Report

Starving America’s Public Schools

Jeff Bryant — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:56:19 -0400

VIDEOS

School Cuts Hurt Kids. . .

. . . By Increasing Class Size

. . . By Eliminating Critical Classes

. . . By Eliminating Great Teachers

RESOURCES

News Release

State Fact Sheets: Arizona | Florida | North Carolina | Ohio | Pennsylvania

COMMENTARY

Robert Borosage: Starving Our Public Schools

Jeff Bryant: "If We Want Great Teachers, Don't We Need To Give Them Jobs?"

Contract For The American Dream: Invest In Public Education

Critics of America’s public schools always seem to start from the premise that the pre-kindergarten-through-12th-grade public education system in this country is failing or in crisis.

This crisis mentality is in stark contrast to years of survey research showing that Americans generally give high marks to their local schools. Phi Delta Kappa International and Gallup surveys have found that the populace holds their neighborhood schools in high regard; in fact, this year’s survey found that “Americans, and parents in particular, evaluate their community schools more positively than in any year since” the survey started.

How could there be such a disconnect between a national narrative about public education and opinions about local schools? The two contradictory narratives draw on completely different sources of evidence.

Debate about public education on the national level generally draws on evidence from macro-sources of data: scores from standardized testing, reports on the nation’s dropout rates, samplings from various student populations, and comparative assessments in various subject areas. But people get their school news from far more local, personal, and qualitative sources — from hometown newspapers, from local television and radio broadcasts, from neighbors, and from their own personal observations and experiences.

The national data sources obviously add value to the national discussion about reforming and improving public schools, but getting a full and comprehensive view of American public education also requires looking at the information flow and data from the local level.

This report looks at American pre-K-12 public schools — from the perspective of what Americans are reading and hearing in their local newspapers and media broadcasts. The intent is to see how this bottom-up view of the system might further inform our discussions about improving and renewing America’s public schools.

Sifting through these on-the-ground accounts from local news reports and other sources revealed that there is indeed a growing crisis in America’s public schools — one that is far more real and much more dangerous to our nation’s children than the prevailing narrative suggests. This particular crisis, evident to some degree in nearly every state in the country, hinges on two factors.

The first factor: New austerity budgets passed by state legislatures are starting to have a huge influence on direct services to children, youth, and families. There is widespread evidence that the education funding cuts are leading to:

Massive cuts to early childhood education programs (pre-K and kindergarten);
Huge class sizes in many subjects, reaching levels that are upsetting parents and potentially damaging students’ education;
An end to art, music, physical education, and other subjects considered to be part of a well-rounded education;
Cuts in specialized programs and/or hefty fees for them. Some of these programs serve students with developmental issues or those who need more individualized attention. They also include extra-curricular activities such as band and sports as well as academic offerings in science, foreign language, technology, and Advanced Placement subjects.

The second factor: As public schools are grappling with these severe budget cuts to programs, they also are facing enormous pressure to transfer tax dollars to targets outside traditional public education. New policy mandates at the federal and state levels are forcing public school systems to redirect tax dollars meant for public schools to various privately held concerns such as charter schools, private and religious schools, and contractors and companies tasked with setting up new systems for testing and accountability.

This report confines its attention to the emerging crisis in K-12 education only; although, the report authors acknowledge that similar trends and issues are affecting higher education as well. Furthermore, this report focuses on five states — Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania — that perhaps epitomize the current crisis in K-12 education systems.

The analysis in this report compels the authors to conclude that the debate and discussion about public education policy must both acknowledge the new realities in American public schools and focus attention on the issue of adequately funding programs that serve all of America’s public school students. The report also recommends that states provide regulatory relief to local districts in order to stanch the transfer of public education funds to privately held entities.

Money-Changers In The Senate

Isaiah J. Poole — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:55:10 -0400

The student loan industry faces a serious challenge from advocates who question the reason for its existence, which is premised on massive, inefficient government subsidies.

Leading student lender Sallie Mae reported profits of $324 million last year on the strength of its student loan business, which is heavily subsidized through the Federal Family Education Loan program (FFEL). Sallie Mae originated $21 billion worth of loans backed by the program in 2009; other major lenders profiting from the program include Citigroup, Nelnet, JP Morgan, and Wells Fargo.

Meanwhile, by ending the program with the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal government would save $68 billion—money that would otherwise subsidize these banks' profits. The CBO score also estimates that students would pay significantly lower interest rates on their loans.

With billions in profits on the line, banks have waged an intensive, multimillion-dollar political and lobbying campaign to maintain the status quo: subsidies for the banks, at students' expense.

Their expensive campaign has won them some support. On March 9, six Democratic senators—Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.; Mark Warner, D-Va.; Tom Carper, D-Del.; Ben Nelson, D-Neb.; Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Jim Webb, D-Va.—sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make him "aware of our concern" about reform efforts and urging consideration of "potential alternative legislative proposals."

What would prompt six senators to oppose efforts aimed at reducing lending costs by cutting out superfluous money-changers? The answer, of course, is the power of money, as deployed through a combination of campaign contributions and strategic lobbyist hires.

