Hillary Clinton and the Never-Ending College Fundraising Campaign

Hillary Clinton unveiled her presidential campaign higher education agenda yesterday. On the whole it's quite good and by far the most substantive proposal from any of the major candidates thus far. The safe thing for a Democrat is to focus on financial aid -- everyone's in favor of making college more affordable -- so it's no surprise to see worthwhile proposals to consolidate the HOPE and Lifetime Learning Credits into a single, refundable, advanceable credit, increase Pell grants, expand the G.I. Bill, simplify the financial aid application process, and boost the Americorp education award.

What distinguishes a higher education campaign proposal is the extent to which it goes beyond aid, into the quality and conduct of higher ed itself. And there are a number of smart ideas here, including money to help colleges boost graduation rates (which are terrible at many public universities, particularly for low-income and minority students) and create incentives for community colleges and 4-year institutions to collaborate on improving course articulation (also a huge and under-recognized problem) and increasing transfer and graduation rates. Sen. Clinton also wants to prod the U.S. Department of Education to gather and release more consumer information on graduation and employment outcomes, putting her on the side of transparency and accountability.

She also somewhat gently suggests that the elite universities now in the process of amassing vast hoards of money might want to use a little more of it to help their students:

Hillary is challenging some of the most selective schools in the U.S. to further expand access for low-income and minority students by spending a greater percentage of their endowment annually on recruiting more low-income students and students of color, supporting them so that they graduate and growing the pipeline of students that are prepared to compete for admission to the most selective schools. The endowments of the 12 wealthiest universities total $155 billion and in recent years and have gotten tax-free returns of almost 20%. These elite institutions benefit tremendously from their tax-exempt status as well as from federal student financial aid and research grants

This brings to mind Wednesday's front-page Post story about the University of Virginia's current $3 billion fundraising campaign, which dwarfs the amount of money UVA tried to raise just 10 or 15 years ago. UVA is not alone in this; all the elite universities are headed down the same road, even as their financial advisers are using the existing endowment to earn billions more in the stock market.

Essentially, we're seeing our increasingly unequal, winner-takes-all society reflected in our higher education system. Take, for example, this from the end of today's Post article about J. Christopher Flowers, a Harvard graduate and financier who recently made and then withdrew a $25 billion offer to buy student loan giant Sallie Mae:

He has given Harvard about $25 million, including the endowment of a professorship in honor of his parents.

Now, $25 million is an awful lot of money--unless you're Chris Flowers, who's worth $2 billion, or Harvard, which has an endowment worth $35 billion. The endowment's investment earnings alone last year--$5.7 billion--were bigger than the total endowment at all but a handful of other universities. Yet the U.S. taxpayers dutifully subsidized Flowers' $25 million drop in Harvard's very large bucket, with tax deductability on one end and exemption on the other.

What are elite universities going to do with all that money? I don't think they really know. The head fundraiser at UVA said "he has heard talk that $3 billion 'isn't enough to get us where we need to go.'" That is, obviously, absurd. UVA, Harvard and the rest were elite institutions with bright students, beautiful campuses, and esteemed professors long before they embarked on the project of accumulating huge piles of cash. They're raising money simply because they can, and if you can, why wouldn't you?

The question is: when do you have so much money that it starts to warp your public mission, or raise uncomfortable questions about your tax status and spending decisions? The Clinton proposal suggests that time may be fast approaching. As Robert Reich recently said :

"I'm all in favor of supporting the arts and our universities, but let's face it: These aren't really charitable contributions.... I see why a contribution to, say, the Salvation Army should be eligible for a charitable deduction. It helps the poor. But why, exactly, should a contribution to the already extraordinarily wealthy Guggenheim Museum or to Harvard University (which already has an endowment of more than $30 billion)?"

And lest you think only redistributionist liberals think this way, this from conservative economist and AEI fellow Richard Vedder:

I looked at three schools --Harvard, Yale, and the University of Virginia. At all three schools, less than four percent the average daily endowment base in the 2006-7 school year was spent. If Harvard and Yale had spent 5 percent and dedicated the increased spending to tuition reduction, they could have eliminated undergraduate tuition charges altogether --easily. If Virginia, which is a less well endowed public school, spent 5 percent and dedicated the added spending to tuition reduction for all students from families with less than $100,000 annual income, I would guesstimate that tuition could have been reduced well over $5,000 on average per student --an amount equal to about 60 percent of the in state tuition charges.

What this means is this: rich schools have chosen to charge students high tuition and then use the funds to increase the size of their endowments (especially so at Harvard, Yale, and, I believe, Princeton) rather than relieve financial pain for parents. The IRS requires non-university charities to spend 5 percent out of their endowments if they want to keep tax exempt status. There is a reason for that. Donors making new gifts and universities with investment income are getting a tax break for helping defray the cost of higher education. As Wick Sloane reminds us constantly, these tax breaks can be expressed in "Pell Grant equivalents." Tax policy currently favors the “Harvards” of the world relative to the poor kid needing a Pell Grant.

