(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
So the yellow line just put another $10 billion on the credit card of the red line. Let them eat cake! From the Rockefeller Institute, hat tip EIA.
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
So the yellow line just put another $10 billion on the credit card of the red line. Let them eat cake! From the Rockefeller Institute, hat tip EIA.

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
As an Arizonan, this article is quite satisfying to read, not so much because I’m a big fan of RTTT, but because I am proud of the steps Arizona lawmakers took to reform K-12 last session.
Arizona went from second to last in the first round of the RTTT to finalist in the second round, mostly on the strength of the 2010 reforms. Alabama meanwhile continues to languish in education union imposed stasis.
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Interesting article from John Fund from the Aspen Ideas Conference.
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Interesting article about a controversy at UC Berkeley concerning the provision of online coursework.
Of course, Edley is right and his opponents have their heads buried in the sand. Remember, you heard it here first:
The only question in my mind is how long it will be until an elite player has the necessary vision to defect from the comfortable cartel. Several universities have the means to do this, and could receive philanthropic help to do so. Attention Oxford and Cambridge: it wouldn’t require an American university to pull this off. A British university could put out a low-cost version of this, and unlike their American counterparts, they aren’t swimming in resources.
This is not what Berkeley is doing. At least, not yet. Their approach seems like a more limited foray into the use of technology to lower higher education costs, given that their state government benefactor is completely bankrupt and dysfunctional to boot. I’m amused by the resistance. Guess what Berkeley reactionaries: if you don’t start down this course, someone else is going to do it to you.
I bounced my theory that it is only a matter of time until an elite private university begins offering tuition free online degrees under a Google financial model off of two executives from a private for-profit online university a few months ago. Their response:
“We know it is coming. We are trying to figure out what to do about it.”
Jay has touched on the impact of general fiscal calamity and specifically Obamacare will have in moving states to consider innovative approaches for lowering costs in education. After a recent conference in Las Vegas, Patrick Gibbons of the Nevada Policy Research Institute summed it up:
Dr. Greene didn’t make this point to scare people away from Obamacare. He was pressing a point about the financial imperative of using existing resources more efficiently to provide a better system of public education. We have to reform, because public education is simply unsustainable in its current form.
I wrote recently about the Carpe Diem charter school’s successful use to boost strongly boost academic scores while fundamentally incorporating technology into the education model. The good in all of this is that while creative destruction is painful, the fact is that we can get better schools and better universities out of it. International comparisons show that American K-12 schools spend lavishly and teach ineffectively. American universities, in my opinion, tend to be overpriced, overrated and blissfully unconcerned with student learning or their own ever-increasing costs. If ever there were two sectors in more dire need of a shakeup, I would be hard pressed to think of better examples than American K-12 and American academia.

Don't cross our union masters...errrrrr...allies again cool kids!
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Politico has more on the Cool Kids vs. Caveman power struggle.
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
So back in 2006, I wrote a daily email for the Goldwater Institute commenting on Wyoming’s plan to lavish money on their K-12 schools. Titled “Oil Millions Didn’t Make Jethro Smart” I focused on the following statement from Wyoming State Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill McBride:
Wyoming’s state coffers have been filled by the booming natural gas market. Last year the state had a $1.8 billion surplus. The state government has poured much of this windfall into its public K-12 education system.
Jim McBride, the state’s superintendent of public instruction, has offered some rather startling predictions saying, “We probably will have the nation’s No. 1 graduation rate, maybe college attendance rate. We probably will have the highest NAEP scores.”
They got the spending part down, spending a cool $16,000 + per student in 2006-07. How is the academic part working out?
Well, not so great actually…
So just in case you are reading this on your phone, that would be Wyoming’s statewide average as the flat blue line being all students in Wyoming, and the red line being Hispanics in Florida. Back in 2006, I wrote:
Jethro Bodine of Beverly Hillbillies fame, flush with petrodollars, often predicted he would be either a movie star or a brain surgeon. That never worked out either.
I’d be willing to bet that Mr. McBride is a patriotic American who loves Wyoming and wants what is best for the kids of his great state, so I don’t mean to ridicule him as a person. This idea that we should simply throw money at schools however is demonstrably WRONG and deserving of scorn. If we really want to help children, it means doing the tough work of improving the productivity of the resources in the system.
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Speaking of things we can’t afford…check out this excellent piece from RiShawn Biddle.
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer announced her proposed budget, she established a benchmark in calling for the termination of a state program that currently serves 17,400 seriously mentally ill adults to save $37 million, the Arizona Republic reported. The governor’s budget chief, John Arnold, said this spending reduction is especially hard for the governor because she has been a strong advocate for mental-health causes.
“That benchmark means that anyone who seeks more funding from the state must first make the case why the cause is more important than providing services to 17,400 mentally-ill adults,” Arnold told the Republic.
Arizona is spending far, far more money than it is bringing in and lawmakers must make difficult choices. The concept of a benchmark to justify any new spending is therefore a good one. But it cuts both ways. What about continuing to spend in areas that are nowhere near as worthy as services to the mentally ill?
Consider administrators in the K-12 public educational system. The National Center for Education Statistics reveals that of the 104,630 employees at Arizona school districts in 2007-08, only 54,032 of them were teachers. What is more worthy of funding: maintaining an almost 1-to-1 teacher to bureaucrat ratio or maintaining services for the mentally ill?
Here’s another example: community colleges. The Maricopa County Community College District has a current operating budget of more than $683 million. The total budget from all sources is almost $1.5 billion. The district will spend only $276 million on instruction, making it around only 40 percent of its operating budget and only 18.6 percent of its total budget. MCCCD spends more than three times as much for administration and academic support as the state spends on the mentally ill, and the district’s three-year student completion rate is 11 percent. It is not clear what MCCCD is doing with that additional $130 million, but it does not seem to involve quality administration or academic support.
Defenders of the education status-quo will be quick to point out the federal government’s “maintenance of effort” requirements for using stimulus funds. However, there are waivers for such requirements, and Governor Brewer should seek them immediately. When we are cutting services for the mentally ill, we can hardly afford to maintain wasteful spending as a sacred cow.
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
An outfit called the Arizona Education Network took issue with a piece I wrote showing that Arizona K-12 spending has increased by 20% since 2000 while math and reading NAEP scores are up by less than 1% during approximate same period.
Unsheathing their flaming sword of justice, they wrote the following:
US Census Department Figures show that the Arizona population increased 28.6% from April of 2000 to July 2009.
During the same period, average daily membership (the term used to refer to the total enrollment of students through the first 100 days of the school year) in Arizona schools increased 22.7%. (According to a report to the Arizona Senate) .
So when special interest groups decry a 20% increase in education funding in the 2000-2009 period, they should notice that this increase did not even keep up with the increase in the number of school children in Arizona during the same period.
**AHEM**
Let me help you out here guys, since you seem new to this whole policy analysis thing. As a rule of thumb, it’s a good idea to read something before you criticize it. Sometimes, that will include clicking on hyperlinks when they are provided.
For example, if you had taken the trouble to do so in this case, you would have gone to an Arizona legislative website and learned that I had used an inflation adjusted spending per pupil number to calculate the 20% increase.
Keep at it though- some day you guys may be ready to swim to the deep end of the pool.