This report documents the extensive ties between the six senators and major players in the student loan industry. Among the findings:

The report estimates that the student loan industry has spent $15 million in the past year on a political campaign to rescue multibillion-dollar profits. Banks have waged an expensive and sophisticated battle to defeat SAFRA with campaign contributions, lobbying of congress and the CBO, help from major industry associations, and shadowy front groups to escape accountability.
At least six former staffers to the six Senators who signed the letter to Reid are currently lobbying for the student loan industry: Kelly Bingel (former chief of staff to Blanche Lincoln); Bill Leighty (former chief of staff to Mark Warner); Amy Tejral (former legislative director for Ben Nelson); Oscar Ramirez (gubernatorial campaign staffer for Mark Warner); Timothy Casey (legislative aide to Tom Carper); and Paul Brathwaite (Carper staffer).
Lenders have employed front groups to lobby on their behalf. The Business Roundtable, the Consumer Bankers Association, the American Bankers Association, and the Chamber of Commerce (including CEO Tom Donohue) have all lobbied around student aid reform on behalf of unidentified lenders. Major lenders associated with these groups include JP Morgan, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Sallie Mae, and Bank of America.
Student lenders and their lobbyists have showered the six senators with tens of thousands in campaign contributions over the last year, including $15,000 from the PACs of Sallie Mae and Nelnet alone. In the past, the senators have also been top recipients of loan industry largess: Sallie Mae and Nelnet both maxed out to Bill Nelson in the space of three days during his 2006 campaign; two of Tom Carper's three top career contributors are JP Morgan and Citigroup -- both major players in the student loan industry; Ben Nelson has received $19,000 from Nelnet's PAC in the past ten years.
Jim Webb, Carper, and Ben Nelson sided with banks, and against students, on a key education measure in 2007. Nelson also sponsored a failed 2007 amendment that would have maintained government subsidies to private student lenders.

The report documents a host of additional ties between the six senatorial defenders of the status quo and the main organs of the student loan industry.

Given that deeply indebted students and young adults have little discretionary income to devote to catered dinners for senators and campaign coffers, we can only hope that transparency and accountability will balance the scales.

Obama’s Budget: Supporting Students, Not Banks

Eric Lotke — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:28:34 -0400

President Obama’s budget proposal would transform the federal financial aid system that struggling students and families rely on to pay for college. The proposed budget cuts excessive lender subsidies, moves to more efficient direct lending instead, and invests the savings in students. The changes are major steps toward making college opportunity affordable for all Americans. This report explains the impact for students, nationally and by state.

» Download the full report (PDF)
» Related Reading: The Obama Budget: A Stick In the Eye For Banks

Over the past decade, states have cut their contributions to college budgets and grant aid has stagnated. Students have been forced to pay ever higher tuition and costs. At the same time, wages are flat and savings have plummeted. Facing skyrocketing cost, students and families have increasingly turned to loans to pay for college. The number of college students graduating with over $25,000 in student loan debt has tripled in the last decade. The rising debt squeezes students and families out of higher education.

New data from the National Center on Education Statistics show that in the United States, the average cost of tuition at a public four-year college increased $1,729, or 29 percent, between 2000 and 2007. Tuition went up 5 percent last year alone.

Among other changes, the Obama budget eliminates the Federal Family Education Loan Program, which excessively subsidizes banks, and moves to the U.S. Department of Education’s Direct Loan program. The Congressional Budget office projects this move to save $94 billion over nine years. The Obama budget then redirects the savings to students. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in 2010-2011, $5 billion would be cut from subsidies to banks and lenders, and invested in students instead.

Redirecting the bank subsidies toward Pell grants would solidify the grant program as the premier source of assistance for low-income students. The Pell grant maximum would increase from $5,350 to $5,550; the estimated national average Pell grant award would increase by $121, from $3,299 to $3,423. Increasing the award will also enable an additional 130,000 more students to attend college per $100 increase in the maximum award.

This bold move is the type of reinvestment that is needed to get students into college so they get the education they need to move the country forward.

State Impact

These reports outline the impact of tuition cost increases in each state and the difference the Obama administration's student loan proposals would make by shifting funds from bank subsidies to direct student loans. (Click here for a map by Campus Progress showing this data.)

