quality of education in the United States better or worse than in the past? This question may get a different answer, depending on what the respondent believes are the ultimate goals of the education system. But if quality is a problem compared to the past, what variables might be explored to improve the education system? What can be changed to help students learn more effectively?

(PAGE 338)One area of exploration is teacher quality. Some analysts assert that current teachers have less skill and knowledge than teachers in the past. There were a number of reports prior to the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) of a significant number of instructors teaching in fields in which they were not trained. The Education Trust reported in 2010 that while there have been significant improvements in the area of out-of-subject teaching, the nation had not yet reached the nation’s goal of 100 percent of the instructors teaching in areas within their specialty.21

Other studies and news reports find a difficulty in retaining teachers and that they often leave for other professions. One study showed that one in five teachers leave the profession after only three years, and those who do so are more likely to have been in the top of their education classes when they graduated.22 A 2014 study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics did not find such a large number of “leavers” of the profession but did show an increasing percentage of leavers over the past twenty-five years. The study also notes that over half of those who left the profession reported that “the manageability of their workload was better in their current position than in teaching.”23 Workload and another common explanation, that teachers are paid far less than those in other professions with comparable educational requirements, are both often put forth as reasons why it may be difficult to find high-quality teachers. From an economic standpoint, why should good students become teachers and earn lower starting salaries when they can choose another field and make substantially more money? Another reason may be the level of respect for the teaching profession. The old adage “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach” suggests that people become teachers by default because they cannot succeed in other professions. Outsiders may see teaching as an easy job because teachers get the summers off. What they do not see is that teachers are on nine-month contracts and get paid accordingly. Moreover, teachers may become discouraged with their jobs. The classroom atmosphere is difficult and may include school violence, crowded classrooms, and pupils’ unstable family situations that make it more difficult to learn, and hence fewer are inspired to become teachers than in the past.24

Another issue regarding teacher quality often raised by reformers is the teacher tenure system. In essence, once teachers have worked a certain number of years within a public school district, they have significant job security. Supporters say that tenure protects teachers from unfair decisions based on a variety of factors that affect student success but are outside the control of an individual teacher. Others see the system as flawed in that it provides protections for individuals who truly are not serving the needs of the students. Removing such an individual is a long, drawn-out process that can be very expensive.25

Another explanation for the disappointing quality of education centers on the students themselves. Teachers who have been in the field for some time often compare the present situation to how things “used to be.” Students today spend more time watching television, working, texting, going online and “Instagramming” with friends, and playing video games, and less time reading and focusing on schoolwork.26 In addition, the increase in families headed by one parent or in which both parents work, along with other changes in home life, has likely hindered students’ ability to learn.

One response to poor-quality education has been moving toward increased testing requirements for students. In order for students to move on (PAGE 339) to the next grade or perhaps to graduate, they must meet the appropriate standards. President George W. Bush’s signing of NCLB in 2002 ushered in this movement at the federal level and involved the federal government more directly in educating the nation’s children than in the past. NCLB required student testing as one mechanism to try to close the education gap. The law required states and school districts to be accountable for student performance. Under its provisions, all states administered a single test, the NAEP, to determine if the schools were meeting the appropriate standards. Schools that failed to improve for two years in a row could receive more federal funds, but if improvement still did not occur, the money could be used to provide tutoring or to move students to different schools. One goal of the standards movement was to prevent “social promotions.” According to the testing proponents, the requirements ensure that students are promoted based on their understanding of the material.

The Obama administration reformed NCLB. While many lauded some of the goals of NCLB, it became increasingly clear that the implementation of the law, including its inflexibility, was causing a variety of problems for the states. The Obama administration implemented the Race to the Top initiative. Under the program, the federal government provided significant levels of funding (over $4 billion to eleven states) to states that pledged to

adopt statewide learning standards and assessments;

build data systems to measure achievement;

recruit, retain, and reward effective teachers and principals through measures such as merit pay and retention bonuses;

foster education innovation through such means as laws encouraging charter school development; and

focus on turning around the lowest-performing schools.27

The Obama administration set forth a “blueprint” related to the reauthorization of ESEA, and by extension NCLB. The major points of the blueprint include ensuring that all students complete high school and are prepared for college and a career, providing for great teachers and leaders in every school, creating equity and opportunity for all students, raising the bar and rewarding excellence, and promoting innovation and continuous improvement.28 The proposals discussed in the blueprint provide a bit more flexibility to state governments and seem to focus more on incentives than on penalties. Saying this, some of the ideas such as promoting charter schools and supporting some elements of merit pay were not necessarily backed by the traditional public school advocates.

(PAGE 440)The Obama administration promoted the Common Core State Standards as one way to improve education and also provide a sense of consistency regarding standards in the states. These standards were developed through state leaders tied to the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers in 2009. They set “grade-specific goals” for English and math. While the development of the standards occurred outside of the federal government, the Common Core became a politically charged issue as many politicians argued that it removed the control of education standards from the states and would have created a more centralized assessment. Many states that had earlier adopted the standards subsequently moved to reverse that decision.29 Indeed, in 2015, President Obama signed a new version of the federal education law (ESEA) called the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reversed much of the federal government’s control of public education and returned control to the states and local districts.

President Trump’s election has brought a different focus on how to address quality issues. His appointment of Betsy DeVos as secretary of education sent a message that the administration was interested in looking at more drastic solutions. Secretary DeVos is a well-known charter school and other school choice proponent, having served on numerous boards of organizations promoting such programs. School choice and privatization issues are addressed in the next section.

