The Reality of Paying for College

So a lot of people have been talking about a picture from 53% that has been making the internet rounds where the person holding the sign claims to be about to graduate from college debt-free. Support for this concept and deep skepticism seems to fall pretty much along party lines.

Democratic operative Ames writes that:

…the anonymous subject of a popularly circulated Facebook picture, who claims to be “about to graduate completely debt free” based only on her own hard work, is either lying, or has rich parents. 

While I had been told in 2008 that the Left was about hope it seems to be more about deep pessimism these days. But maybe there is a reason. Let’s look at he specifics. Ames attended Rice University and NYU Law School. Both prestigious and appropriately expensive.

Rice – $34,900 per school year

NYU – $31,536 per school year

Now I don’t know Ames’ specifics but I imagine he got some serious financial aid because he’s a bright guy. Even then, it seems like the tuition bill was probably still pretty high and he presumably borrowed a lot or ‘has rich parents’. But maybe there are other options. I didn’t borrow AND I didn’t have rich parents so I went the community college route. I attended Jefferson Community College for all of my basics. JCC’s current tuition is currently $3,240 per school year. This contrasts with the University of Louisville where I finished up my degrees. UL is currently at $11,040 per school year.

So we have some options here:

Rice University – $34,900

University of Louisville – $11,040

Jefferson Community College – $3,240

The first one would be a no-go for me. The second one would be tight without parental help or grant money and the third one is completely doable with money to spare. Sock away the extra savings and you’ve got a nest egg for the last two years of increased tuition at a non-community college. Do like I did and work two jobs and it gets even easier.

I’m not saying that paying for college is easy. I have a daughter starting college next year and I’m terrified of the bills, but it’s neither impossible nor a lie, as Ames and others have claimed.

Early Endorsement of President Guarantees NEA’s Irrelevance

From the Los Angeles Times:

The nation’s largest teachers union voted [on July 4th] in Chicago to support President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election bid despite discord between rank-and-file teachers and the administration over key education reforms.

Seventy-two percent of the National Education Association’s representative assembly voted to support Obama, marking the group’s earliest endorsement ever, and one that comes before the Republican field has narrowed to a single candidate.

This is a frustrating   not a surprising one. The teachers’ unions have been in bed with the Democratic Party for a long time and we should not be surprised that they are giving up any pretense of objectivity going into an election year. On the other hand though, many of the reforms that have been championed by the President and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have roots in conservative education policy.

I don’t know who will be the eventual Republican nominee but I have faith that whomever it is they will be proposing policies that are closer to what the President has endorsed than to what others on the Left would have advocated.  So what is the tipping factor? Obviously it’s perceived support for unions. Is this a well-founded assessment of the President? I’m not sure it is. Many of the reforms he has advocated have been in direct opposition to established union polices.

Education reform will likely be a topic of lower priority in the next election with the economy taking much higher importance. Still, with this early endorsement the NEA may have guaranteed they have no voice in the next administration, no matter who wins. A Republican president will likely feel no obligation to listen to them and a re-elected President Obama will likely take them for granted. The political truism I have believed most in over the years is that the quickest way to get ignored by the people in power is to become a predictable voter. With this move the NEA has done just that.

 

Education Reform a Myth?

Diane Ravitch, writing for the NY Times (h/t Apt 11D)

If every child arrived in school well-nourished, healthy and ready to learn, from a family with a stable home and a steady income, many of our educational problems would be solved. And that would be a miracle.

This is an interesting line of thought and one that I’ve both heard a lot lately and feels like someone is saying the emperor has no clothes.  Dammit if I don’t agree. We all know educational achievement is strongly linked to socio-economic background. Solid home lives equal more support in the form of encouragement, positive role models, resources, etc.

I’ve read more than one person suggest lately that we would be better off switching the focus from education reform to ending poverty. Again, I find myself nodding my head in agreement. A lot of this comes from having a close family member who works as a social worker in our school system. I hear stories about neglectful parents that make my head spin. Elementary-age students that miss 20-30 days of school and when the courts are about to get involved Kentucky law allows parents to pull them for homeschooling. The only problem is that this means 8 hours a day in front of the TV and no state requirements for proof of progress.

I’m rambling a bit here but my point is that we ask too much of the people who make education policy and they are just arrogant enough to believe they can deliver. Maybe it’s time we stop asking and do the job ourselves. My gut tells me we should have been in the first place.

