School performance standards are outdated. Here are six ways we can improve them.
Because Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act last December, states are revamping their federally required systems to measure school quality and hold schools accountable for performance. But most are doing so using outdated assumptions, holdovers from the industrial era, when cookie-cutter public schools followed orders from central headquarters and students were assigned to the closest school.
Today we are migrating toward systems of diverse, fairly autonomous schools of choice, some of them operated by independent organizations. Before revising their measurement and accountability systems, states need to rethink their assumptions.
For instance, most states have assumed they should apply one accountability system to almost all public schools. Under the old No Child Left Behind Act, most of those measures were standardized test scores, and what counted was the percentage of students scoring proficient or better. When schools repeatedly failed to meet such standards, most states assumed the proper response was some minor form of restructuring required by No Child Left Behind – perhaps a new principal, perhaps some new teachers, perhaps some new money.
None of these assumptions will produce the schools our children need in the 21st century. The No Child Left Behind Act was an important step in its time, but it relied on the blunt tools most states used back in 2001: primarily achievement scores on standardized math and reading tests.
I’d like to draw your attention to this extraordinary essay by President Obama in The Economist. It stands out for two reasons. First, it provides what has been sorely missing from the bizarre 2016 presidential race – a progressive roadmap for restoring America’s economic dynamism.
Both documents reject populist claims that the U.S. economy is a “disaster” or a game hopelessly rigged by Wall Street or billionaires and focus instead on the main driver of meager wage gains and growing inequality – slumping productivity growth. As the President notes, one reason for the slowdown is lagging private investment – a problem PPI also has been highlighting in multiple studies of the nation’s “investment drought.”
We also agree with many of the President’s key prescriptions for putting America back on a high-growth path. To highlight just a few:
Pro-growth tax reform, including lowering business taxes and closing special interest loopholes.
Expanding U.S. exports and passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership to strengthen global trade rules.
Lowering college costs, not just expanding education subsidies.
Making work pay by expanding tax credits for low-income workers.
Why is all this important? Because despite all the rhetoric about “inclusive growth,” in this election, we’re hearing a lot more about distributing existing wealth than creating new wealth. To speak to the hopes and aspirations of working families, Democrats need to balance that equation.
By all accounts, Donald Trump used huge real estate losses in the early 1990s to pay little or no taxes in subsequent years. In other words, he “income-averaged” his bad years and his good years. That seems to make perfect sense to many tax experts. And the eminently reasonable Megan McCardle of Bloomberg wrote a piece titled “Trump’s 1995 Return Shows Good Tax Policy at Work.”
But suppose you, as a typical American, took a big loss on your home, or had a bad couple of years because you lost your job? Could you cut your taxes by income-averaging, like Trump did?
No and no. First, if you buy your home today, and the value falls tomorrow, you are not allowed to write off your loss on your taxes. As the IRS says in its cheery way, a ” loss from the sale or exchange of a capital asset held for personal use isn’t deductible.”
But perhaps more important, the typical American wage earner who has a decent income one year (and pays lots of taxes!), and loses his or her job the next year, is not allowed to income average across years. That provision was taken out of the tax code in 1986 (there are some special situations where it still holds, but they don’t apply to most people).
Income-averaging would be a tremendous cushion to ordinary wage earners in times of economic tumult, like the recent deep recession. If you lost your job, those bad years could help lower your tax bill in other years where you earned more money. In an important sense, income-averaging is a protection against insecurity. (Full disclosure: I advocated income-averaging in my 1996 book, The High Risk Society).*
How much of a cushion would income-averaging prove in tough times? The amounts could be quite significant. Here’s an example. A married person earning $120K in a year with 1 small child and a non-working spouse would pay (after exemptions and the standard deduction) roughly $15,000 in federal income taxes. If they lose their job for two years, their income goes down to zero and they pay zero taxes.
But if this hypothetical person could income-average over the bad years–like Trump did–he or she would pay tax on $40K of income for three years, which would come to roughly $1500 per year, or a total of $4500 for three years. In effect, income-averaging would cut their three year tax bill by two-thirds, and give them $10K in their pocket–mighty handy to have when you are out of work.**
Now, not to belabor the obvious, putting income-averaging for ordinary Americans into the tax code could be expensive. Given all the other competing needs on the tax system, it’s not clear that allowing broad income-averaging is the best use of scarce fiscal resources. But as a philosophical matter of tax policy, income averaging both aids fairness, and helps cushion ordinary Americans against the ups and downs of a volatile economy.