Many other issues affect the quality of education. Inadequate facilities, increases in student violence, and high student–faculty ratios are just a few of the many variables frequently associated with school quality. All are fruitful areas for investigation and public policy analysis.

Education Policy Reforms

It is not surprising that many of the education reforms that policymakers and others have proposed, debated, and implemented originated as a response to their concern over the quality of education. This section assesses some of these ideas for reform and their potential impact.

Merit Pay

One of the most divisive issues concerning education and quality is the system most public schools use to pay their teachers. In general, teachers get raises based on their years of service. Although there may be good reasons to provide raises based on longevity, critics say that teachers have little incentive to change their methods to improve their teaching. To correct what they see as a flaw in the system, some reformers have promoted the idea of tying teacher salary increases to merit. Merit pay, according to supporters of this plan, should lead to better education as teachers improve themselves to be eligible for greater raises or promotions. Some states have implemented merit pay systems in their school districts with varying success. A recent meta-study examining forty-four other studies found that the “presence of a merit pay program is associated with a modest, statistically significant positive effect on student test scores.”30

Opponents raise several issues about linking pay increases to performance. First, no objective or agreed-upon measurement has yet been formulated for what constitutes an effective or quality teacher. Using student performance as an indicator of quality disregards other factors that may affect how students perform in the classroom. In addition, tying merit pay to student performance may produce some possibly undesirable incentives in the education system as the pressure mounts on schools to ensure high scores or for teachers to receive bonuses. This appears to have been the case in Atlanta where a former school superintendent and principals and teachers in a number of schools were (PAGE 341) implicated in a cheating scandal. According to investigators, some administrators held “erasing parties” to change wrong answers.31 Without some agreement as to what makes a quality teacher, bias and inequity could taint the assessments. Second, many argue that until teacher salaries are competitive with those of other occupations, merit pay will not succeed in attracting and retaining highly qualified people. Third, opponents point out that merit pay does not achieve the stated goal. The American Federation of Teachers has promoted a proposal that would provide significant salary increases to those who become board certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). This nonprofit organization has set standards for teacher excellence and is analogous to boards that certify doctors.32 By having specific standards that teachers must meet and demonstrate, this process not only is objective but also offers a monetary incentive for teachers to pursue excellence in the classroom. In addition, it brings an element of professional status that sometimes is lacking in the education field. For more information regarding the standards, access the organization’s website at www.nbpts.org.

Teacher Standards, Certification, and Salaries

Another proposal is that teachers must meet certain standards in order to become, and remain, certified in the profession. Requiring a uniform level of competency for teaching should ensure a better-quality education for the students. For example, the standards would end the practice of assigning teachers to courses in fields that are not among their specialties. There continues to be an issue in the United States in that certification varies from state to state and the training and development that is done for our incoming teachers occurs at over one thousand different colleges and universities around the country. While such a system may provide for flexibility and specialization, it ensures a wide range of content. With such diversity, can we ensure quality? Much has been written about how other countries, such as Finland, develop their teachers with more rigorous training and often are pulling from the top college graduates.33

Ensuring teacher quality is clearly of prime importance. And quality comes from knowledge of both substance and pedagogy. Some states such as Indiana and Connecticut have focused on programs that help current teachers improve their skills. Indiana adopted a rigorous set of standards developed by the NBPTS as part of its licensing system. School districts need to maintain a balance because if the standards become too onerous, the schools may not have enough qualified teachers, at least in the short term. A report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) states that many countries are pursuing multiple avenues to ensure high-quality teacher education, and in some cases, these ideas go beyond the content-versus-pedagogy dichotomy. The report provides a few best practices, which include clear and concise profiles of what teachers are expected to know, models that focus more on preparing professionals for school settings and less on academic preparation, and flexible structures that allow teachers to be more reflective and research based in addressing what is going on in the classroom.34

Few would dispute the importance of ensuring that the nation’s children receive a quality education and develop a capacity to participate actively in the economy and government, and few doubt that the majority of U.S. residents strongly support a better education system. Even so, teacher salaries continue to seriously lag behind what other professionals earn. Table 10-1 shows median salaries for selected occupations in 2017. Proponents of higher teacher salaries argue that if teachers are professionals, their school districts must pay them as such. This is what occurs in a number of other developed nations around the world. It is not so much that teachers are paid all that much more in other countries as that the pay differential between teachers and other occupations is not as great. This large differential in the United States is noted in Table 10-1.35

School Vouchers, School Choice, and Charter Schools

Local school boards have traditionally drawn district lines that determine which school each student attends. Unless parents decide to send their children to a private school, or to homeschool, students generally go to the school closest to where they live in the district. One way to look at the students in a particular school district is as a captive market whose single provider (a monopoly) supplies their public school education. Americans traditionally mistrust business monopolies, believing that they can increase prices indiscriminately or offer lower-quality goods and services, but consumers have little or no choice. Monopolies are seen as inefficient in a market system, and such companies have no incentive to improve on quality if consumers have nowhere else to turn. Some analysts see the same lack of competition in education (Chubb and Moe 1990). Schools do not need to improve their product because they have a guaranteed market. In essence, public schools are a government-sponsored monopoly.

Many have argued that in order to break up the public school monopoly, society needs to reform the system in a way that gives parents options about where to send their children to school. Among the suggested reforms are school choice, school vouchers, and charter schools. Supporters argue that when parents can exercise choice, the schools will compete for students by providing higher-quality education, and the competition will raise the level of quality for everyone. NCLB brought school choice to the forefront by giving parents (PAGE 343) the ability to switch schools if their original school does not meet the appropriate standards. The offending schools must take on the financial burden of transporting these students to new schools.