 

Rural Mobility

From The Rural Blog:

Studies regarding student mobility — how often students switch schools — has usually been focused on poor urban areas, but new research suggests rural student mobility may be as big a problem. A recent analysis of five states by Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning suggests “in a small rural district, it takes a lot fewer kids moving around to play havoc with your staff assignment, special education supports and even course offerings,” Sarah Sparks of Education Week reports on the Inside School Research blog.

High student mobility can affect individual students as they struggle to adjust to news schools and other students as teachers and administrators work to catch up new students, Sparks writes. “Andrea Beesley, McREL senior director and lead author on the report, studied state-reported student mobility data for Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming,” Sparks writes. “The research team found that in Wyoming and North Dakota, rural districts had higher student mobility than did cities, though the smaller school populations in these districts may skew the sample.”

This topic lines up nicely with a guest post I did at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen last year on the premise of a national curriculum.  In the post I wrote:

A standardized curriculum also provides both students and parents with a higher degree of mobility. Parents could move to another state to take a new job with less fear of damaging their children’s educational progress. Kids could transfer from one school district to another within the same state and have a fairly seamless experience academically. The mobility provided to parents has an economic impact and the mobility provided to students has an academic impact. It’s a win – win.

While my personally feeling is that the best thing we can give our children is deep roots in a community, I also recognize that for some parents mobility is necessary in order to compete economically. With a national curriculum we remove at least one stumbling block that makes mobility harder.

I would emphasize that this highlights a common misconception which is that rural folks generally stay in one place while urban dwellers move around a lot more. While it may be true that inter-urban mobility is common (within the same city) the studies cited indicate that long-distance mobility is more common in rural areas. One could argue that this indicates either a less diverse economy or a less diverse workforce where niche workers compete for a small pool of jobs and lack the additional skills to change careers if necessary.

Rural Broadband and the Stimulus

Why Stimulus Funding is more trouble than it’s worth:

From the Rural Blog:

A report released Monday by the Department of Commerce’s Office of the Inspector General calls for more oversight of federal stimulus package broadband funding. The report concluded: “The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the agency that has been managing the program, isn’t doing enough to monitor how grantees are spending the stimulus money,” Jennifer Martinez of Politico reports.

 NTIA is waiting for Congress to authorize an additional $24 million so it can monitor its grantees.

Keep in mind that ll of the money involved, both the grants and the monitoring funds, is borrowed from other countries. This is not how you rebuild an economy folks.

Job Security

Not the most inspiring statistic, but for those of us who pursued higher education, there’s not a large pool of competition here in Louisville:

I have to admit that having a degree has been extraordinarily helpful in my line of work. While my company’s business model and management structure doesn’t always ensure that the brightest people are in the top positions, I think it is fair to say that we get the most interesting positions. The ability to write well is viewed almost like a super power by many in the company. Add to that a competent level of talent with a few computer systems and you get carte blanche to pursue the most dynamic projects available. At this point in my life, so long as the pay is comfortable, I will grab ‘interesting’ over ‘level of responsibility’ any day of the week.

As for why so little degree achievement in Louisville – I don’t have an easy answer. The majority of my friends all have degrees. Those that don’t have been able to get ahead through sheer willpower. In short, I don’t really know anyone who is degree-less and suffering for it. Maybe that’s the answer. Opportunities to succeed without a degree. Is this a good model? Probably yes in the short-term but in the longterm I suspect industries are going to not just demand higher education for the cache but the technologies they use will require it.

Examining Our Beliefs

The main reason that I started blogging is that I wanted to use it as a journaling platform to work through my own opinions (mostly political). I have often found that as I try to explain my beliefs in writing I realize that my reasoning is contradictory and I am forced to completely rethink my position. It’s a good process for me although often a bit painful. It’s also not the only tool I use to accomplish this critical self-reflection…

Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, has an interesting post up today that touches on a technique that he and I both use, albeit from different angles.

My most useful mental trick involves imagining myself to be far more capable than I am. I do this to reduce the risk that I turn down an opportunity just because I am clearly unqualified. So far, this has worked well for me. …

As my career with Dilbert took off, reporters asked me if I ever imagined I would reach this level of success. The question embarrasses me because the truth is that I imagined a far greater level of success. That’s my process.  I imagine big.

I’ve never admitted this before, but my favorite imaginary scenario involves being elected President of the United States.  I choose that job as the target of my imagination because I am spectacularly unqualified to hold public office. If I can successfully imagine being a great president, I won’t have trouble imagining I can succeed at lesser tasks.