All of which is to say, I'm glad Sen. Clinton is putting this issue on the table, and I expect we'll hear more about it in the future.

Even More on Perlstein

I have a few things to add to Kevin’s criticism (see below) of Linda Perlstein’s op-ed in today’s Washington Post. Just as Perlstein dismisses the potential of growth models and doesn’t address the critical distinction between a poorly designed law and poor execution of a law, she skates over NCLB’s existing provisions for students with disabilities.

According to Perlstein, “Under the law, a small minority of disabled students are allowed to take a test of more basic skills.” The trouble with this statement is that the percentage of special education students allowed to take different tests isn’t really all that small.

One percent of ALL students tested, or approximately 10 percent of special education students, can be tested with alternate assessments and have their scores count for NCLB purposes. This provision is meant for students with the most severe disabilities. Another two percent of all students tested—roughly 20 percent of special education students—can be tested with modified assessments meant for students with less severe disabilities. In sum, thirty percent of special education students do not need to take regular tests for their scores to count under NCLB.

Thirty percent is not a small number. As I showed in this July Charts You Can Trust, over 80 percent of special education students fall into categories that in no way preclude them from reaching grade-level standards. That leaves less than 20 percent of students with a disability such as mental retardation, developmental delay or autism that might require an alternate test.

It’s not clear from Perlstein’s op-ed how exactly she thinks NCLB should be changed to create, as the sub-head promises, “a better way to handle special needs.” What Perlstein does ask for is that special education students be taught “what they need to learn in order to make their own adequate yearly progress.”

While that goal may sound nice, in practice it would undermine the increased individual attention special education students receive because of NCLB—increased attention that even Perlstein acknowledges “is easily the best outcome of the law so far”. Critical to this increased individual attention is the fact that NCLB expects most (and perhaps not enough) special education students to reach grade-level standards, spurring schools and districts to give these students the resources they need to achieve at grade level.

More from Perlstein

Coincidentally, the day after I posted about Linda Perlstein's new book, Tested, she has an op-ed in the Post. In many ways, it's Tested writ small: interesting, well-written, and less than meets the eye.

Perlstein is concerned about the impact of NCLB on students with disabilities. She recounts seeing "Whitney," a fourth grade girl with mild mental retardation, fruitlessly trying to learn fourth grade material, and blames this on NCLB's mandate of grade-level testing for all students. One obvious solution is a growth model, which Perlstein acknowledges...but not really:

While many elements of the landmark education law are up in the air, one provision almost certain to be included is the "growth model": assessing the "adequate yearly progress" of schools not by calculating how many fourth-graders passed a test compared with the previous year but by measuring the progress made by each child. This is a welcome change and if executed properly may yield far more useful information.

But a large problem remains: Under the versions of the law under discussion, Whitney will still be given the fifth-grade test in fifth grade, the sixth-grade test in sixth grade and so on. She will probably fail these tests -- no surprise to her teachers -- and whatever progress she makes, unless it is so miraculous as to wipe away her deficiencies altogether, will go uncredited.

Not true. A growth model "executed properly" would absolutely give Whitney's school credit for the progress she makes, even if she fails the test. That's the definition of a growth model.

Perlstein talks further about the more generalized problem of schools not giving individualized instruction to students who lag behind, before saying:

You can blame No Child Left Behind, the climate it's induced or the questionable choices people make in its name. Whichever way, as long as students are judged only on grade-level tests, no matter their needs, and as long as the education they get the rest of the year hews to that goal, they will lose out.

Wait, wait. "Whichever way"? That's a pretty important distinction, isn't it? If you're going to blame NCLB--as this op-ed, titled "A 'No Child' Law for All Children, clearly does--than that's one thing. That means the law should change. If, by contrast, you're going to blame "questionable choices" by educators, that's a very different thing.

And it seems clear that the latter problem is really what Perlstein observed. Teaching students material that's way above their heads is bad educational practice. And you can't say the incentives built into NCLB leave educators with no other option, because--as Perlstein makes clear--it's also futile. Even under the current, no-growth-model law, schools teaching students like Whitney have two choices: inappropriately teach at grade level, in which case Whitney fails the test this year and every year after that, or teach at the right level, in which case Whitney fails the test this year but catches up and passes tests in the future.

So the op-ed really should have been titled, "Local teachers mean well, nonetheless fail to teach children with disabilities appropriately." But that message doesn't get you onto the Post op-ed page--or sell books.

UPDATE: Aftie Michele says:

Wait--so Carey thinks it is educationally inappropriate to teach students above grade level but it's just dandy to test them every year knowing they will fail, because some day they will catch up to grade level and pass such tests?

I think schools should assess students in a way that will give them accurate information about what students know and can do. I also think schools should know how far students are from acquiring the knowledge and skills they'll need to stay on track to graduate from high school and be ready for work, further education, and leading a happy, productive life. The only way to know the second thing is to test against grade-level standards. But there's nothing preventing schools from using other formative assessments for students with disabilities like Whitney. And, more to the point, the fact that Whitney has to take a grade-level test on one day at the end of the year doesn't somehow obligate the school to teach her at that grade level for the other 179 days, if in fact that's a bad idea.