Alabama Report | News Release
Alaska Report | News Release
Arizona Report | News Release
Arkansas Report | News Release
California Report | News Release
Colorado Report | News Release
Connecticut Report | News Release
Delaware Report | News Release
Florida Report | News Release
Georgia Report | News Release
Hawaii Report | News Release
Idaho Report | News Release
Illinois Report | News Release
Indiana Report | News Release
Iowa Report | News Release
Kansas Report | News Release
Kentucky Report | News Release
Louisiana Report | News Release
Maine Report | News Release
Maryland Report | News Release
Massachusetts Report | News Release
Michigan Report | News Release
Minnesota Report | News Release
Mississippi Report | News Release
Missouri Report | News Release
Montana Report | News Release
Nebraska Report | News Release
Nevada Report | News Release
New Hampshire Report | News Release
New Jersey Report | News Release
New Mexico Report | News Release
New York Report | News Release
North Carolina Report | News Release
North Dakota Report | News Release
Ohio Report | News Release
Oklahoma Report | News Release
Oregon Report | News Release
Pennsylvania Report | News Release
Rhode Island Report | News Release
South Carolina Report | News Release
South Dakota Report | News Release
Tennessee Report | News Release
Texas Report | News Release
Utah Report | News Release
Vermont Report | News Release
Virginia Report | News Release
Washington Report | News Release
West Virginia Report | News Release
Wisconsin Report | News Release
Wyoming Report | News Release

COHEAO and NACUBO Survey Reveals Perkins Loan Shortfalls

OurFuture.org Staff — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 06:56:28 -0500

Of the institutions that responded to the survey, 28 percent indicated that they expected their institution to have a shortfall in their Perkins Loan fund on June 30, 2008, which would require their institution to make a loan to the fund. Another 18 percent were unsure if they would have a shortfall.

The institutions expecting a shortfall are primarily small, private institutions. 68 percent of the 76 institutions are private, four-year institutions, and more than 60 percent have a full-time equivalent student enrollment of 5,000 students or less.

The average projected shortfall anticipated at these institutions is $560,304, or a median of $200,000. Thirty-one percent of institutions anticipated that collections in the upcoming fiscal year would be sufficient to fully repay their institution’s loan to the fund. However, 37 percent indicated that they did not believe that collections would be sufficient.

Colleges and universities are finding themselves in this unprecedented situation due to several factors over the last few years, including the lack of new capital contributions by the federal government and large swings in the number of borrowers choosing to consolidate Perkins loans with their other federally guaranteed loans after leaving school.

This shortfall situation will require institutions to find institutional dollars to lend to their Perkins fund. Even at institutions that do not have shortfalls, students are likely to receive much less support from the Perkins Loan program next year.

School Facilities

Alex Carter — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:32:28 -0400

Trends in College Pricing 2007

Scott Laczay — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:25:21 -0400

Trends in Student Aid 2007

Scott Laczay — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:23:01 -0400

Education Pays

Terrance Heath — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:04:35 -0400

Higher Education: Chasing the Dream

Scott Laczay — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:16:29 -0400

A report detailing the state-by-state impact, as well as the impact on certain ethnic groups, of the increase of college education and the decrease in median household income.

Read full report »

Higher Education: Soaring Out of Reach for America’s Families

tjackson — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:21:31 -0400

Since the year 2000, the average cost of tuition at a public college has increased
42%,[1] while median household income has fallen 2%.[2]

The dream of a college education is being priced out of reach for more and more American students and their families. Tuition is rising while wages are flat or sinking. Conservatives in Congress have responded by cutting $12 billion from federal student loan programs and raising loan interest rates for student and their parents. Conservatives in state governments have cut back funding for colleges, passing more costs to families in the form of increased tuitions and fees. See the reports below for detailed impacts.

See how your Senator voted (109th Congress) »

See how your Representative voted (109th Congress) »

NATIONWIDE: Report

AFRICAN AMERICANS: Report

ASIAN AMERICANS: Report

HISPANIC AMERICANS: Report

State Reports

ALABAMA: Report

ARIZONA: Report

CALIFORNIA: Report

CONNECTICUT: Report

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Report

GEORGIA: Report

IDAHO: Report

INDIANA: Report

KANSAS: Report

LOUISIANA: Report

MARYLAND: Report

MICHIGAN: Report

MISSISSIPPI: Report

MONTANA: Report

NEVADA: Report

NEW JERSEY: Report

NEW YORK: Report

NORTH DAKOTA: Report

OKLAHOMA: Report

PENNSYLVANIA: Report

SOUTH CAROLINA: Report

TENNESSEE: Report

UTAH: Report

VIRGINIA: Report

WEST VIRGINIA: Report

WYOMING: Report

ALASKA: Report

ARKANSAS: Report

COLORADO: Report

DELAWARE: Report

FLORIDA: Report

HAWAII: Report

ILLINOIS: Report

IOWA: Report

KENTUCKY: Report

MAINE: Report

MASSACHUSETTS: Report

MINNESOTA: Report

MISSOURI: Report

NEBRASKA: Report

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Report

NEW MEXICO: Report

NORTH CAROLINA: Report

OHIO: Report

OREGON: Report

RHODE ISLAND: Report

SOUTH DAKOTA: Report

TEXAS: Report

VERMONT: Report

WASHINGTON: Report

WISCONSIN: Report

[1] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Information

Survey (HEGIS). Average Undergraduate Tuition and Fees and Room and Board Rated Charged for Full-Time

Students in Degree-Granting Institutions, by Type and Control of Institution: 1964-65 through 2004-2005.

[2] US Census Bureau, Table H-8. Median Household Income by State: 1984 to 2005.