So it’s confession time here – I also employ a similar trick. When I am thinking through a particular political opinion I often imagine myself as running for a political office and being asked a question in a debate.  Depending on the issue I might be running for mayor, governor or President. I should say that I only do this exercise when alone in the car. I imagine a question like, “How would you change the economic relationship being Kentucky’s rural and urban areas?” Then I will state my answer, out loud, while trying to be as brief as possible (brevity is my mortal enemy when it comes to public speaking).  To avoid looking a complete maniac I always wear my bluetooth headset so passing drivers just assume I am on a conference call and not pretending I am in a debate moderated by Gwen Ifill.

I find this exercise amazingly effective for thinking through my positions, often in preparation for a blog post on the subject or just to better explain myself to friends. Of course it requires a healthy imagination, which I am blessed with, and a certain desire to be self-critical. I don’t know that doing this fills me with a confidence that I could do that job, but it certainly makes me more confident in my own opinions which I think is important.

Back to School

Louisville schools start back tomorrow. We’ll be gearing up tonight and the house will be on high-alert. Our daughters have already been trying out new hair styles for the first day, picking out their outfits, etc. The oldest has a new messenger bag on the way (hopefully it will arrive today) and the youngest has brand new shoes that she got a couple of months ago but was not allowed to wear all summer.  Both have new uniforms that they waded through to find just the right look for the first day.

It’s interesting to note the contrast in moods between our two daughters. The oldest one decided school was boring several years ago and is muddling through until college, where she apparently thinks school will be radically different and worthy of her attention. In the meantime we beg her to do her homework and study for tests. She isn’t particularly looking forward to school starting but if she has to go, she’s sure going to look good doing it.

Our youngest starts middle school this year, which will in many ways be, if the experience we had with our oldest is any indication, a bigger milestone than the move to high school three years from now. The cool thing is that she still mostly likes school. She’s super-excited about the first day tomorrow and can’t wait to catch the bus on the corner. For her this is the first new school since she started kindergarten six years ago. Because of the way our school system is set up she actually had a choice of two schools, both of which she liked, and got to make the final decision mostly herself. So there’s a certain amount of buy-in that goes with that. The school is ranked in the top 5 for our county, so we’re also pleased she will be getting a quality education.

As parents we get almost as excited as the kids about the first day of school. There’s something so refreshing about crisp uniforms, new supplies and the re-institution of a more solid routine after the hurricane-in-a-bottle that is summer vacation. Desks are cleaned off, pencils sharpened and we are the most optimistic we can be. Check back with us in January and school fatigue will probably be setting in, but this is life. In the meantime, we will enjoy tomorrow as much as we can.

Quote of the Day

 How to begin to educate a child. First rule: leave him alone. Second rule: leave him alone. Third rule: leave him alone. That is the whole beginning.

- D.H. Lawrence, 1918

What I Am Reading

Right now I am reading a series of articles in Newsweek about education reform. They are thought-provoking and my head is swimming with new ideas. The early take-away is that Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is living up to the hype and the President is doing a good job in backing him. The articles also hammer pretty hard on the point that teachers’ unions are probably the greatest obstacle to reform. The rhetoric is a little strong even for my taste but consider this point:

At Central Falls High School in Rhode Island, half the students drop out of school, and proficiency in math measured by state exams stands at a pitiful 7 percent among 11th graders. Under state pressure, the local superintendent, Frances Gallo, tried to improve scores by requiring teachers to work 25 minutes longer each a day, eat lunch with students once a week, and agree to be evaluated by a third party. The teachers, who make about $75,000 a year, far more than average in this depressed town, balked. They wanted another $90 an hour. So Gallo took a brave and astonishing step: she recommended firing all 74 teachers. Her boldness was praised by Education Secretary Duncan—and supported by President Obama. The teachers’ union initially squawked that everyone was unfairly “blaming the teachers,” but then last week backed off under a storm of media pressure and accepted the new rules requiring teachers to spend more time with the students.

For a lack of a better adjective, that is badass. The tides are turning my friends.

A Different Perspective on School Choice

Charles Murray at the NY Times (h/t Ross Douthat) discusses recent results which seem to indicate the Milwaukee charter school program is not moving past non-charter schools.  He concludes that perhaps this method of measurement is the flaw:

So let’s not try to explain them away. Why not instead finally acknowledge that standardized test scores are a terrible way to decide whether one school is better than another? This is true whether the reform in question is vouchers, charter schools, increased school accountability, smaller class sizes, better pay for all teachers, bonuses for good teachers, firing of bad teachers — measured by changes in test scores, each has failed to live up to its hype.