Education Policy Courses & Pre-K

Check it out! If you don't already get the Education Sector bi-weekly digest, you might not have seen that we have a cool new resource: sets of materials for education and public policy courses. Our aim is to help bridge academia and policy, so we're packaging resources on a variety of topics in education policy into units. The first set of materials is designed for a unit on pre-k policy. Take a look, tell your friends, and let us know what you think. If it's useful, we'll make more.

Linda Perlstein's Tested

At any given moment, there's a limited amount of room in the general consciousness for books about education, and over the past few months a lot of that space has been occupied by Linda Perlstein's new book, Tested. Which, as I explain in my review in this month's Washington Monthly, is too bad. Tested is a fine example of education journalism, and worth reading just for that. But it tries to be much more, a broad indictment of NCLB, and in that is far less successful.

Part of this can be attributed to the conventions of narrative non-fiction writing. The best examples start with a compelling story, and then put that human drama in a much larger context, weaving in history and policy to find the greater meaning in it all. It's fantastic when it works--think Jon Krakauer, Michael Lewis--but it's really hard to do well. Crucially, your human story actually has to support the meta-narrative. In the case of Tested, it doesn't. Perlstein spent a year in a high-poverty elementary school in Annapolis, Maryland, that has experienced a remarkable turnaround in test scores, basically going from most of the kids failing to most passing in just a few years. That's come at a cost in terms of curriculum narrowing and test prep. This raises all kinds of difficult questions related to the efficacy of schools and the lives of poor children. But Perlstein doesn't have a lot interest in addressing those conundrums, because that would get in the way of book's conceit as an anti-NCLB expose.

Readers interested in a different take on the same issues should check out Karin Chenoweth's It's Being Done. Like Perlstein, Chenoweth is a former Washington Post education reporter, and she also spent time a great deal of time inside high-poverty, high-scoring schools. But she reaches a very different set of conclusions. Her book isn't cheerleading and has a strong dose of realism about what it takes to help students who come to school with an array of barriers to learning. But it turns out that schools can do a lot to help them nonetheless--more than some people would like to admit.

UPDATE: D-Ed Reckoning weighs in here.

Arguing Over the Meaning of the New Fordham Study

The Fordham Institute has released an significant new study on the rigor of state academic standards. Bottom line: they're all over the place, with huge variation between states (which we already knew, but it's good to have further confirmation), and within states between subjects and grades (which we didn't know, and it's important that we do). Many states, for example, have set their "cut scores" (see Andy Rotherham's explanation of how that process works here) higher in middle school than in elementary school, and higher in math than in reading. Test results that seem to indicate a crisis in middle school or mathematics education may actually show a state standard-setting process that isn't as well-calibrated as it needs to be.

So kudos to Fordham for this important, timely analysis. In particular, it shows the danger of giving states unlimited discretion over the process by which they judge their own educational success. Like many people, I'm somewhat ambivalent over the idea of national education standards--depends on the subject, sensible in theory but tricky in practice, worried the U.S. Department of Education will screw it up, etc., etc. But surely there's some threshold level of inter-state variation that's simply intolerable, and if variance from the 14th to the 71st percentile (the difference between the rigor of Wisconsin and South Carolina standards in eighth grade reading) doesn't meet that threshold, I'm not sure what does. Those who want to give the states vast new amounts of "flexibility" under the next version of NCLB should take heed.

The messaging around the report is tricky, however, particularly coming from Fordham. After a brief interlude of non-boringness, Bob Herbert reverted to form today in his Times column , using the Fordham report to argue that NCLB is a crock and the whole testing-based-accountabilty enterprise needs to be scrapped (Fordham's response to Herbert is here).

Herbert's column is pretty useless, but on some level predictable after Checker Finn's piece$ in last Friday's Wall Street Journal, titled "Dumbing Education Down." If, like Herbert, you're not paying attention, it's easy enough to read this as an anti-NCLB indictment. Which it kind of is; it would have been nice to see some of the language from Fordham's response to Herbert (i.e. "The answer is not to throw out testing, but to do testing right, with expectations that are consistent from state to state, grade to grade, subject to subject, and over time, and that prepare students for college and work.") in Finn's op-ed.

Maintaining a consistent line of criticism while conducting new research is tricky; Fordham has been raising alarms about a so-called "race to the bottom" in state standards-setting for some time. Now their report says what's actually happening is a "walk to the middle," with the outliers both low and high regressing to the mean. That's an important finding, but Finn's op-ed emphasizes only one side ("more states have let their tests grow easier to pass than have made them harder). Given that, the previous rhetoric, and headlines like "The Proficiency Illusion" and "Dumbing Education Down" it's not surprising that people like Herbert are confused.