Good time to kill a stupid system

The East Valley Tribune has this article about the crisis in the student loan system. Perhaps it is time to do away with private indentured servitude of the current system and build one that makes more sense.

I have been very clear where I stand on this issue (education should be free), but I am well aware of the slim to none nature of it. Perhaps, if there was less capital in the system we will see the same price drop as in the housing market.

I am curious gentle readers, do you think college costs could be like housing prices? Would a drop in enrollment cause a drop in tuition. Of course, that would be a disaster for our country, but this is more an intellectual exercise.

Arizona shoots to near the top in education

Ok, not really, we are still at the bottom. I had to find someway to make this story from the Arizona Republic fresh... By my calculation, we spend 30% less than the national average. Sad.

You know what helps during an economic downturn? Raising tuition...

Here we go again... Now the Maricopa Community College system has decided to raise tuition. An article in today's Arizona Republic goes over the proposed details. A nine % increase in tuition in a time when more people are at an economic disadvantage is just stupid.

You need to read this my Conservative friends (and Liberal ones)

If you have ever wondered why I am an advocate of free education through college, this is it in a nutshell. It’s the economy stupid!

A skilled workforce creates jobs. Education is an investment that is essential to a good economy. I always thought that the ranks of economists were filled with Conservatives. Why is that Conservatives seem to ignore the teachings of their brethren?

Our policies should be less about ideology and more about creating the kind of world we wish to live. Who wants to live in a world of perfect conservative ideology with a bad economy and an uneducated populace (or perfect Liberal ideology with the same problems)?

To my Liberal friends, the government does not create jobs. The government can set the table with education and a solid infrastructure, but the people bring the meal. The quote below should be a cause of concern for everyone that loves this country.

The economic benefits of a college degree are huge and growing, but the proportion of American high school graduates who enroll in college has been stalled since the early '90s. In fact, the rate of college participation for African American and Hispanic high school graduates has actually been falling.

Other countries around the globe are narrowing the income gap with the United States in large part because they're sending an increasing proportion of their young people to college and we're not.

This is precisely why Arizona should be providing more funding for education and universities and not less. The cost of tuition should be falling toward zero, not going up to reach the national average. This is even more true when there is a government funding problem. If workers can easily acquire new skills during a recession, it will be shorter lived.

The two most important people in Arizona's budget battle (it's not the Gov or a legislator)

The East Valley Tribune has this fascinating insight into how economic forecasts are created for the state. There are two economists, one at ASU and one at UofA, that provide econometric forecasts for the state and this year their forecasts differ greatly.

I actually find it heartening that there are two guys who worry about the specifics of the economy and seem relatively non-political. This is why having great education intuitions is so important and why we should give more respect to intellectualism. It also more than a little ironic that these guys could cause the funding of their respective universities to be cut. To me this illustrates the importance of tenure (an economist would see an incentive to fudge the forecasts).

The politicians can fight their political fights (and they will), but without Marshall Vest and Dennis Hoffman, to provide the information, they would not even be able to discuss the future. Thanks guys!

Our Republican Legislature: Dare to be stupid

I have to say that I really don't understand the Republicans in the legislature. I know that they think government is the root of all evil and they want to eliminate it, but they also seem to want to bankrupt it along the way. These two articles 1 and 2 from the East Valley Tribune show how short-sighted they really are.

On one hand they want to cut education and health care spending for the poor during an economic slow down. As the governor rightly points out, people need more educational opportunities and health care spending during a down turn.

This goes back to my seemingly Sisyphean argument that education should be as constitutionally mandated as nearly free as possible. When education is cheap people can retool easier during an economic downturn. This makes for a more flexible and vibrant economy. I can imagine a person who works in construction (and is finding less work) wanting to go to school to become a computer programmer, a project manager or even get a construction management degree. It should be as painless as possible to do this because in the end it benefits everyone. People taking advantage of educational opportunities will consume less public resources over the long-term because of increased income. They will pay more in taxes to offset the increased educational spending and their increased buying power will stimulate the local economy. Not only that, but a highly educated work force draws new industry to Arizona.

