Friday, May 25, 2007
New Quick-and-Edster
The post below comes from Chad Aldeman, who's spending the summer at Education Sector in our higher ed department. Chad is a University of Iowa alum, currently working on a graduate degree in public policy at William and Mary. Welcome!
Valuing Education
My colleague Abdul Kargbo just published a terrific article comparing his educational experiences as a child in Sierra Leone to his later high school and college experiences in the U.S. His analysis makes some provocative points for both educators and the broader community of folks interested in using education, social and economic reforms to enhance equity and social justice.
Taxing Priorities
An event Wednesday at the joint Urban- Brookings Tax Policy Center highlighted how unnecessarily complex and ineffective the federal student aid programs are, and offered simple solutions for progress.
It has been well-documented that the U.S. is beginning to fall behind in accessibility of college and completion of degrees. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports that we have been overtaken in the percentage of young people pursuing post-secondary degrees. By failing to target financial aid dollars to the students who need it most, our tax policy has been enabling this decline.
To fully understand how our system of tax credits and educational grants functions (or doesn’t, depending on your view), see Wednesday’s report. The duplicity, mutual exclusivity, and poor targeting of the Hope credit, the Lifetime Learning Credit, and the tuition and fees deduction leave families confused. Never mind the current scandals in the student loan industry. A 2005 GAO report found “suboptimal use of the postsecondary tax preferences” by students and families arose, at least in part, from their complexity.
Beyond complexity, there are serious fundamental problems with the system we have in place. Most glaringly, there is no linkage between tax credits and grants administered by the Department of Education. The tax credits are administered by the IRS; a student must fill out the laborious Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) to be eligible for Pell grants. Additionally, the tax credits are non-refundable, meaning those families with income below the threshold for paying net federal income taxes receive nothing, and the tax structure penalizes students who must work to pay for school.
These issues need to be ameliorated to regain our status as an international leader in higher education. We must target our financial aid programs better to the students who need them most. We need to stop penalizing working students. The students who must work their way through college are the same ones who we need to graduate. We should fix the issue of refundability. Tax credits with this restriction end up going to middle- and upper-class families, which is fine, but it doesn’t address the issue of affordability.
We should also make the FAFSA simpler. Susan Dynarski, a professor at Harvard University, showed an enlightening chart at the event comparing the FAFSA with the 1040, the 1040A, and the 1040EZ. The FAFSA had more questions and more pages and asked for more financial information than all of them (see a full explanation here). Legally, students cannot fill out the FAFSA until after January 1 of their senior year in high school, and they likely will not know their aid package until March or April. Imagine a situation where the aid was predictable based on income. Students and families could have a reasonable estimate of their financial aid before looking at colleges or applying. Better yet, imagine a system like that of the Social Security Administration, where the family of every child would receive a letter in the mail every year after birth letting them know how much financial aid they could expect. These steps would allow for greater transparency in the financial aid system, and target more directly the portion of the population least likely to attend college.
It has been well-documented that the U.S. is beginning to fall behind in accessibility of college and completion of degrees. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports that we have been overtaken in the percentage of young people pursuing post-secondary degrees. By failing to target financial aid dollars to the students who need it most, our tax policy has been enabling this decline.
To fully understand how our system of tax credits and educational grants functions (or doesn’t, depending on your view), see Wednesday’s report. The duplicity, mutual exclusivity, and poor targeting of the Hope credit, the Lifetime Learning Credit, and the tuition and fees deduction leave families confused. Never mind the current scandals in the student loan industry. A 2005 GAO report found “suboptimal use of the postsecondary tax preferences” by students and families arose, at least in part, from their complexity.
Beyond complexity, there are serious fundamental problems with the system we have in place. Most glaringly, there is no linkage between tax credits and grants administered by the Department of Education. The tax credits are administered by the IRS; a student must fill out the laborious Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) to be eligible for Pell grants. Additionally, the tax credits are non-refundable, meaning those families with income below the threshold for paying net federal income taxes receive nothing, and the tax structure penalizes students who must work to pay for school.
