Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

April 13, 2010

Higher Ed Inflation in NM

I had an op-ed published in the Albuquerque Journal on Monday comparing the performance of University of New Mexico and the local community college. As my policy paper (to be released later this week) shows, many schools have cost increases per student, while a handful actually have decreases.

http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/122125422737opinionguestcolumns04-12-10.htm

Too often, the opportunity costs of education cost inflation are not understood. Not only do the poor postsecondary returns fail students, but they have a debilitating effect on the entire economy as many people make the investment only to find their studies don't provide them with skills that match the needs of the marketplace.

/KDR

Posted by KevinRollins at 08:51 PM | Comments (24)

May 21, 2009

School Choice Works, but the politicians are killing it

We at the Rio Grande Foundation have believed it for a long time, and it only makes sense: giving parents and students greater control over education decisions improves results. Of course, if you've been following the debate, you may also be aware that the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats are dismantling choice programs. The problem being that regardless of results, teachers unions, a powerful voting and fundraising ally, can't stand school choice.

We need educational choice in New Mexico and nationwide. Regardless of political party affiliation, improving educational outcomes and creating more diverse opportunities for students should lead to choice-based reforms.

Posted by PaulGessing at 10:51 PM | Comments (0)

December 20, 2008

School Choice in Virginia and Taxes

As the father of a kindergartener, I am in favor of school choice. I am planning on sending my daughter to parochial school next year and should not have to pay for two educations, one by tuition and the other by taxes (although I pay for less than a full educaiton through taxes, since each child's tuition is spread among several taxpayers).

Since we are Catholic, there is a problem, since in Virginia we have a Blaine Amendment which prohibits state funds to Catholic education. Many have said this is an equal protection violation under the terms of the 14th Amendment. I tend to agree and hope for a change in the near future, either through a Constitutional Amendment in Virginia or a federal case. This could come about if the legislature or a school district tried to fund Catholic schools and were sued in Virginia courts. (It could also come from a federal case in another state). Regardless of how it goes down, I predict the Blaine Amendment will eventually be a thing of the past. What is of concern is what will happen next.

There is currently quite a constituency in Virginia, particularly Northern Virginia for public of funding of parochial schools. To put it bluntly, this part of the state is crawling with Catholics, especially when compared with other parts of the state (although Tidwater also has its share). If private school funding were constitutional, there would be an outcry for it, and the GOP should take advantage of that outcry by advocating for school choice. School choice will go nowhere, however, if it is seen as merely an attempt to gut public school budgets or break the teachers union. This means that school choice needs to do two things. The first is to allow parochial school teachers to unionize if they so chose, with a local for each diocese. The second is to increase revenue.

How much should revenue be increased? Simply put, revenue should go up enough to cover the cost of tuition and contributions no longer needed by the parochial school system because of public funding. That is half of the equation - the other is to determine the income distribution of current private school parents and donors and increase taxes for the same economic strata, prefereably through income tax changes.

When the advocates of school choice are willing to concede these two points, school choice will pass

Posted by MichaelBindner at 08:16 AM | Comments (1)

December 04, 2007

Find out if you could be on Leno's "Jaywalking"

By taking this test...

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute has a nifty civics quiz (some economics too) here. (Hat tip: Jim Turbett)

While some questions were very easy, others required head scratching and one-by-one elimination. I missed the one on "just war."

My favorite:

50) Free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government’s centralized planning because:
A. the price system utilizes more local knowledge of means and ends.
B. markets rely upon coercion, whereas government relies upon voluntary compliance with the law.
C. more tax revenue can be generated from free enterprise.
D. property rights and contracts are best enforced by the market system.
E. government planners are too cautious in spending taxpayers’ money.

We could expect people who think government is the source of all wealth to pick answer C.

I don't recall this kind of question ever coming up in high school civics class! I recommend all high school and college students read Hayek's Use of Knowledge in Society essay. Citizens can't understand economics if they don't understand the basics of price theory, afterall.

Payoff from a GMU Economics education:

You answered 59 out of 60 correctly — 98.33 % Average score for this quiz during December: 74.2% Average score since September 18, 2007: 74.2%

I will definitely have to add this to my CV. ;-)

/KDR

Posted by KevinRollins at 04:57 PM | Comments (0)

November 07, 2007

Vouchers defeated in Utah

In a rather resounding vote yesterday, Utah voters killed the nation's first statewide school voucher program that promised tax dollars for private tuition, no matter how much a family earned or whether kids were in bad schools. For supporters of school choice, this was a major setback, moreso because the legislation that had originally been passed by one vote in the Utah Legislature was easily the broadest school choice program in the nation.

Utah is exactly the kind of state that might support school choice, but it looks like even in a friendly state, such a broad choice program is vulnerable. So, what is the solution? Tax credits for educational choice. Rather than relying on the government to divert tax dollars to private schools, tax credits enable individuals to decide how to divert their money to school choice efforts while taking a credit against their taxes. Tax credits poll much better than vouchers and should be the focus of reform efforts. Vouchers just don't seem viable outside of Milwaukee and a few other limited programs.

Posted by PaulGessing at 09:09 PM | Comments (0)

June 13, 2007

A Free Market in Education?

David Brooks of the New York Times has never been my favorite columnist. I've never really thought that he "gets it" when it comes to limited government and personal freedom.

Recently, for example, Brooks wrote a column in which he called himself a "Hamiltonian." While I don't dispute his claim -- he's certainly no 'limited government conservative' -- another statement has me shaking my head:

If you are reading this column, you’re keeping company with somebody in group No. 2. We Hamiltonians disagree with the limited government conservatives because, on its own, the market (emphasis added) is failing to supply enough human capital. Despite all the incentives, 30 percent of kids drop out of high school and the college graduation rate has been flat for a generation.

Just when it needs a more skilled work force, the U.S. is getting a less skilled one. This is already taking a bite out of productivity growth, and the problem will get worse.

How exactly is the educational system in this country a "market?" The answer is it is not a market in any way, but a government monopoly with only a few inroads having been made by charter schools, private schools, voucher programs, tax credit programs, and home-schoolers. While these groups all are attempting to break out of the top-down, government education model, they are a distinct minority.

In other words, Brooks doesn't seem to know what the word "market" really means. If Brooks and other "Hamiltonians" want to create a better-educated work force, perhaps we should create a genuine "market" in education. Until then, calling it a market is absurd.

Posted by PaulGessing at 12:21 AM | Comments (0)

Free-for-all (frfr-ôl) -- n. A disorderly fight, argument, or competition in which everyone present participates.

from Dictionary.com



SIMPLE AD ERROR VIEW COUNT NOT UPDATED

Advertisement