The other article addresses the Republican insistence that we make a tax cut permanent when we are running a deficit. I know it is wishful thinking given recent batch of Conservatives, but they used to value fiscal responsibility as one the primary pillars their philosophy. What happened? First, the tax will not be reinstated until 2010, so what is the rush? When we are running a huge deficit that is likely to run into 2009 (and get bigger), why would you even be concerned with this now? How about this, lets deal with this next session before the tax is reinstated? Lets wait and see how things look next year...

I have to say that the Republicans almost seem determined to relegate themselves to minority status.

What word(s) best describes the Republicans in the Arizona Leg?

Dumb, thick-headed, tin-eared, short-sighted, politically inept, dim witted, impaired, intellectually challenged, dense, num-skulled and thick are just a few that quickly come to my mind. Seriously, what world do these guys come from?

There was this article from the East Valley Tribune about the recommended budget cuts by Republican controlled chairmen of the appropriations committees in the Arizona Legislature. Here is list:

The proposal also would make major -- and permanent -- cuts in funding for state universities, suspend funding for new land and buildings for community colleges and eliminate the state's general assistance program.

Other cuts suggested by the chairmen of the House and Senate appropriations committees include:

-- eliminating a new initiative to help teach math and science.

--rolling back an extra $15.3 million that lawmakers gave to public schools above
what a formula requires them to provide.

-- reducing eligibility for a program that provides health insurance for the children of the working poor.

If you get beyond how bad these cuts are for a growing state and how morally bankrupt it is to preserve tax-cuts while cutting health care for poor children, how politically dumb can one be?

If I could pick a group of items to run against in a political campaign the list above would be a dream. The only problem that I can see is that the list is so dumb that is almost hard believe.

Seriously, you cannot find better cuts than education and child health care? Wow...

The education disconnect

There was this article from the Arizona Republic about students who want the Board of Regents to freeze tuition in the face of increases that the Universities are seeking. I have written about this several times and I am not sure I much more to say other than I still don't understand how smart people can be so stupid.

Our Republican friend, Espresso Pundit has a pretty good entry about this topic here. I think his analysis is pretty close to the mark. The simple fact is that if you want more people in Arizona with bachelors degree raising tuition is not the way to get there.

In general, I am a big advocate of Arizona and Phoenix. I don't buy into all of the negativity about us being last in everything. However, the one area the I think Arizona is really deficient is university/college education. ASU, NAU and UofA are all fine schools, but there is not nearly enough choice in the state to satisfy a vibrant growing economy.

When I lived in Georgia (pop. 9,363,941) there were 20 colleges/universities just in Atlanta. Of those, about there are 7 major institutions (Georgia Tech, Emory, Georgia State, Morehouse, Agnes Scott, Ogelthorpe and Spelman). That does not count the rest of the state which probably had half a dozen Universities, including the University of Georgia. The beauty of the system there (besides it being mostly free because of the HOPE Scholarship) is that there is broad range of colleges and programs through out the state. There are 5 laws schools (two top tier, two middle tier, one bottom tier). There are probably 5 MBA programs just in Atlanta. I am not trying to rub it in, but this is what a state looks like when they take the link between economic growth and education seriously.


If Arizona wants to become a state with diverse economy with a lot of variability it must offer more education opportunities. Companies are still flocking to Atlanta in spite of the fact that the city is running out of water and that it is nightmare to live there. Build it and they will come...

Robert Robb wants to know why silly voters do not like vouchers

Here is Robb's latest column from the Arizona Republic addressing the lack of support for vouchers. He thinks the evidence is pretty clear that vouchers are a really good thing. I won't address the specifics of the information he cites, but I will explain to him why voters don't like vouchers.

In in a nutshell Mr. Robb, voters do not trust your party when it comes something as important as education. People will gamble on a lot of things when it comes to government policy, but gambling with your child's future and education is a hard sell. There is also the problem that most people see through the disingenuous motives of many voucher supporters. I do not think you could deny that at least a portion of the coalition built up around vouchers has only two goals: ending free public education and breaking teachers unions.

Your coalition lacks the earnestness to make vouchers work. You don't believe that government can do anything right and your party is far too concerned with think tank theories to fashion a pragmatic solution in the likely possibility that your program will not work as advertised. In short, your party has lost its credibility. The Democratic Party has some issues around credibility as well, but right now voters trust us more. If we can clean up some of the mess created by your party, maybe, just maybe we can regain some of the trust lost during your party's reign.

