The “State” of Texas Higher Education, Part I

The prospects for higher education in the United States have never looked better in some ways, nor have they looked worse in others. As Texans, we must think more broadly about policy problems and solutions, and recognize that investing resources in education enhances our ability to compete on the national and global stage.

Increasingly educators are speaking in terms of the need to focus on the “educational pipeline” by promoting policies which address key transitions that occur throughout the learning process. Developing this pipeline means investing in our “educational capital” (the underlying sources of economic and educational strength), and it requires that we focus on three critical areas: 1) early childhood education; 2) the transition from high school to college; and 3) increased numbers of nationally ranked institutions and higher completion rates at earlier ages for college students. When it comes to how well Texas has performed in these areas, the report card has been something that you would want to hide from your parents.

The good news is that more students, especially women, are attending college and receiving degrees in both the U.S. and in Texas. The course curriculum to prepare students for higher education is more rigorous — more math, science, and AP courses than in the last twenty years. More high school students are going on to college and completing degrees than ever before, the pupil-faculty ratio has declined, and fewer teachers are teaching outside their field of specialty.

There is still much, however, that is left to be desired — and this is especially true in Texas. In 2006, Texas ranked third for Gross State Product and second for overall population. Texas is number 6 in the country for student growth with public schools growing by 11.1% between 1999 and 2005. Yet we also ranked ninth highest in the country for the percentage of children living in poverty (23 percent), and we lead the country for percentage of persons who have less than a high school diploma (22 percent). On virtually every benchmark for evaluating secondary education, Texas ranks abysmally in the bottom half.

So is the situation any better for colleges and universities? If you examine the most recent evaluation of our higher educational system, it appears that it is not. "Measuring Up 2006", from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, examined all 50 states and 27 other countries around the globe, and the study found Texas to be lagging on multiple levels, including high school graduation rates. Most concerning, the gap between Anglos and minorities in educational achievement — Anglos are about twice as likely to have a bachelor's degree than non-Anglos. In part, this is due to the correlation between minority status and low-income. Why is the Texas higher education system receiving such low marks? It is a systemic problem that requires broad policy approaches, not quick fixes.

Early Childhood Education

We must begin educating children at earlier ages and recognize that early education programs promote lifelong learning and family welfare as other states have begun to do. Early education programs have been met mostly with success and support. While Californians defeated Proposition 82 which would have funded voluntary preschool for all children, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich sought funding for $225 million in state funding to place 140,000 children in voluntary pre-kindergarten programs. Wisconsin along with 25 other states increased pre-kindergarten funding last year (10 states increased funding by more than 30%). Oklahoma — our neighbor — has built up a system for 4-year-old kindergarten that leads the nation in percentage of enrollments (69%) and appears to be giving Oklahoma students an advantage.

The reasons why states are doing it are clear. Evidence from Chicago's Child-Parent Centers finds that preschool programs have an impact on child development and lifelong achievement in education. Arthur Reynolds’ longitudinal studies found that poor children who undergo intensive preschool programs are much more likely to finish high school. Moreover, such students are less likely to need special education, repeat a grade, or be arrested. For every one dollar spent on poverty programs, the long term benefits ranged between $7 and $10.

The price tag to provide universal access to early education programs for low income children would be about $12 billion for the entire United States. Over the average lifetime, the person with the bachelor's degree will earn $1 million more than the person who drops out of high school. Given current Texas demographics, Texas primary and secondary enrollments will increase by 15.6% in the next decade, and the number of high school graduates will increase by 20%. Conservative estimates show that college enrollment by 2040 will increase by 92.6% meaning over 300,000 more students in the system can contribute to the economy. In Texas alone, the benefits would exceed the costs for the entire United States associated with such a program.

Interestingly, it is economic arguments that are convincing states to have such programs. Yes, it is a plus that about 60% of mothers with children under 3 who are in the labor force would benefit by such programs. True, benefits include significantly lower rates of teen pregnancy, higher income levels for individuals and businesses, higher tax revenues for federal, state, and local governments, reduced social spending costs on entitlement programs, reduced incarceration and juvenile detention costs, and reduced health care costs.

But the real reason to support such programs? Good old-fashioned economics. Nobel laureate economist James Heckman emphasizes that resources are better spent on prevention and early education programs than on remedial education, rehabilitation, or incarceration programs. Educational spending on children younger than 5 is less than 9% of all educational spending. The long term return for investment on early childhood programs by some calculations shows a 12% return, more than double what the stock market has on average historically returned.