by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Feb 28, 2017
Some things in life are guaranteed: death, taxes, and left-leaning professors in the ivory tower. Proof? The percentage of professors identifying as “far-left” increased from 42 percent in 1990 to 60 percent in 2014, according to UCLA researchers. Another study published last year found that professors who are registered as Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 12 to 1. At Harvard, 84 percent of the faculty’s political contributions went to Democrats. The College Fix reports that the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, 17 departments have no professors registered as Republicans—zero.
As featured recently in the AJC, an Iowa lawmaker proposed legislation that would require universities to balance the number of Republican and Democrat-professing professors that schools hire. A bill so narrowly focused on universities’ employment practices leaves room—as well-intentioned legislation often does—for unintended consequences. Based on the polling above, there may not be enough professors on the right of the political isle to fill such a quota.
Lawmakers in Iowa—and Georgia—should consider a more fundamental issue: Protecting free speech on campus, no matter where you place yourself on the ideological spectrum. Disagree with many people in class? Engage in debate and discover the power of ideas and value of persuasion. So far this year, lawmakers in at least four states are considering resolutions or legislation that protects free speech on campus (Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Illinois). The new bills are modeled after Campus Free Speech: A Legislative Proposal by Stanley Kurtz from the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Jim Manley and myself from the Goldwater Institute.
The model legislation takes a comprehensive approach to protecting free expression on public college and university campuses. The bill prevents universities from designating so-called campus “free speech zones,” which actually limit what you can say and where you can say it. The bill allows individuals to speak and act freely on college grounds, as long as they do not interfere with others’ ability to do so. The bill also requires public universities to adopt mission statements in favor of free speech and make sure this material is available to existing and prospective students and faculty. Schools will be required to release an annual report on the condition of free speech on campus.
Colleges should be neutral on the issues and provide space for students and faculty to debate. Once students have left the college bubble, they are destined to encounter people with different opinions. Getting along and working peaceably with—and yes, when the time comes, even amicably disagreeing with—such people is a part of adulthood. No better time to practice these skills than when in college.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Jan 31, 2017
As the saying goes, you get what you pay for. Unless you’re a taxpayer, in which case you will get less than you wanted from Washington even though they used your money.
President Obama has left office, and the results of the ideas issued under his watch are coming in. Education research demonstrates we didn’t always get a bargain. A new study finds that a multi-billion-dollar federal grant program that incentivized district schools to change their operations neither changed such operations nor resulted in student achievement.
From 2009 to 2016, the U.S. Department of Education awarded School Improvement Grants (SIG). Each year, the agency divided approximately $500 million between states as part of Obama’s stimulus package to help ease schools out of the financial crisis that started in 2007. Georgia schools received approximately $16 million per year from 2014-16.
Schools could fire the principal, replace half of the teachers, and change instructional strategies like adding instructional time to the school day (part of what are called the “transformation” and “turnaround” methods); convert to a charter school; or close the school and send students to better-performing schools.
The result? SIG had no effect—none—on student achievement, graduation rates, or college enrollment.
Note this key detail: Researchers studied 1,200 participating schools and found that the transformation/turnaround methods were by far the most popular choices for schools. Just 33 schools converted to a charter school and 16 closed and allowed students to attend higher performing schools (3 percent and 1 percent of 1,253 schools, respectively). Thus, more money and grant applications promising to teach differently did not result in drastic changes.
Remarkably, researchers had already documented that some of the strategies SIG incentivized in the transformation/turnaround approaches were not supported by rigorous evidence: “Previous literature provides mixed evidence on the effectiveness of some of these practices at raising student achievement.” Yet Washington still spent some $7 billion over nearly a decade encouraging these activities.
Meanwhile, approximately 2,000 new charter schools opened without this federal slush fund from 2009 to 2016. Today, more than 6,000 charter schools operate nationwide. Charter schools are different state-to-state, but in some areas where all public school results disappoint, like Detroit, Michigan, charter schools are outperforming district schools. Those opposing President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Department of Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, have cited Detroit’s low scores and DeVos’s support of parental choice in Michigan as evidence that she is not qualified for the post.
But multiple studies demonstrate that Detroit charter school students are outperforming their peers in traditional schools. DeVos’s skeptics are free to scrutinize her policy positions, but opponents lose credibility when they misrepresent data.
Likewise, in Arizona, charter schools outperform district schools in terms of eventual college graduates. Charter schools account for 14 percent of Arizona’s total public school population, yet charter schools make up for 5 of the top 10 public schools in the state for students finishing college in 4 years.