So I ask the question: If the ordinary American can’t income average, why can Donald Trump? Or to flip the question around, if Donald Trump can income average, why can’t you?
*The pre-1986 version of income averaging, unfortunately, was restricted to the wrong people. As I wrote in 1996, “under the pre-1986 law, people could only average if their incomes spiked up substantially–a lottery winner, say, or an author whose book was suddenly a best seller. Those restrictions ruled out the people who really needed the help, the ones whose income suddenly took a big dip down because of a job loss. People need to be insured against actual losses, not the possibility of sudden gains.”
**The gain would be even bigger if the family is eligible for the EIC.
According to PPI estimates, rising labor costs accounted for almost $65 billion in added health care costs in 2015, or 47 percent of the total increase in personal health care spending (as reported by the latest projections from the actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid). By contrast, IMS reports that net spending on prescription drugs rose by only $24 billion in 2015, or 18 percent of the rise in personal health care spending.
This result, which updates our previously published data for 2014, fights the prevailing narrative that healthcare spending is primarily driven by rising drug prices.. Instead, the big increase in labor compensation in 2015 is mainly being impelled by the rapid growth of health care employment. The number of workers in the nation’s hospitals, physician offices, and nursing homes increased by 429,000 in 2015, compared to an annual average of 226,000 for the previous 5 years.
Unfortunately, this trend of rapidly rising healthcare employment driving overall spending appears to have accelerated in 2016. Healthcare employment in the 12 months ending July 2016 was more than 500,000 above its year earlier level, suggesting that healthcare labor costs will surge even more in 2016.
Meanwhile data from the BEA seem to show the pace of pharmaceutical spending slowing in 2016. Consumer spending on prescription drugs in August 2016 was 4.3% over a year earlier, less than half as fast as in 2015. There’s no guarantee that this slower pace will continue for the rest of 2016, but so far it’s a good sign.
Rising college tuition prices have become a serious obstacle for many low and middle income students. One potential way to manage those costs is through Advanced Placement (AP), which allows students to earn college credit in high school, thereby reducing the time and money needed for a degree. But not all colleges grant credit for AP, and many cap the amount they accept or require test scores above the AP standard.
In a recent report, Paul Weinstein, Jr., of the Progressive Policy Institute, documents the limits colleges place on AP credit. He recommends new requirements — that colleges accept AP credit and students’ test fees be waived — to ensure the benefits of AP are equally accessible to all students.
AEI’s Nat Malkus responds with concern, countering that Weinstein’s recommendations might have unintended consequences for AP programs, which have successfully produced value for students and colleges alike by maintaining quality even as access has increased.
Both make compelling points. We invited them to discuss them below, hoping to foster constructive, substantial dialogue on how policy should influence these valuable programs.
Paul Weinstein:
The American higher education system is the finest in the world. Yet there are big cracks in the ceiling and the cause is money – or more specifically the amount of cash students need to attend college and graduate school.
Fueled by the ability of students to access relatively cheap loans through the student loan program, colleges and universities have been jacking up the cost of college. Since 1981, tuition and fees have risen 129% in real terms while median family incomes have grown only 11% over the same period.
Current reform proposals such as debt forgiveness and more subsidized loans will enable schools to continue to raise the price of tuition. To cut the cost of college and ensure students get the best educational experience – on campus – we must help students earn their bachelor’s degree faster. Moving to a three-year degree would save students anywhere from $9,000 (public institutions) to $30,000 (private institutions), open more slots at better schools, and avoid pushing students into MOOCs or shady for-profit institutions.
How do we transition to a three-year degree? One step is to ensure that students who successfully complete Advanced Placement (AP) courses, the International Baccalaureate (IB), or other recognized assessments receive actual course credit instead of a pat on the back.
Unfortunately, despite encouraging students to spend time and money on AP courses and tests, colleges aren’t always giving them course credit when students succeed. Among the top 152 colleges and universities, 83 percent restrict AP credit (including a growing number that deny credit completely). Schools argue they are acting to ensure quality – that AP courses don’t measure up. Yet many of those same schools acknowledge that these students have mastered college-level coursework by allowing them to waive core requirements for that same AP coursework. That simply does not pass the smell test.
It’s time for schools to reward hard work and put students first. Ensuring colleges and universities do not overly restrict AP and IB credit for the sake of additional revenue should be prevented. And no school that encourages applicants to take AP and IB courses should be allowed to deny course credit for successful work.