This is a standard complaint of most groups that are not seeing the school/program of their choice meeting expectations. While I am not a big fan of the ‘some kids don’t test well’ excuse I am willing to admit that many important skills cannot be covered in these tests. So then where do we go? As consumers of a product (education) I think we need to be able to measure performance. Murray suggests one criteria: how happy we are with the school.

Here’s an illustration. The day after the Milwaukee results were released, I learned that parents in the Maryland county where I live are trying to start a charter school that will offer a highly traditional curriculum long on history, science, foreign languages, classic literature, mathematics and English composition, taught with structure and discipline. This would give parents a choice radically different from the progressive curriculum used in the county’s other public schools.

I suppose that test scores might prove that such a charter school is “better” than ordinary public schools, if the test were filled with questions about things like gerunds and subjunctive clauses, the three most important events of 1776, and what Occam’s razor means. But those subjects aren’t covered by standardized reading and math tests. For this reason, I fully expect that students at such a charter school would do little better on Maryland’s standardized tests than comparably smart students in the ordinary public schools.

And yet, knowing that, I would still send my own children to that charter school in a heartbeat. They would be taught the content that I think they need to learn, in a manner that I consider appropriate.

This is an important point in a couple of different ways. The first is that the educational program and the atmosphere at a school is extremely important even if it cannot always be measured by tests. My own experience as a graduate of parochial schools is that, especially in high school, the things that made my school successful were beyond test scores. We were given a classical eduction similar to the one described in Maryland and a robust foundation we could build on in college. While I graduated disappointed with my mediocre grades, I soon found that I was still more prepared for college than many of my peers in my first year as an undergraduate.

Another point I am choosing to take from Murray’s article essay is that maybe as parents we need to look beyond report cards and assess our children through our own criteria. Yes, obviously good grades demonstrate hard work and I’m not suggesting we tolerate or encourage a lack of effort. But maybe there’s more to it. For me, I am impressed that both of my daughters have a keen interest in nature and this was aptly demonstrated when we were at the Natural History Museum in Washington DC this spring. Not only were they engaged and interested but they demonstrated acquired knowledge with their comments and their recognition of the things they saw.

I see other areas of encouragement. Understanding of and a desire to use technology. A willingness to listen to a be challenged by new ideas. Independent thought and self-directed learning on subjects that matter to them. The proof of their intelligence is there every day in places other than a report card or the results of a standardized test. We just have to look for them.

I may voice concerns that the American constitution isn’t taught enough or that the books being assigned are not tough enough or interesting enough, but at the end of the day i like the schools my kids attend. I’m happy they go there and I see results. We have choices and those choices are meeting our expectations. Maybe this is the best thing we can ask for in the public school environment.

Starting with the Basics

Laura at 11D wrote a few weeks ago about a ‘normal’ public school in Brooklyn that is showing real signs of success. She talks about how the changes are not revolutionary and could be easily duplicated elsewhere.

What is it doing differently? Well, reading between the lines in the article, the school benefits from having a smart principal who has a consistent philosophy about education. The kids are drilled on taking standardized tests. The teachers identify problems quickly and offer after school help. The got rid of ESL classes and immediately plopped non-English speakers in regular classrooms.

These “best practices” could be replicated everywhere.

This is a good point that I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. I have a close relative that works for the school system and I regularly kick around ideas with them about how to reform our schools. One thing I’ve come to a conclusion on is that we have to come up with solutions that work within the confines of the current educational bureaucracy. Charter schools are a great idea but not practical for large-scale replication. Ultimately we have to come up with changes that are affordable and realistic. It probably starts with a re-emphasis of the three Rs and then moving on to logical assessments of progress and an attainable roadmap of short-term goals that build upon one another. The first step, of course, is the hardest.

Attracting Better Talent in Teaching

Kyle at Vogue  Republic responds to a good piece from Megan McArdle concerning why schools have trouble attracting talent from top-tier universities. First, a quote from Megan:

Nor do I find it particularly likely that it is investment banking salaries that are diverting bright students from teaching in our nation’s primary and secondary schools–rather than the fact that the work is relatively low-paid, relatively low-status, and offers relatively few opportunities for advancement. The problem with the nation’s teacher supply isn’t that too few of them come from the Ivy League, because Goldman Sachs hoovered up all the talent. The problem is that too few of them come from the top of their classes in any institution.

