New York magazine’s Intelligencer blog today featured an article on the decline in spending on public education, a phenomenon writer Eric Levitz characterized as a “disinvestment from our nation’s future”. The diminishment of public education spending described in the article is appalling:
In May 2008, U.S. school departments employed 8.4 million teachers, administrators, and other staff. Today, they employ just 8.2 million, despite the fact that those schools now serve 1 million more students, according to Department of Education estimates. And while those teachers are being asked to serve more students, they’re making less money: According to a new analysis from the Economic Policy Institute, weekly wages for public-school teachers have declined 5 percent over the past five years… Between 2008 and 2014 (the last year for which we have full data), state public-education funding declined 6.6 percent. While the stimulus money was still flowing, Uncle Sam was able to ameliorate this austerity somewhat, but still left schools spending 2.4 percent less per student over that period, when adjusting for inflation. And when the stimulus wore off, state and local governments failed to pick up the slack: In 2012, total school funding fell for the first time since 1977. As FiveThirtyEight’s Ben Casselman notes, this cutback wasn’t concentrated on administrative salaries or extravagant construction — instructional spending has fallen at roughly the same rate as overall budgets.
The New York article covered some of the same ground as the NYTimes editorial I blogged about yesterday, emphasizing the impact (and preposterousness) of State-level Reagonomics. Noting that the graying of America will drive up retirement and health care costs and that the reduction in pay for teachers is making the profession less attractive, Eric Levitz concludes with this mind-boggling choice:
In the long run, it will take either a drastic increase in federal investment — and/or the proliferation of low-cost robots — for American schools to truly leave no child behind.
Given the choice between “pro-union Government run schools” and a robot that can teach children at home or in, say, a church basement, what do you think taxpayers will vote for?
Today’s NYTimes editorial, “Back to School With Budgets Still Tight“, opens with these sobering paragraphs:
The children entering kindergarten and first grade this school year were not yet born when the Great Recession ended in mid-2009. Incoming high school seniors were not yet in middle school.
But in many states and localities, the wounds to school budgets from recession-era cutbacks are still large, leaving schools with more students and less money. Recent data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that as of last year, 25 states were still spending less per student than before the recession, adjusted for inflation, and cuts in seven states exceeded 10 percent. In 31 states, local government spending per student fell between 2008 and 2014, the latest data available (adjusted for inflation). It is safe to assume some improvement in recent years, but even so, there is clearly a long way to go before overall spending catches up with enrollment and inflation.
The editorial then describes the especially egregious instances of slashed spending (Oklahoma and Kansas) and praises the efforts of two states, California and Minnesota.
It is interesting— and not at all surprising— to note that the parsimonious states are all led by Republicans who refer to public schools as “government schools” and the two states singled out for their expansive and future oriented spending are led by progressive Democrats. I’m sure if you dig into the data you’d find that the DISTRICTS who recovered from the Great Recession are those serving affluent children whose local taxpayers can dig deeper into their pockets and those who remain stuck are the ones serving children raised in poverty. In the meantime, we continue to read that “choice”— NOT more funding— is the solution to fixing the “failing” schools serving poverty stricken children. If parents who can afford to spend more on their child’s education are doing so money MUST make a difference. In the meantime, parents who reside in communities who cannot raise more money and cannot afford to spend more themselves are left to choose from a list of substandard schools with programs that do not begin to match those offered to affluent children. And we wonder why it is increasingly difficult to move from one socio-economic start to a higher one.
The Nexus Between Epi Pen Pricing Scandal and Public Education: A Mandate Without Money that Enriches Shareholders
Today’s NYTimes has a follow up article on the ongoing controversy surrounding the decision of the CEO of Mylan to increase the price of Epi-pens, a life-saving device that mitigates allergic reactions to foods like peanuts and a device that is mandated in public schools in 11 states. It seems that Mylan’s CEO, Heather Bresch, received a huge pay raise while overseeing a fourfold increase in the cost of Epi-pens, a product that was not developed by Mylan but WAS developed by (drum roll, please) the federal government. And to make matters even worse Mylan spent over $4,000,000 advocating the passage of a Federal bill that encouraged public schools to stock the epi-pens and then relocated its HQ overseas. Its telling that the Times didn’t go into the details on all of this nearly as much as Alternet, which cross-posted Travis Gettys’ Raw Story article that included these gems:
Mylan completed a corporate inversion to change its legal residence to the Netherlands, a tax haven, while keeping its headquarters and most of its employees in the Pittsburgh area.
The move allowed Mylan to cut its U.S. effective tax rate from 9.4 percent in 2013, the year Congress helped protect its market dominance, to negative 4.7 percent in 2015, according the group Americans For Tax Fairness.
Mylan’s worldwide effective tax rate fell after moving to the Netherlands from 16.2 percent to 7.4 percent—even as its global profits shot up by 22.5 percent between 2013 and 2015.
The company receives millions in U.S. taxpayer funding through federal programs such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which has helped offset consumer costs as Mylan has jacked up EpiPen prices.
EpiPens now cost $609, more than twice the $265 rate in 2013 and more than five times higher than their $104 cost in 2009, not long after the company acquired the drug from the German drugmaker Merck.
The company’s CEO, Heather Bresch, has raised her own pay at similar rates to the drug she lobbied Congress to promote through federal law.
Bresch took home $4.9 million in 2009, but last year she made $13.1 million—and the year before, when she moved Mylan overseas after securing the Emergency Epinephrine Act, she made a whopping $25.8 million…
The pharmaceutical company’s “EpiPen4Schools” program, which started in August 2012, before the bill was passed but after it was introduced, offers free or discounted EpiPens to schools with one catch.
To qualify for the discounted $112.10 price, schools must agree not to purchase similar products—such as the lesser known Adrenaclick—from Mylan’s competitors.
So Mylan “generously” offered public schools a discount on Epi-pens in 2012 if and only if they agreed to purchase their pens exclusively and then jacked up the price fourfold. And the loser in all of this: taxpayers. We paid for the research and development that led to the development of epi-pens, we’re losing the taxes Mylan used to pay, and we’re paying more for the product Mylan now owns and sells to our publicly funded institutions. Any way you look at it we, the taxpayers, lose and Mylan shareholders win. If there is any justice in the free market this scandal will result in a lowering in Mylan’s stock.
This post from Jeff Bryant misses one crucial overarching point: it’s deregulation as much as privatization that’s the problem…. But he touches all the other bases…
Sometimes it takes a funnyman to make sense.Earlier this week, British comedian John Oliver devoted a “Back to School” segment on his HBO program Last Week Tonight to examining the rapidly growing charter school industry and what these schools are doing with our tax dollars.