Nat Malkus:
Paul, you rightly identify rising college costs as a problem, and I agree it’s far better to lower those costs, rather than pumping more money into the system. It’s also prudent to make the most of proven systems, like AP courses and exams, in that effort.
I encourage readers to read your succinct report, because it usefully leverages new data to plainly show that some students may be in for a bait-and-switch when they learn they won’t get college credits for their hard earned AP scores. This issue is worthy of attention, but I think the problem may be smaller than you believe, and that your solution could have negative unintended consequences.
The data indeed show a majority of institutions restrict AP credit. However, only 6% refuse all AP credit, and the remainder give credit for 85% of AP exams. Most institutions accept the standard score of 3, while a minority require 4’s or 5’s. Again, most take all students’ AP credit, but 38% have an upper limit. As I see it, giving full credit for AP work isn’t the exception. It’s the rule.
Nonetheless, relatively small problems may still warrant a solution. But requiring all colleges and universities to give full AP credits will take away an important check on AP program quality.
Critics have long warned that AP quality is or will be eroded by rapid program growth. My research suggests such watering down of AP hasn’t happened broadly, yet, and it is worth considering why. In part, it is because the College Board has had to focus on quality because AP serves both students and post-secondary institutions, and they serve neither well if quality slips and more institutions refuse credit.
If AP credit were required by law, it would erode the pressure to maintain AP rigor to preserve the high voluntary acceptance rates among post-secondary institutions. Those high acceptance rates are evidence of AP’s high quality. It’s predictable – and it would be unfortunate – that an overzealous effort to maximize the benefits of AP could ultimately undermine the educational quality of such a successful program.
Paul Weinstein:
Nat, your excellent research is really key here – that the rapid growth in AP course and exam takers has not diminished the quality of the program. Unfortunately, many schools have used that fallacious argument to restrict or eliminate credit for AP work. Just look at the case of Dartmouth. With regards to your argument that “giving full credit for AP work isn’t the exception. It’s the rule,” I would reiterate that not only do the majority of institutions on my list limit AP credit, but almost half don’t offer any credit for a score of 3 – and even among those schools that do accept a minimum score of 3, most require a score of 4 or 5 for certain AP subjects.
Your second point, that a government solution could lower AP quality, is worthy of consideration. There are always positive and negative consequences to any policy. But one way to ensure quality remains high is to give schools a seat at the table in developing the AP curriculum and examinations.
Nat Malkus:
Paul, I think we agree on the problem here, and only marginally disagree on its scale. I am less convinced than you that post-secondary institutions limit AP credit primarily for profit, but wholeheartedly agree that institutions that do so should stop.
Your report proposes some big solutions — that Congress mandate AP credit and the administration underwrite AP exam fees — which I have taken issue with elsewhere. I will add here that those solutions are unlikely, especially given Congressional productivity.
Since it is too easy to critique without offering solutions, I will throw out one of my own which would be readily achievable. The Department of Education could collect and report institutions’ AP credit policies, including the exams for which they give credit, any caps they have, and what scores they accept. That transparency won’t force any changes, but institutions that want the best students will have to balance their AP restrictions with possibly losing some of them. The administration has made multiple attempts to shed light on college costs and outcomes, and this is an easy step in that direction. If nothing else, by making the terms for credit clear up front, it could keep unwitting students from the AP bait-and-switch.
Paul Weinstein, Jr. is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and director of the graduate program in public management at Johns Hopkins University. Nat Malkus is a research fellow in education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
The FCC chose to ‘delete‘ (their word) discussion of its “set-top box rule” from today’s meeting. As we wrote two weeks ago, the FCC’s proposed rule appeared to put the commission in the position of rewriting copyright law and setting up a licensing board for apps. The licensing board for apps is particularly disturbing, because it represents an entirely new layer of regulation on an innovative sector that has produced more than 1.6 million jobs in the US alone.
But we’re left with a headscratcher. The truth is that no one–including members of Congress–really knows at this point what Chairman Tom Wheeler and the FCC commission are thinking, or how the FCC has modified its plan. Rather than having to guess, we favor transparency–the FCC should announce its current proposal, and give an opportunity for public comment, meaningful review by Congress, and real economic analysis of the rule’s impact on jobs and innovation. That’s the right way to move forward.
The biggest asset GOP nominee Donald Trump brings to the presidential race is not his alleged business acumen — which more and more looks like an elaborate con — but his showmanship. So it was a bit surprising to watch Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton consistently skewer and dominate the reality-TV star in last night’s debate.
