Topic: Education and Child Policy

After College Presidency, Telling It Like It Is

In this morning’s New York Times, William M. Chace, a former president of Emory and Wesleyan Universities, offered the welcoming speech he always wanted to give to incoming students, but could never deliver as a college president. Just a bit of his speech explains what should be obvious about skyrocketing college costs, but is constantly denied by “experts” in higher education policy: As more and more money goes into the ivory tower, students demand ever-grander amenities, and tuition prices are driven higher and higher.

Laudable [a fictitious university] could be cheaper, but you wouldn’t like it. You and your parents have made it clear that you want the best. That means more spacious and comfortable student residences (“dormitories,” we used to call them), gyms with professional exercise equipment, better food of all kinds, more counselors to attend to your growing emotional needs, more high-tech classrooms and campuses that are spectacularly handsome.
Our competitors provide such things, so we do too. We compete for everything: faculty, students, research dollars and prestige. The more you want us to give to you, the more we will be asking you to give to us. We aim to please, and that will cost you. It’s been a long time since scholarship and teaching were carried on in monastic surroundings.

For state and federal policymakers, the implications of the basic economic reality Chace describes should be pretty clear. All the aid that they give to students using taxpayer dollars–more than $96 billion in the 2004-05 academic year alone (which is more than twice the inflation-adjusted total of just 10 years prior)–allows students to demand more and more grandiose stuff, and in so doing drive college costs to ever-dizzier heights.
 

Dumb and Dumberer?

Tonight, ABC will rerun its 20/20 special, “Stupid in America,” which exposes our monopoly school system for what it is: a remarkably dumb — and harmful — idea.

Central planning has been thoroughly discredited in every other field of human exchange over the past half-century. But, for some reason, we still cling to our public school politburos.

Tonight, you can see John Stossel summarizing some of the human and financial costs of our dumbitude.

Why Does the WSJ Have a Preferred Monopolist?

Today’s Wall Street Journal once again defends the mayoral takeover of Los Angeles public schools. The editorial board’s argument is that we shouldn’t make “the perfect the enemy of the good.” Fine.

But the pointless is the enemy of both the good and the perfect.

What the WSJ is saying is that it is “good” to substitute one education monopolist for another. In what other field does the WSJ have a preferred monopolist? In what other field would they suggest that simply dividing authority over a monopoly between a mayor and another government agency will lead to meaningful improvement?

The only way of “fixing” monopolies is to break them up and return power to consumers by instituting a level, free, competitive playing field for producers.

C’mon, guys, Adam Smith had all this figured out in 1776 – even with specific respect to education. And the evidence proves him right.

PFAW: “Well, We Did Do the Nose…”

Apparently People for the American Way thinks that the “American Way” was best embodied by Salem’s witch trials.

In a bizarre ad hominem breakdown, PFAW posted a hatchet piece on Alliance for School Choice president Clint Bolick yesterday.

It isn’t a news release as such. It contains no news. It’s simply a list of Bolick’s alleged crimes against the state school monopoly.  And I question the timing.

PFAW’s putative indictment seems intended to discredit Bolick in the eyes of the New Jersey media, due to a lawsuit the Alliance has filed on behalf of dissatisfied public school parents in that state. The parents are seeking choice – school vouchers to be precise – and there are few things that PFAW opposes more stridently than parental choice in education.

Fortunately for Bolick and for American children, PFAW’s attempted witch trial is less reminiscent of the real thing than of the Monty Python satire (whence comes the title of this post). Its most glaring error is to confuse the institution of government monopoly schooling with the ideals of public education.

Bolick, like most school choice advocates, is indeed critical of the bureaucratic school system that Americans inherited from the 19th century. But he is critical of it precisely because he is so committed to the ideals of public education. Our current system of schooling has failed to live up to our ideals and expectations for generations, and school choice advocates suggest introducing market forces because they will do a much better job of fulfilling those ideals and expectations.

I point all this out, moreover, as someone who does not support efforts, such as the New Jersey lawsuit in question, to encourage legislation from the bench.

Geography Teacher Rapped in Flag Kerfuffle

From today’s Best of the Web:

“A Jefferson County [Colo.] geography teacher was placed on paid administrative leave on the second day of school for hanging several flags from other countries in his classroom,” Denver’s KMGH-TV reports.

The school district placed Eric Hamlin, a teacher at Carmody Middle School, “on administrative leave for insubordination, citing a Colorado law that makes it illegal to display foreign flags permanently in schools… . The school’s principal escorted Hamlin out of class Wednesday morning after he refused to remove the flags of China and Mexico.”

A district spokesman tells the station: “Under state law, foreign flags can only be in the classroom because it’s tied to the curriculum.” And what subject does Hamlin teach?

Uh, world geography.

Hat tip to James Taronto – who, interestingly enough, shares the name of the Canadian capital.

[Editor’s note: Though he spells “humor” without a second “u,” Andrew Coulson was born and raised in Canada. He is aware that the nation’s capital is Ottawa, and that its Prime Minister is not Tim Hortons.]

Higher Education Policy: Dysfunction in Microcosm

In “Budgeting in Neverland,” James L. Payne explains that one of the major reasons federal policy is so irrational – and expensive – is that policymakers typically hear only from people who stand to gain from expanding federal expenditures and programs, while those who bear the costs – taxpayers – are almost never heard from.

Federal higher education policy illustrates this perfectly. Case in point: a Department of Education notice issued just last Friday to establish “negotiated rulemaking,” part of the process for revising federal regulations. Take a look at the groups the feds will permit to have representatives on various rulemaking committees, and you’ll see Payne’s problem in action:

The Department has identified the constituencies listed below as having interests that are significantly affected by the subject matter of the negotiated rulemaking process. The Department anticipates that individuals representing each of these constituencies will participate as members of one or more of the negotiated rulemaking committees. These constituencies are:

Students; Legal assistance organizations that represent students; Financial aid administrators at institutions of higher education; Business officers and bursars at institutions of higher education; Institutional servicers (including collection agencies); Trustees; State higher education executive officers; Business and industry;

Institutions of higher education eligible to receive Federal assistance under Title III, Parts A and B and Title V of the HEA, which includes Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in Title III of the HEA; Two-year public institutions of higher education; Four-year public institutions of higher education; Private, non-profit institutions of higher education; Private, for profit institutions of higher education; Guaranty agencies and guaranty agency servicers (including collection agencies); Lenders, secondary markets, and loan servicers; and Accrediting Agencies.

In addition to these groups, the Department would like the following groups to be represented on the negotiating committee for the ACG and National SMART Grant program:

K-12 public schools, including charter schools; Governors; Private schools and home schooled students; Registrars; Admissions officers; Parent organizations; and Organizations related to National SMART Grant majors.

The feds recognize numerous groups as having “interests that are significantly affected by the subject matter of the negotiated rulemaking process,” but the people who actually pay the federal bills are nowhere among them. It’s just another example of your – I mean, their – government at work.