These issues need to be ameliorated to regain our status as an international leader in higher education. We must target our financial aid programs better to the students who need them most. We need to stop penalizing working students. The students who must work their way through college are the same ones who we need to graduate. We should fix the issue of refundability. Tax credits with this restriction end up going to middle- and upper-class families, which is fine, but it doesn’t address the issue of affordability.
We should also make the FAFSA simpler. Susan Dynarski, a professor at Harvard University, showed an enlightening chart at the event comparing the FAFSA with the 1040, the 1040A, and the 1040EZ. The FAFSA had more questions and more pages and asked for more financial information than all of them (see a full explanation here). Legally, students cannot fill out the FAFSA until after January 1 of their senior year in high school, and they likely will not know their aid package until March or April. Imagine a situation where the aid was predictable based on income. Students and families could have a reasonable estimate of their financial aid before looking at colleges or applying. Better yet, imagine a system like that of the Social Security Administration, where the family of every child would receive a letter in the mail every year after birth letting them know how much financial aid they could expect. These steps would allow for greater transparency in the financial aid system, and target more directly the portion of the population least likely to attend college.
Monday, May 21, 2007
You're Fired (Not!)
This post by AFTie Ed last week was laugh-out-loud funny but also made a point well worth remembering:
There are lots of reasons lousy and downright horrid people often don't get fired, and most of those reasons would remain even if there were no tenure or unions in public education.
Wait, you mean you can’t just snap your hand and get rid of non union employees you don’t like? Wow!
There are lots of reasons lousy and downright horrid people often don't get fired, and most of those reasons would remain even if there were no tenure or unions in public education.
Preschool in the Primaries: Score one for Senator Clinton
Campaigning in Florida today, Senator/Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton put forward an ambitious policy proposal to move the U.S. towards universal preschool education. This is the first major education proposal rolled out by the Clinton campaign, and it's a good one. The plan would provide states with matching grants (starting at $5 billion federal investment and scaling up to $10 billion) to expand publicly-funded preschool programs, with a priority on low-income and English language learners, and requires state preschool programs to meet high quality standards as a condition of funding.
This strategy (which might look familiar) capitalizes on the incredible state-level momentum around preschool and early childhood education, while also creating a much needed incentive for laggard states to get in gear and addressing the two major shortcomings of state preschool programs right now: they serve too few children and are often too low in quality to have significant impacts on those they do serve.
So far, we haven't seen a lot on education from the candidates, in part because it's less a key priority for voters this year than Iraq, national security, or the economy, but also because it's pretty early and candidates are just beginning to put meat on formal policy proposals. I hope other campaigns will follow Clinton's lead in proposing bold action on early childhood: It's right on the merits and also plays well politically. And even though significant preschool programs are expensive, they're a steal next to some of the health and security expenditures on the table.
For example, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who officially joined the race today, has a strong record of leadership on early childhood in New Mexico, where he created the state's first statewide preschool program, and should translate that same advocacy for early learning into his presidential campaign.
Stay tuned her for more coverage and comment as the campaigns start putting more ink on the page on their education platforms.
This strategy (which might look familiar) capitalizes on the incredible state-level momentum around preschool and early childhood education, while also creating a much needed incentive for laggard states to get in gear and addressing the two major shortcomings of state preschool programs right now: they serve too few children and are often too low in quality to have significant impacts on those they do serve.
So far, we haven't seen a lot on education from the candidates, in part because it's less a key priority for voters this year than Iraq, national security, or the economy, but also because it's pretty early and candidates are just beginning to put meat on formal policy proposals. I hope other campaigns will follow Clinton's lead in proposing bold action on early childhood: It's right on the merits and also plays well politically. And even though significant preschool programs are expensive, they're a steal next to some of the health and security expenditures on the table.
For example, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who officially joined the race today, has a strong record of leadership on early childhood in New Mexico, where he created the state's first statewide preschool program, and should translate that same advocacy for early learning into his presidential campaign.
Stay tuned her for more coverage and comment as the campaigns start putting more ink on the page on their education platforms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)