The confrontation mostly confirmed what we already knew about the two candidates, but it was the first opportunity to see them perform side-by-side — and Trump suffered from the comparison. Clinton was poised, confident and briskly in command of the facts; Trump blustered repetitively, was easily put on the defensive and his free-association ranting — such as his Sid Blumenthal excursion — was often too scatterbrained for anyone but political junkies to follow.
The juxtaposition highlighted once more that Trump hasn’t bothered to bone-up on the complex and knotty issues he’d confront as president. The White House is no place for winging it, yet he appears to lack the mental discipline to prepare himself to succeed in world’s toughest job. Are U.S. voters really so desperate for change that they would entrust a rank amateur like Trump with their highest office? This is the crux of the choice voters face in November.
New PPI Report Highlights TPP’s Many Practical Benefits for U.S. Small Exporters
WASHINGTON—The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released a new policy memo highlighting the many practical ways in which the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement will make exporting faster, easier, cheaper, and more certain for U.S. small exporters, and how growing small business trade would help spread trade’s benefits to more Americans. The report was released at a public event on Capitol Hill that featured opening remarks from Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) and a keynote address from Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker.
Authored by Ed Gerwin, senior fellow for trade and global opportunity at PPI, “A Big Deal for Small Business: How the Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Boost America’s Small Exporters” profiles seven small and mid-sized American exporters—representing different business sectors and regions—and explains the real-world ways in which the TPP’s reforms would help these smaller businesses prosper through global commerce.
“These stories show that—from the perspectives of these American small businesses—the TPP is much more than an academic exercise or a political debate,” writes Gerwin. “Instead, it’s a vital, practical tool for eliminating foreign trade barriers and for opening up significant new opportunities for U.S. small businesses to grow by selling goods and services to key markets around the Pacific Rim.”
For Halosil International, a Delaware- based small manufacturer of disinfecting chemicals and systems, the TPP would reduce regulatory confusion, duplicative testing requirements, foreign duties, and customs red tape.
For Wente Vineyards, a family-owned winery in California’s Livermore Valley and Arroyo Seco regions, the TPP would phase out high foreign duties in countries including Japan and Vietnam, while promoting global best practices in wine regulation and labeling.
For SheerID, a Eugene, Oregon-based small business that provides customer verification solutions for e-commerce, mobile, and in- person eligibility, the TPP’s reforms would provide new business opportunities in growing regional e-commerce and help protect the firm’s vital intellectual property.
For Aladdin Light Lift, Inc., a small Huntsville, Alabama-based manufacturer of lift systems for raised lighting, the TPP would eliminate duties, increase the transparency of regulations, and reduce the need for multiple tests.
For Cask, LLC, a Stafford, Virginia-based, woman-owned provider of business consulting services, the TPP would support new business opportunities in Vietnam and reduce foreign barriers to providing professional services.
For The Pro’s Closet, a Boulder, Colorado- based online reseller of used cycling gear, the TPP would assure international flows of commercial data, promote more efficient and reliable e-commerce, and eliminate foreign shipping and customs delays.
For Pacific Valley Foods, a family-run Bellevue, Washington-based exporter of frozen, canned, and prepared foods, the TPP would reduce high duties in key TPP markets like Japan and level the playing field against competing suppliers from other countries.
When Americans think of trade, we tend to focus on large, world-leading multinationals. We usually don’t think of a small food exporter like Pacific Valley Foods, which started in a couple’s home office, or of The Pro’s Closet, an online global reseller of used biking gear founded by a pro cyclist. But, like these businesses, 98 percent of U.S. exporters are actually small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and these smaller traders account for over one-third of U.S. exports.
SMEs that export are also economic powerhouses—they hire more employees, pay higher wages, and are more resilient and productive than their non-exporting counterparts. And, since only about five percent of American SMEs currently export, the United States has significant untapped potential to drive growth and support good jobs by increasing small business trade.
In a previous issue brief, we explained how the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) would boost U.S. small business exports by clearing away significant foreign trade barriers and by mandating reforms that would make exporting fairer, faster, cheaper, and more certain for America’s smaller firms.
As a Brit interning in Washington this past summer, I was struck by the fierce anti-trade rhetoric that propelled the candidacies of both Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders. In the midst of it all came the Brexit vote, a reminder that Europe also is in the throes of a populist backlash against trade and the economic dislocations of globalization.
In Europe as well as the United States, such “globaphobia” is fueled in large part by the same economic realities: disappearing manufacturing jobs, lagging productivity and wages, and the very real prospect of downward mobility for working class families.