If you want vouchers, here is my suggestion for you and your party. Make something work. Prove to voters that your party can do something right. Be earnest about wanting to improve peoples lives and admit that vouchers may not be a magic bullet. Make sure voters know that no matter what you will find a way to provide their child an education (even if vouchers don't work). Maybe then voters would support your idea...

College Tuition (how to get it wrong)

This article from the Arizona Republic covers the controversial topic of tuition increases at ASU and I assume U of A. Regular readers of my site know how I feel about this topic, education should be free, end of story. The economic benefits of free University education easily outweigh any costs, but that is not what I want write about today.

Here is the quote I want to talk about:

University officials say the initial hikes are an attempt to bring tuition at Arizona universities more in line with tuition at other public universities. Nationwide, tuition and fees are averaging $6,185 this year at four-year public universities, according to the College Board. UA, which currently is the costliest for undergraduates among the three state universities, charges $5,037 in tuition and fees.

I was nearly speechless when I read the quote above. Let me see if I have this logic straight: You are raising tuition, not because of increasing costs, new programs or too little funding from the Legislature. You are raising it because it is below the national average? Our tax burden in Arizona is also below the national average will you be raising that as well? Foolish me, I thought tuition was based on the actual costs of providing an education, not on how much you think you can squeeze out of parents.

The point of having a public university is to make the education as affordable as possible, hence the tax dollars they get for their operation. It is not a for profit business where you charge as much as possible based on the prevailing market rate.

If there was a smart and ambitious politician looking for a good issue, they would see the political hay to be made by helping parents pay for college. The HOPE scholarship kept Democrats in power in Georgia for two election cycles longer they should have been there. I hear many of my liberal friends criticize the South, but most of them don't realize that many kids go to college for free in Georgia. I don't see that happening in Massachusetts... (or Arizona).

Arizona's dumbest law strikes again... (We don't need no education)

The Arizona Republic has this article and this article about the failure of many of the override ballot props up for a vote last night. These override elections are stupid. School districts have elected boards that can be recalled and defeated in subsequent elections if they raise taxes too much.

Even Tom Horne sees this as potentially catastrophic:

Arizona schools chief Tom Horne said that if the districts do not persuade voters to change their minds, they will face "catastrophic" cuts that could reduce teacher pay, increase class size and leave new schools without desks.

This change will reduce funding by about $70 million over 3 years for the affected school districts. Arizona already has one of the lowest spending per pupal averages in the US. We cannot let this spending cut happen. It is time to overturn this stupid, counterproductive, think tank conceived law. Here is some of my previous writing on the subject. Here are my previous entries on education.

We need to decide whether we want Arizona to be competitive economically and properly fund the activities or whether really want a low tax and tiny government haven. I don't think you can have it both ways.

The stupidest law in Arizona strikes again

The East Valley Tribune clearly has an anti-tax slant and displays it here. Here is a quote:

Despite increased state funding for education in recent years, school districts remain dependent on having budget overrides — and asking voters to pay for the costly habit.

They make it sound like the schools have a $300 a day drug habit. Perhaps the reason that overrides are needed is because of this:

Expenditures per Student: The U.S. average per student expenditure for public elementary and secondary schools in 2003–04 fall enrollment was $8,248. States with the highest per student expenditures: New York ($12,325), Connecticut ($11,774), New Jersey ($11,390), Massachusetts ($10,772), and Vermont ($10,763). Utah ($5,091), Arizona ($5,347), Oklahoma ($5,976), Arkansas ($6,005), and Mississippi ($6,137) had the lowest per student expenditures (H-11). (From NEA 05 Educational Rankings report)

Could it be that they need extra funding because we are in the bottom four in spending. I am sorry, but anytime Alabama beats you it is time to rethink your strategy.

NCLB and AIMS are the Wrong Way to Educate

Here is an article from the Arizona Republic about the schools failing under AIMS and the No Child Left Behind law. I think there are lots of problems with this model of education. First, I don't think teaching students how to take a test is necessarily learning. Second, it minimizes music and arts programs. I know it is hard to believe, but not everyone wants to be an engineer. One size fits all education is a bad idea... I think students need outlets for their specific talents and the different facets of their personalities.