Arizona charter schools—like nearly all charter schools in the U.S.—are producing these results despite being funded with less money per student than district public schools. Georgia charter schools are funded at approximately $3,000 less per student than district schools, and low-income 8th grade charter students are outperforming their peers in a national comparison. Now there’s a bargain.
Again, more SIG schools opted not to convert to a charter school with their grant money, choosing more administrative changes instead. And researchers did not find better student outcomes.
Let’s hope policymakers learned a lesson from a failed experiment relying on more taxpayer money for public schools. Lawmakers should commit to giving parents and children more quality educational choices over the next four years. Families will get a better deal when they can choose how and where their children learn.
by Kimberly Sawatka | Jan 25, 2017
Jamie Lord, GCO’s Director of Government Affairs, has been on the air waves discussing the benefits of school choice with the team at The Morning Show with Bill and Joel.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Nov 18, 2016
New research from EdChoice finds that Georgia’s scholarships for K-12 private school students have saved the state between $12 million and $85 million since 2011. Nearly two-dozen states have similar tax credit scholarship programs that allow individuals or businesses to make charitable contributions to K-12 private school scholarship organizations. The nonprofit scholarship organizations award scholarships to eligible students, and donors can take a credit on their state taxes that is equivalent to some or all of their donation.
EdChoice’s findings come at an important moment for state families because the state supreme court is considering a challenge to the program. Two years ago, the Southern Education Foundation supported four Georgia residents’ lawsuit to block state families from using the scholarships for their children. Recently, the Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in support of the scholarships.
“We urge the court to affirm the determination that the tax-credit program does not violate the state constitution, focusing on the fact that it does not involve spending public funds for any sectarian purpose,” write Ilya Shapiro and David McDonald.
In Georgia, individuals and businesses can receive a dollar-for-dollar credit for their contribution to scholarship organizations up to certain limits ($2,500 for a married couple and businesses can claim no more than 75 percent of their tax liability). Since 2010, scholarship organizations have awarded more than 60,000 scholarships for students to use at K-12 private schools.
Teacher unions, school board associations, and other associations regularly challenge parent and student educational options in court. Fortunately for families, courts have upheld tax credit scholarships around the country, without exception. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the nation’s oldest such scholarships, in Arizona, in 2011.
The decision paved the way for students like Gabe Alba-Rivera to discover opportunities he didn’t know existed before his scholarship. In my 2014 interview with Gabe, he explains that he was born in Mexico and had little more than broken pieces of his school’s roof to draw hopscotch squares at recess. A bucket of water served two purposes when he used the bathroom—the first as his bathroom pass, the second to flush the toilet.
After moving to Arizona, Gabe used a tax credit scholarship—nearly identical to the scholarships available to thousands of students across Georgia—to attend Brophy Prep, where he was active in the school Robotics Club. Gabe earned a spot at MIT, where he studies 3-D printers.
Twenty-eight scholarship organizations serve Georgia families, and these groups awarded more than 13,000 scholarships last year. The state supreme court should uphold the lower court ruling and protect families’ freedom to choose the best learning opportunity for their child.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Sep 30, 2016
In 1952, Patrick Skene Catling wrote The Chocolate Touch, a retelling of the King Midas fable that reminds us we can have too much of a good thing. In Catling’s story, the main character finds that everything he eats turns to chocolate (with King Midas, everything he touched turned to gold). Hilarity, and nausea, ensues.
The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute’s latest report on the state’s HOPE and Zell Miller scholarships provides valuable findings about college scholarships and the students using the funds. The Institute’s recommendations, however, might give us too much of a good thing.
The Institute reports that a smaller percentage of low-income students use the scholarships (30 percent) than middle and upper-income students (42 percent). The authors are correct when they say that college tuition has “skyrocketed” recently—a finding that is true for colleges around the country. The authors also make a compelling point when they write, “Students need more options to gain valued skills and enter successful careers, regardless of their families’ background or bank account.”
Yet their solution will not solve the college cost problem nor the opportunity issues. The Institute suggests lawmakers find “an enhanced approach to financial aid that ensures students from all backgrounds…can gain the benefits of a college degree.”
If the Institute’s goal is to help qualified students—regardless of background or income—get help paying for college, such an objective may result in better candidates entering the workforce. But the report’s emphasis on sending as many students to college as possible should give taxpayers and students pause.
The Cato Institute’s Neal McCluskey has documented research that links increasing college tuition with increased levels of federal aid (similar to the “Bennett Hypothesis,” formulated by former U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett). State lottery proceeds fund the HOPE and Zell Miller scholarships, but universities’ incentives remain the same: If scholarship funding is almost guaranteed, why lower tuition, especially if students can combine a scholarship with federal aid? Scholarships help students pay tuition, but this assistance does not create an incentive for schools to keep costs down.