School choice programs allow parents to send their children to any public school in a particular area. The competition is among public schools only, not between public and private schools, but these programs do foster competition. With school choice programs, school selection is based no longer on school districts but on where the child might get the kind of education desired. If the chosen school also receives government funding associated with the child, then this arrangement should spur competition. The various schools might try to improve the education they offer to maintain or even increase the size of their student body. It should be noted that many education reformers use the term school choice to encompass all reform efforts that provide parents with options about where to send their children, including charter schools and voucher programs.

School vouchers, theoretically, are also intended to improve education by promoting competition among schools. The major difference is that with school vouchers, the government provides a certain dollar amount that parents can then apply to private or parochial school tuition or as part of the full cost of a public school education. The government voucher may not be enough to cover the full cost of tuition, but it allows parents the choice of sending a child to a private school by relieving the family of part of the financial burden. In this way, the government encourages competition by bringing private schools into the education market. In addition, proponents argue that the voucher system will improve the quality of all schools; to entice students to enroll, administrators will do everything they can to improve their schools and compete in this open market.

Most school voucher systems currently in place in the United States, including the best-known plans in Cleveland and Milwaukee, are limited in that they are aimed at assisting low-income students. For example, to be eligible for a voucher in the Milwaukee program, a family of four must have an income no higher than 300 percent of the poverty level.36 School voucher purists would support a universal voucher system in which all families receive a designated amount of money for their children’s education. There are currently twenty-nine voucher programs operating in eighteen states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.37

The school voucher programs became politicized when opponents, who see them as unconstitutional, sued, asserting that the programs violated individuals’ religious freedom and the principle of separation of church and state. They argued that giving public money to parents to send their children to parochial schools is a clear violation of the First Amendment because, no matter the religious denomination, the funds are being used to promote religion. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision regarding Cleveland’s voucher system, perhaps clarified the legal environment surrounding school voucher programs. Voucher opponents had hoped that the constitutional issues would be resolved in their favor. With that option gone, the debate moved into other policymaking arenas, such as state courts, state legislatures, and referendums.38 A number of questions remain regarding school vouchers: Are resources being transferred from the public to the private schools, and is this equitable? Who should be eligible for vouchers? Should eligibility be based on need?

Of course, a primary issue must be whether voucher programs have been successful, and plenty of studies have considered this question. (PAGE344) Opponents cite studies suggesting that voucher programs have minimal effects at best in improving education programs.39 Naturally, supporters of school voucher programs point to their own set of studies, or even parts of the same studies, that contradict the arguments of their opponents. The Heritage Foundation, for example, cites studies by Kim Metcalf (1999) and Paul E. Peterson, William G. Howell, and Jay P. Green (1999) that found positive effects associated with voucher programs. As vouchers have continued to be debated, studies have continued. Some of these continue to suggest only small gains for voucher school students, and these results are often not statistically significant (Rouse and Barrow 2009). Others suggest more positive outcomes.40 One major study conducted by William G. Howell and Paul E. Peterson (2002) found that the use of vouchers had a significant impact on the success of African American students. Using this measure of effectiveness—that is, whether the program improves educational success for a particular demographic group—is another way that researchers can present their results and voucher proponents can claim success, but this study was not without its critics.41 Unfortunately, organizations with a particular bias will take advantage of some of these nuances when making their claims in support of or in opposition to the voucher programs.42 If studies are inconclusive, and voucher programs are neutral and are not harming students, public voucher supporters state that the right to choose is reason enough to continue the programs.

The charter school is another way of introducing choice into education. Charter schools are unique in that they are government supported but independent. A state board of education gives an independent entity the responsibility of establishing a school and delivering education services with limited control by the school board. The state funds these schools, but the regulations that typically govern public schools are significantly reduced to allow the schools to have a particular focus. Some examples of charter schools in Illinois illustrate their variety. The Academy of Communications and Technology seeks to prepare students for careers in communications and computer technology. The Young Women’s Leadership Charter School follows the small school model and focuses on academic achievement. It offers a rigorous career and college preparatory curriculum that emphasizes math, science, and technology; leadership; and personal and social development. Charter schools may choose to pursue certain educational needs or strategies to improve student performance, and they are responsible for meeting the standards they develop. The number of charter schools is growing, with more than seven thousand operating in 2019.43 Some see charter schools as just another form of voucher system because the state is paying for them while perhaps reducing the funding for traditional public schools. The question of whether charter schools are a more effective way to educate students is still open to debate, and the evidence to date is mixed. The other question relates to whether the existence of these schools may be improving educational effectiveness for the public schools; the evidence here is also mixed.44

It is interesting to note that President Donald Trump has been a strong supporter of public school choice and has proposed $20 billion in federal funds to expand voucher programs.45 As noted, most existing programs target lower-income families. Also as noted, President Trump’s choice for Department of Education secretary is Betsy DeVos, a strong advocate for school choice. While there have not been many policy changes that reflect her views, her rhetoric has been very supportive of such school choice programs.46

(PAGE 345)School Testing

When enacted in 2002, NCLB represented a dramatic shift in the role of the federal government in public education. The testing requirement was one of the largest changes to education policy and, in some ways, probably the most controversial. This controversy increased as states complained about inadequate federal funding and many educators questioned the relevance of standardized testing in improving education quality. The Obama administration provided more flexibility in the context of meeting the standards dictated by NCLB but still demanded a certain level of assessment and accountability. President George W. Bush defended the testing requirement arguing that without tests or some other form of measurement, how can one be sure that students are getting the appropriate education? Not everyone agrees, however, that testing—or perhaps the term is overtesting—is the right policy choice. Do increases in testing lead to less classroom instruction? Do teachers “teach to the test” to be sure the children will pass?

