Public School Spending: More Isn’t Necessarily Better

Public school per-pupil spending has increased for the fifth consecutive year, according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The county’s top-five spenders for 2017 are New York ($23,091), the District of Columbia ($21,974), Connecticut ($19,322), New Jersey ($18,920) and Vermont ($18,290). California comes in at number 21, spending $12,143 per pupil (see Summary Table 11, available here).

Total nationwide spending for public K-12 education in 2017 was $694 billion, up from $671 billion in 2016. This change represents a 3.4 percent increase. In comparison, inflation increased by 2.1 percent, and student enrollment increased by just one-tenth of 1 percent (based on Summary Table 19, available here).

When it comes to providing quality education, money matters. But simply spending more doesn’t necessarily mean better quality education—particularly if local school boards don’t prioritize instructional spending.

Despite increased education spending that outpaces both inflation and student-enrollment increases, only about half (53 percent) of all education spending is for instruction, which includes teacher salaries and benefits (based on Summary Tables 1 and 6, available here).

Putting parents in charge of their children’s education dollars would be a more fiscally responsible way to fund American education. Parents know that great teachers matter most to their children’s education, and given the choice, they would choose educational providers that prioritize investing in top-quality teachers. To attract students and their associated funding, education providers would need to attract and retain great teachers, or risk losing students to other providers.

Programs such as education savings accounts, or ESAs, put parents in charge by giving them a type of dedicated-used debit card to purchase approved education services and supplies, such as private-school tuition, online courses, special-education therapies, tutoring, and school supplies. Parents can also use leftover funds for future education expenses, including college tuition.

Done right, ESAs would also be a boon for teachers.

At current spending levels, even excluding spending for capital outlays and debt payments, there is enough funding to provide every public-school student an ESA worth $12,550. Imagine what it would be like if, under an ESA-financing system, parent-chosen education providers directed 80 percent of funding to instruction, instead of just over 50 percent as public school districts do now. The average base salary for America’s 3.6 million teachers would be more than $134,000—nearly two-and-a-half times greater than their current average salary of just over $51,000.

This scenario is a win-win for students and their teachers.

As the late Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once said, “Education spending will be most effective, if it relies on parental choice and private initiative—the building blocks of success throughout our society.”

SOURCE






The Treasury Department issued a notice that will save tax credit scholarship programs from what could have been a crippling blow

Lawmakers intended with the 2017 tax cuts not only to promote economic growth and job creation and to allow families to keep more of their hard-earned money, but also to make the federal tax code more neutral toward state tax policy.

But state-based tax credit scholarship programs got unintentionally caught up in the broader reform.

Now available to more than 270,000 students in 18 states, tax credit scholarship programs allow state taxpayers to receive a full or partial credit against their state tax obligations if they contribute to nonprofit organizations that grant scholarships to eligible children so they can attend a private school of their choice.

These scholarships are an important and growing tool for expanding school choice. The Treasury Department just saved them from what could have been a crippling blow.

The new tax law placed a cap of $10,000 on the amount taxpayers could deduct from their federal taxes for state and local taxes, which advanced the bipartisan goal of treating similar taxpayers similarly, by diminishing the previously unlimited subsidy for high taxes in states like California and Connecticut.

To implement the cap as intended by Congress, the Treasury Department released proposed regulations that disallowed use of new state schemes set up to game the charitable deduction and circumvent the cap.

But legitimate state-based tax credit scholarship programs were included in the rule, which means the ability to donate was limited for the 10% of taxpayers who itemize but don’t max out their deductions for state and local taxes.

In some cases, the cost of donating would increase from zero to as much as 37% of the donation amount.

In the final regulation and accompanying notice, the Treasury fixed the problem and re-established the federal tax system’s neutrality toward state tax credit programs, as recommended by The Heritage Foundation in a public comment.

The notice allows donors to scholarship programs to still take the deduction for state and local taxes up to the cap of $10,000. A new rule codifying this will be proposed in a few months.

The new regulations and guidance mean there is no new tax cost for taxpayers who donate to a state tax credit scholarship program. This preserves every state taxpayer’s ability to earmark their tax payments for increased education choice.

The Treasury notice fixes the tax problems of the original proposal but could open the door to the question of whether donations to tax credit organizations are charitable donations or redirected government money.

The precedent established in Arizona v. Winn makes clear that these are still donations. The tax was never collected by the state, so it remains a donation that is distinct from a voucher program.

Although the regulation could be improved by continuing to allow these deductions as charitable contributions, the Treasury’s proposal is more straightforward and easier to administer.

The new rules should come as a relief to scholarship organizations around the country. These opportunities, which benefit thousands of children, can now continue unencumbered by the federal tax code.

SOURCE






Universities shine in the contest of ideas (?)

Below is some complete and utter bullshit from Deborah Terry, chairwoman of Universities Australia.  She describes what universities should do as if they actually did it.  Far from shining in the contest of ideas, Australian universities avoid any contest of ideas.

If she really believes all that dribble, let her explain why the riot squad had to be called in order to disperse the student demonstrators who were blocking people who wanted to hear Bettina Arndt at the University of Sydney.  Let her explain the Australia-wide difficulties Bettina has had even getting to book rooms for her talks

And what about the difficulty the Ramsay centre has had in being allowed to sponsor courses in Western civilization?  There has been huge resistence to letting students hear anything about the history and ideas of Western civilization.  What went wrong with the "contest of ideas" there?  Censorship of ideas would be the accurate description.

I note that she gives no evidence that our Universities shine in the contest of ideas.  Offering assertions without evidence is the nadir of scholarship.  If she is the representative of Australian  universities she discredits them.  There is of course plenty of evidence that Australian Universities do NOT shine in the contest of ideas. I have just mentioned some. The woman has her head in a dark place.  She is suffering from a severe case of loss of reality contact 


Australia’s universities have been on the public record through the decades affirming our commitment to informed evidence-based discussion and vigorous debate.

As institutions, we nurture the skills of our students to debate ideas, develop their critical thinking skills and engage with a wide array of views — including those with which they agree and those with which they disagree.

The exercise of free speech applies to both proponents and opponents of controversial ideas.

You need only to look to democracy-defending protests around the world to see this in action. Surely the ideal is for a vigorous engagement and contest of ideas, passionately and peacefully expressed.

Under wider Australian law, freedom of speech is not without limitation or caveat. There are, for example, prohibitions on hate speech and discrimination, as well as laws on defamation.

University students and staff are, of course, subject to these wider laws, like the rest of the Australian population.

The skill of being able to engage in vigorous debate without suspending courtesy is one that our students will need if they are to succeed in the workplace and the world.

The French review reminds us that the mission of universities includes responsibility for the maintenance of scholarly standards in teaching, learning and research.

Hence universities teach students to seek out and weigh evidence, test and verify, and to form cogent arguments drawing on that evidence. At the same time, our university researchers keenly examine and respectfully debate ideas, new paradigms, evidence and conclusions.

Universities play a fundamental role in the health of open, democratic societies worldwide. Australia’s universities are ever vigilant in defence of our democratic freedoms.

SOURCE