Kyle’s response:

However, the idea of working and not being recognized for how hard you work and often the results you achieve is a concept completely alien to the nation’s top achievers.

You don’t become a top student by being given the same recognition as someone who puts in less effort, fewer hours, and achieves worse results.

Yet, that’s the environment that defines public school teaching. Teaching is challenging and has a sense of purpose and importance. However, it’s also an environment where working harder and working smarter can have little to impact on one’s professional prospects.

Let me first just state that for the record, I come from a 2nd tier midwestern university and I think I had some incredibly smart and talented classmates. I also know people that went to some very good schools and while intelligent in some areas, they aren’t setting the world on fire in their professions for one reason or another. With that said, Kyle’s points are all solid. Getting into and graduating from an Ivy League school is tough and requires a tremendous amount of drive. What is the liklihood that drive could ever be satisfied in a public school system that seems to try its hardest to suppress innovation and teachers that go above and beyond.

I would also add that I continue to believe that schools must move away from thr dogmatic attachment to Teaching Certificiation for potential educators and start allowing more people to come into the classroom from a non-teaching background.  I wrote about this a while back and I’m no less committed to the concept today. I think a school system that learned to deal with turnover and help non-teachers teach for a year or two would add a huge level of excitement. Of course, the danger for school systems is that the folks without teaching degrees might do a better job and then what?

From the Vault: Summer Vacations

Dartmouth’s William Fischel (h/t Conor Clarke) writes about the economics surrounding the decision to have long summer breaks for schools.

Before interurban migration became important, the particular date at which school began did not matter, as long as it was the same for all schools in the district. But when new students were coming from some distance because their families were moving to a new region, school districts needed to allow sufficient time for newcomers to arrive and get settled. Losing four days of school because of a cross-town move was easily remedied, but losing four weeks of school because the family moved from Boston to Cleveland was more costly. In addition, the precise curriculum of the Cleveland school was apt to be different from that of Boston, even if both schools were graded. Even if transportation were instantaneous, a transfer between districts months after the school- year began would be disruptive.

[...] September became the preferred time to start the school year because in the Northern Hemisphere travel is cheapest during July and August. Summer travel was least likely to be disrupted by inclement weather, and so summer became the standard time for families to move and for schools to be closed. Schools that expected many new students from outside their district would find that it paid to have a standard vacation time during which all students were idle. Interurban job-changers found that it paid to leave ones employment in summer so that they could move to another area and start their children in a new school in September. Summer remains the prime season for households to move, especially if they have children.

I understand the points being made, but it seems this issue could still be addressed with several 2-3 week breaks throughout the year. I would think the worker who has the luxury to spend a month moving from one locale to another is very, very rare. The last time we moved we only needed one day of actual moving time, having spent the previous two weeks packing up one house in the evenings while shuttling over to the new house to paint. All our belongings were moved in one day with the help of a large truck and 5-6 friends who were willing to lend a hand. Even if we had moved cross-country I can’t see us need any additional time other than transit.

The need to move aside, there’s a lot of reason to believe that kids would benefit from more frequent and less-lengthy vacations. Research shows that lower-income kids lose more knowledge during the summer than their higher-income classmates. This is attributable to parental involvement and access to educational activities. In a stereotypical example, higher-income kids spend their summers at camps, in day-programs, taking vacations, summer reading programs at the library, trips to the museum, etc. Lower-income kids often spend the majority of their summers in front of the TV or playing with kids in their neighborhood. This lack of balance shows when kids return to school.

There’s also the ancillary notion of vacations. Families today are mostly forced to take family vacations during the summer. This creates competition for hotel rooms, crowding (ever been to Disney World in July?)  and lack of choices. Our family is not a ‘beach family’. We would much rather take trips in the fall when the leaves are changing and the air is crisp than hike out onto a beach to get sunburned in July. But with a summer-centric schedule, this isn’t practical for anything other than extended weekends.

It seems that momentum is building for more districts shifting schedules. one thing that would aid this is a national curriculum. Another much harder sell is going to be convincing families that summer isn’t a protected constitutional right. Unfortunately, for every family like my own that would love to travel or take time off in the autumn or early spring, there are 10 families who will fight for their yearly trip to Myrtle Beach in August.

Education Posting at The League

My friends over at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen were nice enough to bend their own rules and re-post my essay on Responsibility of Education.  I’m proud of the post and as usual the commenters over there add much to the conversation.

Check it out.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.