Concerns about standardized testing include potential racial or cultural bias of the exams, national tests could infringe on state and local authority, and the testing is expensive. A related issue is the amount of classroom time devoted to testing, which can then not be used for content instruction. Anna Quindlen argued in a Newsweek column that “constant testing will no more address the problems of our education system than constantly putting an overweight person on the scale will cure obesity.”47 Her point was that testing is occurring for the sake of testing and not to make curricular changes that may improve learning. But what if the results of these tests are being used to improve the curriculum?

As noted earlier, the conflict regarding testing led to a large rewrite of NCLB that was signed by President Obama at the end of 2015. The ESSA had a number of areas that walked back the role of the federal government that NCLB championed. These included

returning power to states and local districts to determine how to address failing schools;

leaving it up to states and localities to set performance goals and school ratings;

eliminating the federal consequences for schools that perform poorly; and

barring the federal government from imposing academic requirements.

While hailed by many on both sides of the political aisle, groups representing the poor and underrepresented populations claimed it went too far in eliminating federal oversight and worried about a return of inconsistent education standards that might particularly affect the poor.48

The policy analysis framework used throughout the book can be used to explore the major questions in this ongoing debate. In this case, some of the major analytic criteria used to study this issue include economic costs or efficiency, politics and political feasibility, effectiveness, and equity. What are the economic impacts of these testing programs on state governments? Is this an appropriate area for the federal government to become involved, or should it be left to the states? Perhaps most important, are such testing programs effective in improving education?

(PAGE 346) Charters for choice. The photo shows striking teacher Estefana Ramos with parents and supporters outside of Manzanita Community School in Oakland, California. The state’s 1,300 charter schools will soon face stricter transparency requirements under legislation pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. This was the second major teachers strike in California in 2019.

Higher Education Issues

Unlike primary and secondary education, attending college is not a requirement; rather, it is a student’s personal choice. But it is becoming increasingly clear that a higher education may be necessary for a wider range of careers and jobs than before. Perhaps this is one reason why governments get involved by encouraging students in many ways to continue their education. President Obama made higher education a policy priority. In his first speech to Congress as president, he stated his goal of having the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020; he also emphasized the necessity of providing a range of postsecondary educational opportunities for students other than a traditional four-year college degree. The achievement of that goal is directly affected by one of the issues discussed in this section—the cost of going to college. The other issue concerns doing a better job in making higher education a goal for a wider diversity of people in the United States.

Affirmative Action

For years, many colleges and universities, in the name of promoting diversity in their student bodies, have given admissions preferences to certain demographic groups such as African Americans and Hispanic Americans. Many administrators and faculty members argued that a (PAGE347) more diverse student body adds value to the education of all the students at a college or university. For that reason, they believed it was justifiable, indeed essential, to admit some students whose academic work or test scores may not have been at the same level as others but whose other qualities enriched the campus community.

A number of states have moved to eliminate these kinds of preference programs from their state institutions even as many college administrators believe that racial diversity is critical to the goals of education. While the effect of eliminating these programs at many schools is minor, there is a greater effect at the more selective and elite institutions.49 Do declines in minority admissions, especially at elite schools, pose a significant problem? Some worry about fostering even greater inequalities between elite and nonelite universities than have existed for some time. Those who favor the abolition of affirmative action programs, however, see non–affirmative action admissions practices as more equitable to all the applicants. The students who score lower on SATs and other admissions criteria are not being denied a higher education, but they may have to choose a less competitive institution.

From a policy analysis perspective, how might one examine the issue of affirmative action programs in higher education? There are obvious ethical and fairness issues associated with affirmative action, but naturally, proponents and opponents of affirmative action programs both defend their positions in terms of equity. Proponents of affirmative action might point out that in the past minorities were excluded from many institutions of higher learning. In addition, many minorities have faced discrimination and inadequate preparation to attend elite schools, and affirmative action programs help to level the playing field. Opponents argue that it is unfair to give preferences just because of racial characteristics. They strongly defend the position that admission to college should be based on individual abilities rather than demographic characteristics. Any other method, they say, is unfair.

Have affirmative action programs been effective? That depends on one’s definition of the problem. More minorities are attending college than ever before, and these increases are across the board in terms of the quality of the institution. A study by William G. Bowen and Derek C. Bok (1998) found that affirmative action programs in highly selective institutions have been successful in educating and promoting the students who benefited from the admissions policy. This particular study, however, is somewhat limited because it concentrates on selective institutions rather than a broader range of schools. Many institutions assert that affirmative action programs are effective because they reach the goal of diversified student bodies. But are the programs effective if they also deny admission to qualified students?50

College admissions are partially a zero-sum game. In any given year or program, each university has only so many openings, and competition can be fierce for the highly selective schools. One person’s admission results in another’s denial. In June 2003, the Supreme Court ruled on two University of Michigan cases dealing with affirmative action admission procedures. The ruling was somewhat complex: it stated that minorities could be given an edge for admissions but limited the extent to which race could factor into selecting students. The Court heard the case of Fisher v. University of Texas twice and in 2016 upheld the legality of such procedures but put the burden on schools to show that “race-neutral alternatives do not suffice” to ensure a diverse student population.51 While upheld, recent changes to the Supreme Court could easily shift how affirmative action programs such as the one in Texas are viewed. It is clear that the Trump administration does not support these types of programs.