It is a good idea to test for basic skills, but I am not sure that only basic skills should determine whether a school is on the right or wrong track. I know people do not like to hear it, but good education is probably 1/3 science and 2/3 art. As much as I would like to see the world of education completely quantified, I know it is not possible. Some of my most valuable educational experiences had nothing to do with preparing for high stakes tests. They included things like hanging out with my gifted teacher and discussing philosophy or literature (but without a real curriculum). In that class, we studied diplomacy, world affairs, Shakespeare, opera, law, the US Constitution, logic and complex mathematics, none of which are on those tests. The class went wherever our curiosity led us. Many of the things I learned, I use daily and have significantly enriched my life.

Our goal should be to educate our citizens, not just teach them a test.

Arizona Supreme Court Gets it Wrong

I know why the Arizona Supreme Court made this decision, but I think it was the wrong one. The Arizona Constitution says that education should be "as nearly free as possible". I think when the Arizona Constitution was written they really meant this.

I personally think that tuition should be near zero. The economic benefits of free education are pretty clear to me. In Arizona, we have shortages of qualified engineers, high tech workers, nurses, doctors etc. How many people would be willing to get a degree if the costs were lower? If you have a family, it is hard to find the time for school, but if you add $60-$100 of debt to the equation, many choose to forgo the financial hardship.

Cheap education benefits the state through higher salaries (and tax revenue) and benefits business by providing more qualified applicants. I know it is hard to believe, but many companies stay in expensive areas like San Francisco and Seattle because of the large number of highly educated workers. Changing the regulatory environment or economic incentives are not the only ways to draw business to Arizona. How about high quality of life and a highly educated work force?

No Oversight, No Tax Money?

I am of the opinion that if you receive tax dollars you should be subject to oversight. Here is an article from the ARIZONA DAILY STAR about charter schools who want to be exempt from "curriculum alignment''. This basically means that there are benchmarks for achievement that need to be met. The example given is

the state board mandates that third graders know how to multiply and divide by numbers up to 9.

Basically, the charter schools can achieve the requirements however they like, but there are certain standards that have to be met. It seems like an imminently reasonable idea to me, but brings up a more interesting question.

Should every organization that chooses to receive tax dollars be subject to oversight no matter what the legislature thinks. Should there be a de facto acceptance of oversight by accepting public money? If not, how would you govern a system to avoid abuse by organizations that cannot be overseen by public entities? In this case, how would you ensure that schools are actually teaching and not just keeping the money? How do we oversee Charter schools, I honestly don't know?

Worried about Education? Read This...

This is one of the most brilliant articles that I have read about education and educational outcomes. Here is the article. I have always been bothered by the people that complain that some inner city schools get more money (some actually do...) than better performing schools and how patently unfair that is... Rarely do I ever hear someone mention that it might actually cost more to bring struggling kids up to standard.

Our approach to education is really backward.

Anyway, read the article...

Dropout Rate, Dropping...

This article in the Arizona Republic outlines the decrease in the dropout rate in AZ. My only question is why did it drop? I am always skeptical of these articles that don't specify the methods for the study or even try to hypothesize why this is happening. Here is to hoping they are right...

What ever happened to increasing the dropout age to 18? Does anyone know?

Here is more

Redistricting Schools: Good? Bad?

So, there is an effort afoot in the Maricopa to merge school districts. The idea is to create more efficient and cost effective districts, essentially to get more money in classrooms and pay teachers more. Please don't take my explanation as an endorsement, I am not sure where I stand. The Arizona Republic has this article in today's paper. When I first read about this it sounded like a good idea at least in theory. After reading the article today, I am not so sure... Teachers oppose it and parents from both poor and wealthier districts oppose it. It specifically talks about the Madison district, which is excellent and some of the poorer districts (Balz, Wilson, etc). Their reasoning seems quite sound. That is enough to give me pause.

Plus, why is the head of a financial company leading this effort? What expertise could he possible have when it comes to education? Can anyone out there shed more light on all of this? Do we really want greater efficiency at the cost of disrupting districts that are currently excelling?