Productivity rates in EU nations are disappointingly low and most are on a sluggish trajectory (the United States is doing better by comparison but has also experienced a slowdown in productivity growth since 2000). Populist and nationalist parties offer simple if dubious explanations for Europe’s malaise, and point accusing fingers at free trade, open immigration and the common European market.
Far-right parties have made “Euroscepticism,” and economic isolationism the keystone of their manifestos. France’s Front National is capitalizing on Brexit to promote an anti-trade and xenophobic agenda. Marine Le Pen deems the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations to be imperialistic and unpatriotic, and the free movement of EU citizens is mocked as “Anglo-Saxon multiculturalism.” This is, unsurprisingly, accompanied by a virulent strain of anti-Americanism: Front National sides with Putin on the Ukraine conflict and even advocates for a French withdrawal from NATO.
Europe’s populist left has found some common ground with parties like the National Front and UKIP. Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership the UK Labour Party offered only lukewarm opposition to Brexit. Corbyn was elected on an upswell of anger amongst the party base towards the ‘New Labour’ movement – best remembered in the United States in the form of Tony Blair – that flourished alongside the rise of the New Democrats in the ‘90s. Blair’s government successfully passed pro-business legislation and prioritized growth, while retaining a social conscience. Sadly, this model of progressive government has been cast aside by much of the party base. The Labour of today is instead a throwback to the ‘old school’ socialism of the 1970’s: opposition to trade deals and renationalization of industry, including the reopening of coalmines (which will operate at a loss). The opportunities offered to British workers by deals such as TTIP are conveniently ignored.
American progressives have a stake in opposing populist movements gathering steam in Europe, particularly as anti-Americanism often goes part-and-parcel with them. Our task is to counter the narrative that a more open transatlantic economy is a negative for working middle-class families. We need to emphasize how trade deals like the TPP and TTIP benefit the little guy above all else: small and medium sized businesses, women and ethnic-minority owned firms, millennials entering the workforce.
Populists are writing a darkly conspiratorial narrative on trade in 2016. There needs to be a full-throated progressive case on both sides of the Atlantic for open markets. Unfortunately the two parties that historically have embraced that position – Democrats and Labour – seem to have lost their voice.
After a long stretch of economic stagnation, the stars may be aligning at last for America’s hard-pressed middle class. The U.S. economy’s growing strength, plus a push in Washington to update overtime rules, could combine to boost incomes and give working families a long overdue raise.
New government figures show that the Obama recovery is finally reaching average Americans. Median household income rose by five percent in 2015, the biggest single-year spike since 1967. Families at all income levels made progress, with the bottom 10 percent reaping the largest gains. Rising incomes lifted 3.5 million people, including one million children, out of poverty and modestly reduced inequality.
Reinforcing the good economic news is a move in Washington to ensure that millions of low-paid white-collar workers can once again qualify for overtime pay. The question is whether it will fall victim to partisan deadlock.
Does the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have the authority to rewrite copyright law and license apps? This Thursday the Senate Commerce Committee will hold an oversight hearing for the FCC, giving the committee members the opportunity to ask FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler this very relevant question.
Wheeler has proposed a plan by which payTV operators will be required to offer their shows through an app, which can be used on any device. The goal of this plan is to wean consumers off set-top boxes and home television sets, and encourage them to watch their favorite shows on their phones or tablets.
In the process, however, Wheeler is also mandating that the copyright holders for movies and television shows can no longer control where their material appears. That dramatically changes established copyright law, which gives copyright holders effectively unlimited discretion over how and where to sell and distribute their content.
Moreover, the FCC would set up a licensing board to certify the apps, setting an unfortunate precedent where any app that provided video content could presumably come under government control about how and where it could provide that content (or else it would be easy to circumvent the FCC’s rules). In effect, the FCC is setting itself up as the gatekeeper of the App Economy, which has been a tremendous job producer so far for the United States.
Do they promote the creation of new artistic works?
Do they allow creators and authors to benefit from their artistic endeavors?
Do they stimulate jobs and economic growth?
There is no evidence that the FCC did any economic analysis of these copyright metrics to justify its proposal. Moreover, app licensing by the government could dramatically slow down the rate of innovation in apps
PPI is in favor of competition in the set-top box market, including the delivery of content through apps. But the FCC’s attempt to squeeze out set-top boxes by rewriting copyright rules and licensing apps has the potential to have wide-reaching negative economic consequences.