(PAGE 348) Costs of Higher Education

Most readers of this text need no reminder that the costs of college education are substantial and continue to rise. For much of the past several decades, they have been rising faster than the rate of inflation. In a thirty-year period between 1988 and 2018, the inflation-adjusted tuition and fees for public schools increased over 200 percent. For private institutions, the increase was 110 percent. (See Figure 10-1 for inflation-adjusted tuition and fees.) Because a college education is regarded as essential for a competitive and productive workforce and for maintaining economic growth, the ever-higher price tag for a college degree is alarming. The cost of attending a private college or university can be prohibitive. For example, at Princeton University, the 2019–2020 comprehensive fee (tuition, room, board, and expenses) was over $74,000—although, as with other private institutions, scholarships often lower the cost. Many students who might have considered private institutions have turned instead to public colleges and universities, which almost always cost less. Attending the University of Wisconsin in 2018–2019, for example, has an estimated cost of more than $26,000 for tuition and room and board for in-state residents, and nearly $53,000 for out-of-state residents.52 See the box “Steps to Analysis: ‘I’m a Student Debt Slave’” for some additional information regarding how the costs of college are affecting students and the amount of debt they take.

(PAGE349) Given the costs, one of the most important issues in higher education is the level of state support provided to students, especially those attending state institutions. Students may consider such support to be unexceptional, much as they expect the public to pay for the cost of elementary and secondary education, but public support for higher education raises important questions of equity. Should state governments be providing such subsidies for individuals to attend college? Or should individuals be responsible for paying their own college costs on the grounds that they are getting the benefits, such as enhanced social and economic status, that a college education usually provides? The “Focused Discussion” section addresses some of these questions in more detail.

Education Secretary DeVos claims that the overregulation of colleges, particularly those within the for-profit sector, is partially to blame for the continued increases in college costs. Her efforts have focused on removing or weakening many of the regulations, such as the Gainful Employment Rule from the Obama administration, that were implemented to ensure quality control and protect people from predatory for-profit colleges. The concerns of critics of these actions are multiple and include the quality of education being provided, the amount of debt often incurred through the for-profit avenue, and the targeting of veterans who may not be well served by the education they receive.53

Steps to Analysis “I’m a Student-Debt Slave”

During the past decade, there have been an increasing number of stories regarding the amount of college debt held in the United States. As noted earlier in the chapter, this number approaches $1.5 trillion. About forty-four million Americans owe money on loans, and the average 2017 graduate owed $39,400. About a million borrowers a year default on student loans.a Some have raised particular concerns in regard to for-profit schools, which have been accused of targeting veterans and poorer students through aggressive recruiting tactics.b These concerns are coming to the table again as the Trump administration works toward reversing Obama-era regulations aimed at these concerns. Table 10-2 shows the amount of federal loans and Pell Grants going to different school types. According to the College Board, loans for students enrolling in for-profit schools increased from 13 percent of the total loan balance in 2003–2004 to 21 percent in 2013–2014.c

(PAGE 351) For-profit costs and defaults. For-profit colleges have proliferated across the nation, competing directly with public colleges and universities. Yet for-profit colleges typically charge much more for tuition and often are criticized for serving their students poorly—for example, in not preparing them for the job market. Students who have attended for-profit colleges are much more likely to default on their government-funded higher education loans. Recent changes in federal policies have attempted to address these concerns and have led to some high-level institutional closures such as ITT and Corinthian Colleges. This 2005 file photo shows real estate mogul, TV star, and now president Donald Trump (left) listening as Michael Sexton introduces him to announce the establishment of Trump University at a press conference in New York. Sexton was president and cofounder of the now-defunct business education company.

Focused Discussion: Higher Education Affordability, Cost, and Value

The chapter opened with a discussion of a topic that should be near and dear to almost everyone reading this book. As noted earlier in the chapter, the costs of getting a college degree continue to increase and are typically greater than the rate of inflation. There are a number of reasons for these cost increases, some of which are true for almost all types of institutions (e.g., public and private). For example, higher education is an industry that relies heavily on personnel to run its operations. Thus whenever there is a cost increase associated with personnel, those costs may be passed along to the consumers. Wage increases are one such cost, but even in times of austerity, when raises are rare or very small, there are other labor costs. Like any other employer, colleges and universities have had to adjust to continuing increases associated with health care and insurance. Other costs include new buildings and facilities that colleges build in order to stay competitive with their peers and be successful in recruiting students. Most campuses also want to ensure state-of-the-art technology, with a number of campuses providing Wi-Fi access to all on their campus.

With public schools, the issue of cost to students is directly related to the decreasing support coming from state governments for higher education. Even though the states continue to subsidize state colleges and universities, they cover a smaller percentage of school operating budgets than they did in the past. State support for higher education has gone down over the past twenty-five years as competition for funding has increased, particularly from the prison systems and state support for Medicaid and other social service programs. Colleges and universities (PAGE 352) therefore raise tuition to make up for the shortfall. Stories abound regarding the continued decrease in state support for public higher education in most states. As shown in Figure 10-2, per-pupil spending in 2017 saw an increase from 2012 (17 percent), which was in the midst of the recession, yet these expenditures are still less than the prerecession amounts controlling for inflation. Many states have reinvested in higher education during the economic recovery. Even so, there continued to be decreases for thirteen states during this time period, the largest being Oklahoma at 16 percent.54 To consider this from a longer-term perspective, according to the Postsecondary Education Opportunity, between fiscal years 1980 and 2011, nearly every state had cut its appropriations for higher education from a low of 14.8 percent to as much as 69.4 percent. The average cut across all states was 39.9 percent.55