Moreover, both scholarships require students keep their grades up in order to participate. The Institute says the merit-based awards are “disproportionately out of reach for students of modest means.” Yet the state should not lower the bar for this assistance because sending a student to college that is unprepared for higher education does not help that student.
Policy debates on college tuition and student opportunity intersect when unprepared students step on campus. If an undergraduate drops out without a degree, they find themselves in need of a job but without a degree to improve their prospects. According to an Urban Institute report, “Not completing a degree is a significant predictor of repayment difficulty and default,” as 43 percent of college dropouts that used college loans have debt levels of $10,000 or lower. A quarter of college dropouts that used loans have debt levels of between $10,000 and $20,000.
Sending everyone to college, even if they are unprepared, puts students from low-income families at great risk for debt later in life. Students with few resources that struggle in school and dropout of college will struggle to attain the American Dream even when well-intentioned policymakers try to help.
The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute’s report on scholarships provides a useful analysis of the kinds of students using state scholarships for higher ed. Furthermore, the Institute’s suggestion that the scholarships be available to students in their 20’s and 30’s may help nontraditional students that enter college later in life.
But in order to help more students succeed in their education and career, state lawmakers should give students better access to quality learning opportunities in K-12, like education savings accounts and encouraging the growth of high-quality charter schools. Meanwhile, policymakers should commit to helping students, no matter their socioeconomic status, make informed decisions about whether college is the right choice.
With the prospect of long-term debt, the idea of sending as many students to college as possible should make taxpayers—and students—nauseous.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Aug 12, 2016
A certain desert city’s tourism department hopes you can finish the phrase, “What happens in Vegas…,” a slogan that turns lucky 13 this fall. Yet when it comes to the changing landscape of student learning, what happens in the desert isn’t going to stay there.
At the end of July, the Nevada Supreme Court held hearings on the state’s nascent education savings account law. In 2015, Sen. Scott Hammond sponsored SB 302, and Gov. Brian Sandoval’s signature made all 450,000 Nevada public school students eligible to apply for an account. The ACLU filed a lawsuit to take children’s educational choices away shortly after the law’s passage. The group charges that the accounts violate the state constitution (a group of parents filed another suit taking away parents’ ability to choose how their children learn, saying that the accounts would be illegally funded from a state source dedicated to public schools).
Nevada’s account law is the first such law to allow all public school students the opportunity to use an account to buy a variety of educational products and services. Parental choice in education is no longer rare in the U.S., but many of the laws that give parents options between public and private schools are limited to students that meet select criteria. For example, Tennessee and Mississippi’s education savings accounts, also enacted in 2015, are only available to children with special needs. As many Georgia parents may know, the Peach State has a private school scholarship program exclusively for children with special needs, while Louisiana and Ohio have private school voucher options for children from failing schools. The situation is similar across more than two dozen states.
A ruling in favor of parents and children from Nevada’s Supreme Court would boost efforts in other states, such as Georgia, Texas, Delaware, and Missouri, to name a few, where lawmakers have considered the accounts in recent years. In 2011, Arizona lawmakers enacted the nation’s first education savings account law and have expanded student access to the accounts since its enactment. Arizona children with special needs can apply for an account, along with children from failing schools, adopted children, and children living on Native American reservations, among others. Nevada is the first state to give every public school child this opportunity from day one.
Education savings accounts have also attracted national attention. Republicans included education savings accounts in their 2016 platform (as for Democrats, who the Wall Street Journal says has a built-in “get-out-the-vote operation known as teacher unions,” education savings accounts were noticeably missing from their party positions).
In March, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced a bill to allow all children attending Bureau of Indian Education schools access to education savings accounts. Politico highlighted these students’ need for quality educational options in November 2015 with a feature headlined “How Washington created some of the worst schools in America.” Former presidential candidate and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced a bill in January that would make all Washington, D.C. children eligible for accounts.
As a result, federal and state lawmakers across the country are watching what happens in Carson City, Nevada. Arizona’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of education savings accounts in 2011 after the state teachers union and other associations brought a lawsuit similar to the ACLU’s charges in Nevada (the Goldwater Institute defended the accounts alongside the Institute for Justice, the group defending Nevada’s accounts). A victory for students in Nevada would mark the second victory for the accounts over challenges that the accounts violate state constitutional provisions that block the use of public funds for private or religious schools.
Five states have passed the accounts so far, but the accounts are turning into a movement offering families flexible opportunities in education. The successes of these programs, and the lifelong knowledge and skills gained—won’t just stay in Vegas.