The introduction of the iPhone in 2007 created a profound new economic force. There are now nearly 2 billion smartphone users worldwide, an unprecedented rate of adoption for a new technology. Equally important, Apple’s unveiling of the App Store in July 2008 ignited a global App Economy boom. This revolutionary concept enabled software developers to write mobile applications from anywhere in the world, with the ability to sell and distribute them globally.
WASHINGTON—A new report released today by PPI finds that 86 percent of the top 153 universities and colleges in the United States restrict the awarding of Advanced Placement (AP) credits, denying students and their families hundreds of millions in tuition savings. This is especially alarming as more and more high school students (over 1 million—double the number from 2003) take and pay for AP exams at the encouragement of the higher education community, including a record 275,874 minority students.
“While the number of students taking AP exams grows, colleges and universities are making it increasingly difficult for them to get actual college credit,” writes Paul Weinstein Jr., PPI Senior Fellow and Director of the Graduate Program in Public Management at the Johns Hopkins University. “As a result, students who start their undergraduate studies thinking they have enough AP credits to graduate a semester or year early often discover their school has denied some or all of their AP coursework.
“The costs of postsecondary education are now higher in the United States than anywhere else in the world. … One simple and inexpensive way to cut the cost of college is to ensure institutions of higher education don’t unfairly limit credit for AP and IB work.”
In his research, Weinstein examined the AP policies of the top 102 universities and top 51 colleges according to U.S. News and World Report. According to information made publicly available by the College Board and these schools, a majority of colleges and universities limit the use of AP credit towards a degree. There are four primary ways schools restrict AP credit:
Disallow course credit for any AP work. Nine schools give students no credit for AP work. These institutions include some of the top schools in the country: Dartmouth University, Brown University, the California Institute of Technology, Williams College, and Amherst College.
Restrict the number of AP subject areas that are eligible for course credit. Only 25 percent of the schools in this study allow students to receive credit in all AP subject area disciplines. The rest (75 percent) eliminate some subject areas from consideration.
Cap the total amount of AP credit that students can receive. Some 38 percent of the schools on our list cap the amount of AP credit they will give students, making it nearly impossible in some cases for students to graduate early.
Hike the minimum AP score needed to receive credit. Almost half (44 percent) of the top schools do not accept a score of 3 on AP exams for credit.
The report concludes with three ways policymakers can expand credit for the successful completion of AP coursework and cut the cost of college.
The college affordability crisis looms large for working and middle class Americans. Parents and students are reeling from record levels of student loan debt and ever-increasing tuition hikes. Total student loan debt is now a record $1.26 trillion and the typical 2016 college graduate has $37,172 in student loan debt, up six percent from last year.
The costs of postsecondary education are now higher in the United States than anywhere else in the world. Despite the buildup of student debt, schools continue to jack up prices in the form of higher tuition and fees. The cumulative change in tuition and fees at all types of higher education institutions has grown (in constant dollars) by 129 percent from 1981 to 2014. Median family income, of course, has not kept pace, growing only 11 percent over the same period. In 1981, annual college tuition and fees represented 18 percent of median family income. Now they account for 37 percent.
For a growing number of students the cost of college has become so bad that they sometimes are forced to choose between skipping meals and paying for tuition, books, and dorm rooms. According to a study by Sara Goldrick-Rab of 4,000 community college students, slightly more than half of respondents indicated they experienced marginal to very low food security. If college costs continue to rise at their current pace, Congress may have to consider a free college lunch program for undergraduates.
Anti-trade populists are hell-bent on locking Democrats into a future of rigid opposition to trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. They recently failed in efforts to include a plank in the Democratic Party Platform that would have committed Democrats to the decidedly undemocratic principle of never, ever agreeing even to bring TPP to a vote—either in this Congress or any future one. Now, they are back, pressuring Democratic candidates and Members to go on record against TPP—a key priority for President Obama—and any vote on TPP in the lame duck session of Congress.
Pro-growth progressives should stand up and fight this ill-conceived attempt to make dogmatic opposition to trade agreements a new political loyalty test. The last thing America needs is a Democratic version of the Republicans’ infamous Norquist Pledge on taxes, which has paralyzed Washington’s ability to compromise and make sound fiscal policy.
Killing TPP would deprive policy makers of a potent tool for stimulating jobs and growth, and for augmenting American influence and leadership in the Pacific East. Make no mistake: blanket hostility to trade agreements is a formula for slow growth, lagging innovation and a fatal loss of U.S. economic dynamism.