As many colleges and universities have attempted to compete for students, there has also been a tendency to provide more scholarship money based on merit than on need. In addition, there has been a decided shift in college aid from grants to loans, which students eventually need to pay back. While it is difficult to argue against merit-based scholarships, it is also clear that a larger proportion of these dollars is likely to go to middle- to upper-income families, thus providing less financial help for low-income students. The plight of these low-income students has been garnering more attention in recent years in terms of student debt but also concerns about poverty and food insecurity. A 2018 Government Accountability Office report found significant concerns with food insecurity for certain students and that existing programs to address this concern, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, have limited eligibility. Student aid generally does not cover all costs associated with going to college, such as food.56 The point here is that these changes have had a real effect on the poor’s ability to ccess higher education as noted by scholar Sara Goldrick-Rab.57 Is the decrease of government funding, coupled with the increase in merit-based financial aid, pricing some students out of going to college? Are we in danger of a college education being a good only the elite can afford?

How we as a nation finance a college education partially gets at the issue of what type of good higher education is. In other words, is it a private good or a public good? If it is a private good, meaning that most of the benefits of higher education are bestowed upon the individual and he or she receives a higher wage as a result, then pushing more cost to that individual may make sense. But if higher education is seen as a public good, since the additional education will make society as a whole better through better citizenship, more economic development, and less need for social services, then public support for education is appropriate. It is clear that both the individual and the greater society are the beneficiaries, which then raises the question of what is the appropriate level of public support. There have been increasing calls for some amount of free higher education by a number of politicians. An article in the Atlantic suggests that the federal government already spends enough money on grants, loans, and college tax breaks to allow students to attend public school for nearly free.58 This section examines the issue of public support of higher education.

(PAGE 354) A public good with rising costs. In this April 2019 photo, Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer (center) helps unveil legislation that would offset tuition costs for students seeking a college degree or training certificate. Many states are looking at ways to address college costs, and many Democratic presidential candidates are campaigning on the idea of “free college.”

A typical argument made to provide public support to higher education, and specifically to students seeking such an education, is that such support leads to larger public benefits. Education can be considered a positive externality in that society benefits from a more educated population. Individuals typically will make more money with a college degree, but what about the return on a state’s investment through tuition subsidization? A number of studies have examined the economic impact of higher education spending, and they suggest that such spending is a good investment for the state. For example, a recent study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that the State University of New York (SUNY) impact on New York is $28.6 billion per year and the return on investment is $8.17 for every dollar in state funding.59 These represent tangible returns to a state economy and may justify political movements to try to stop the downward trend of state support for higher education. It is interesting to note that one sees such studies more prominently featured on college websites, perhaps indicative of the economic and political environment where state funding is decreasing.

Although higher education costs and funding provoke considerable debate, the value of a college education from an individual’s perspective cannot be overestimated. On average, students with a bachelor’s degree or higher earn substantially more than those who only complete high school. Table 10-3 shows the median and mean salaries of people in 2017 at different levels of educational attainment. Based on 2017 data, those with a bachelor’s or higher degree earn over twice as much than those without a college degree.60

It is also evident that many students place a high value on attending some of the most prestigious colleges and universities despite what other people believe are exorbitant costs. Clearly, they think their investment in such a college degree will prove to be worth it over time. Much the same is true of students who pay high tuition costs to attend professional graduate programs in law, medicine, or business administration. They expect to recoup their investment many times over once they graduate and begin to work. The financial impact of getting a college degree on students is quite clear.

What is less clear is just what the public value is to higher education; or, in other words, how much public investment should there be in this area? Policymakers, politicians, and higher education officials often raise the importance of universities in preparing a workforce and aiding a state in the midst of an economic recession.61 Often, these choices come down to priorities: Is public funding for higher education more important than maintaining the criminal justice and prison systems? Or funding state Medicaid programs? Or maintaining funding for K–12 education? Or decreasing taxes? Like all public policy choices, there is often more need than there are resources. What is clear, though, is that public support for higher education, particularly from state governments, has decreased dramatically. Many public institutions are stating that they are “state-assisted” or “state-located” rather than public universities. As a result, students and parents are picking up a larger share of the bill.

Higher education appears to be becoming much more of a private good. If this is the case, then the other issue that may need further discussion is how this will affect low-income people who want to pursue a college degree. Public colleges and universities, including community colleges, have traditionally been an option for those without financial means. Tuition discounting and need-based financial aid may always be options, but they can be somewhat limited. The federal Pell Grants, one of the primary federal programs for low-income students, continue to be an important source of funding. Unfortunately, the purchasing power of these grants has decreased significantly since the early 1980s. If public support is decreasing and being replaced by higher tuition, it could have a deadening effect on access.

Political Issues

The political issues surrounding public support of higher education are not as straightforward as some of the other content areas that we have discussed. One reason may be that the service being provided is not necessarily controversial. Most would agree that more education is generally better for individuals and society. As noted earlier, there is a strong recognition that higher levels of education can promote economic development, encourage citizen engagement, and provide other benefits. How can one not support these ideas?

(PAGE 356) Yet recently there has been more vocal opposition, particularly from conservatives, to higher education. This opposition tends to focus on a few issues. First, from a work preparation perspective, many conservatives rally against disciplines and majors where there may not be a direct job connection. Often this perspective hits the humanities and social sciences the hardest. Second, conservatives rally against what they see as institutions that are preaching only liberal viewpoints and indoctrinating students. Examples may include concerns about limiting campus visits by speakers who may have more conservative positions.62 These concerns become particularly problematic for public institutions that may rely on state funding provided by political legislators who may intercede in other ways as well.63 Within the states, conflict also often comes from a decision regarding priorities. Should higher education be funded at a particular level instead of some other public policy option? This is where the politics of higher education funding occurs.

Earlier in the book, we discussed the importance of public opinion, interest groups, and the popular vote in the lives of policymakers, particularly politicians, and subsequently the policies they promote. In a democratic society where politicians rely upon the vote to keep their jobs, one expects members of a state legislature, for example, to pay attention to who is affected by their decisions. Support for higher education has decreased dramatically over the past thirty years, and many state colleges and universities have had to turn to higher tuition to make up for lost revenue and continue to operate as they did before. As such, students (and their parents) have felt the brunt of this decreased state support in their wallets. One then might ask what type of political pressure can be placed on state policymakers.

In the fall of 2016, undergraduate enrollment was 16.9 million students, over 13.1 million of whom were attending public institutions.64 Let’s look at a few state examples. According to data provided by the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, the fall 2015–2016 total enrollment for all public four- and two-year schools in California was over 2.95 million students; in New York, this number was over 927,619; and in Texas, the number was nearly 1.9 million.65 These are quite large numbers, even within the context of individual states.

One might expect that with this many people affected, it would represent a large voting bloc or even a potential interest group that could provide political pressure on government to adequately fund higher education. Add to this parents and those who work within the higher education field, and these numbers increase quite a bit. And yet, funding has decreased, and in many ways, the potential political power of this group has never been realized. Why is that? One reason may be that the traditional-age student (eighteen to twenty-four) is a demographic having one of the lowest voting turnout rates. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 46 percent of this age group reported voting in the November 2016 presidential elections, over 10 percent less than the next group (twenty-five to forty-four) and about 25 percent below the group with the highest reporting (sixty-five to seventy-four).66 Rates decreased during the midterm election in 2018, with the youth vote at 31 percent, and this is quite high comparatively, but also represented what many saw as a somewhat unique midterm election where interest was very high. Given the lower voter rates of young adults, is it any wonder that state politicians may not see higher education as a priority?

As noted earlier, many higher education institutions, particularly those in the public sector, do their own lobbying to protect their public (PAGE 357) financing. This often is done by providing data regarding the economic or financial benefit that a school provides to the local or state economy, or by linking the need for a well-educated workforce to promote economic growth and provide a well-prepared workforce.

The other side of the political argument for continued public support for higher education will raise the issue of priorities, or why public dollars should support what is a private benefit. We noted earlier that typically more education will lead to higher salaries for individuals. If that is the case, then those higher earnings could pay the additional cost necessary for college. In an era when it seems that the answer to every public policy question is to cut taxes, many might ask why their taxes should be used to support these endeavors. The other part of the political argument has to do with the ever-increasing cost of higher education and a question by some if the college industry’s appetite can ever be satiated. They see ever more elaborate student-life facilities, high salaries for administrators, and exorbitant costs for college sports, and question if this is the best use of public tax dollars.

The political debate surrounding the issue of funding higher education has a number of different elements. What is clear, though, is that the rich will always be able to afford to go to college and be able and willing to pay a premium for this service. But what about the poor and middle class? We now turn to the equity and ethics questions associated with public financing.

Equity and Ethical Issues

One of the major arguments for supporting education generally is the belief that it is the great equalizer within U.S. society. Education provides a mechanism for success. This is also true for higher education, but the major difference is that there are significant individual costs associated with higher education that must be paid by the recipient. How do we ensure equity in access to students who may not have the means to afford the tuition and other costs associated with a university education?

Federal Pell Grants are one program that addresses the needs of low-income individuals. As noted earlier, these grants provide up to $6,095 (for 2018–2019) based on need, cost of attendance, and student status. There is concern, though, that these grants do not provide the same purchasing power as they used to, and that more people are turning to loan programs to help meet their college costs—hence all the concerns about student debt (see Table 10-4). First, you will note that the percentage of students taking out loans increased over the ten-year period from 2006 to 2016. Second, note the increase in the average loan level. While federal loans are capped by legislation, students can turn to other sources, including private loans, to finance their education. As you can see, the average loan debt increased by 19 percent during this period, which is actually a smaller increase than earlier comparisons. It is also important to note that private loans generally charge higher interest rates and are not as forgiving as federal student loans. The point is that more and more students are finding themselves with a significant level of debt upon graduation, and this is going to affect the low- to middle-income student to a greater degree.67 The issue of the ever-increasing student debt raises significant issues because it could hamstring students to the point where they have a difficult time making ends meet.

(PAGE 358) Some have argued for a system that provides for free or significantly reduced-price college. President Obama argued for free community college. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, the two major Democratic candidates for the 2016 election, proposed free tuition at public institutions, particularly for certain income levels, and during 2018 and 2019, there have been more calls, typically from Democrats, for free tuition.68

Other kinds of programs have been implemented to help alleviate college costs, such as the Excelsior Scholarship program in New York. Under the program, students from families with income less than $125,000 (in 2019) are eligible for free public tuition. They must successfully complete thirty credits per year to maintain eligibility. Like other forms of state aid, though, critics may bemoan these programs because they are redistributing tax dollars to particular beneficiaries. So the issue of equity in the financing of higher education really comes down to a couple of different perspectives. One is whether one considers higher education to be a public or a private good. If public, then perhaps public support is appropriate and a good use of taxpayer dollars. If private, then one might consider such support unnecessary. The other perspective to consider relates to how the country ensures sufficient education to low- and middle-income students who may not be able to afford the costs of higher education. If education is an equalizer and a way for people to better themselves, then perhaps supporting this system makes sense. In this case, the question may come down to what is the appropriate level of public investment to ensure such access, and whether these needs rise above other public policy issues and problems.

(PAGE359) Conclusions

This chapter examines education policy and a number of associated issues. The heart of the debate, particularly for the K–12 schools, is this question: What is the best way to improve the quality of education in the nation’s schools? Whether it is raising standards for students and/or teachers, increasing teachers’ pay, or providing additional choices for parents, all of the alternatives address what is perceived to be a problem of less-than-adequate quality. Within the higher education environment, much of the discussion has been toward access to a college education, which often comes down to cost and affordability issues.

This chapter examines the role that government plays in the education policy area along with a number of issues that it has focused on, including ensuring a quality education. Since state and local governments fund a good portion of school budgets, there is much local control, but that can lead to differences of quality. As noted, many reform efforts, including merit pay, school choice, and student testing, have been attempted as ways to address educational quality. The passage of NCLB saw federal policymakers much more involved in education issues, particularly around quality, and taking a greater interest in this policy area. Their rhetoric on the subject reflects differing partisan and ideological views, and the conflicts over education policy show little sign of dissipating. Given the high level of public concern over education, this response by federal officials was not surprising, but many continue to be guarded about the federal role in education policy, and thus you saw the pendulum swing back toward state and local control with the passage of ESSA. Both NCLB and ESSA started as bipartisan efforts and showcased the changing nature of the role of the federal government in education. It is clear that finding the appropriate balance between local control and consistent quality will continue.

Within the higher education environment, the major issues will continue to be cost, affordability, and value. State financing of public higher education continues to be stressed by other priorities and an interest to keep tax rates low. As noted earlier in the chapter, though, there have been some major changes regarding the type of support the federal government is providing as well. Support from the federal sector continues, but a larger amount of this support comes through loans, which will increase student debt, or through tax breaks, which tend to favor the better-off. Many continue to want to see an increase in the number of college graduates, and to do that, more needs to be done to address issues of affordability and debt. One might typically consider education policy to be an area where the parties, our different governments, and the public could come together, but partisan differences remain. Like many areas of public policy, how programs are developed and implemented affects how people may react to them.

Suggested Readings

A. J. Angulo, Diploma Mills: How For-Profit Colleges Stiffed Students, Taxpayers, and the American Dream (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). Explores the history of the for-profit higher education institutions—their growth and evolution to where they are today.

John E. Chubb and Terry M. Moe, Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1990). One of the first scholarly books to discuss the issues of the nation’s public school systems and how these monopolies could be improved by the introduction of school choice and voucher programs.

Michael Fabricant and Stephen Brier, Austerity Blues: Fighting for the Soul of Public Higher Education (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). The book discusses the growth of public higher education following World War II primarily due to state public investment and how the disinvestment, along with other changes in the market, has affected the industry and students it serves.

R. Kenneth Godwin and Frank R. Kemerer, School Choice Tradeoffs: Liberty, Equity, and Diversity (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002). An overview and appraisal of school choice; examines a number of issues related to this education policy alternative and the trade-offs associated with it, such as equality of opportunity and religious freedoms.

Sara Goldrick-Rab, Paying the Price: College Costs, Financial Aid, and the Betrayal of the American Dream (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016). A study of students in public colleges and universities needing federal programs to help meet need, and how these programs failed the students and left many in debt.

Alan Greenblatt, “Issues in Higher Education,” CQ Researcher, October 26, 2018. Discusses a variety of current issues in the higher education arena including costs and value, state funding, and the role of higher education in job training.

William G. Howell and Paul E. Peterson, The Education Gap: Vouchers and Urban Schools (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2002). A comprehensive analysis of different school voucher programs around the country. The study finds, among other things, that voucher programs have a consistent positive benefit for African American students who participate in such programs.

Suzanne Mettler, Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream (New York: Basic Books, 2014). The book examines both the changing political and policy scene within the higher education area and how these changes have led to a situation of actually increasing inequality, which is counterintuitive to why we want students to pursue college.

Suggested Websites

www.acenet.edu. The American Council on Education is the coordinating organization for higher education. It also conducts research on issues of higher education and provides a clearinghouse for news related to higher education.

www.aft.org. Site of the American Federation of Teachers, an advocacy group that conducts research and publishes studies on a range of education issues.

www.cep-dc.org. Site of the Center on Education Policy, a national, independent advocate for public education and for more effective public schools. The center conducts a range of research on the issue of public education, which can be accessed at this site.

www.ed.gov. U.S. federal government site for the Department of Education, with links to resources, news, policies, and statistics. Users can also access information about No Child Left Behind and other federal programs.

http://edtrust.org. The Education Trust is a nonprofit organization that focuses on schools in low-income areas and schools with high numbers of minority students. Reports, data, and news on these issues are provided on this site.

www.heritage.org/Issues/Education. Heritage Foundation portal to reports and information regarding its ideas on education policy.

www.nbpts.org. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards site. Provides information regarding professional standards for the teaching profession.

http://nces.ed.gov. The National Center for Education Statistics is part of the U.S. Department of Education. A wide range of information is available at this site.

www.nea.org. Site for the National Education Association, a major organization representing teachers and supporting public education. Reports and information are available on a number of education issues.

www.pta.org. Site for the National Parent Teacher Association, a child ad