Turning the "Dropout Deficit" into a "Graduation Gain"

In November, the fate of school levy proposals often came down to what voters believed about one question: Does more money equal better results?

Levy supporters would say districts needed more money to maintain or produce better outcomes. Opponents of increased funding responded that schools aren’t doing the job and more money hasn’t made them any better.

It’s understandable in a time of limited resources that some voters would oppose more public school spending. But most would probably also be appalled at what school failures cost Minnesota in human and economic terms.

Assessing the costs

Currently, about 10,000 students a year do not graduate from high school on time. There's a wide achievement gap between white students and students of color. By 2020 few in Minnesota will be making a living wage with less than a one-, two- or four-year post-secondary degree. For those who fail to go on to college, it means greater stress on families, inability to afford health care and more demand for government services.

Over the lifetime of every new class of non-grads, this "Dropout Deficit" will cost the Minnesota economy $10.6 billion in reduced wages and taxes, plus increased costs for social and corrections programs.

Without improvement, that's a nearly $140-billion drag dropped on the state economy between now and 2020.

On the positive side, Minnesota taxpayers enjoy a "Graduation Gain" equivalent to more than a quarter million dollars over the lifetime of each person who graduates — through increased tax revenues and lower expenditures for health, crime and welfare. The individual graduate will enjoy almost half a million dollars in increased earnings potential.

Meanwhile, Minnesota’s population growth is lagging. If our education system can’t supply the productive workforce that’s been the foundation of our competitiveness and economic growth, the whole state’s prosperity is at risk.

Getting better returns on the education dollar

That brings us back to resources. Taxpayers want schools to produce results. It’s not politically acceptable to simply spend more money — or to spend it differently — without knowing the impact. But getting reliable answers about educational payback is complex. It involves bringing together educators to evaluate effectiveness; economists to analyze costs; and employers, parents and policymakers to judge value.

At our recent “Smart Investments in Minnesota’s Students” summit, we heard a number of findings to inform a policy discussion about cost-effective investment.

We know from a growing body of evidence that early childhood programs help kids make great academic progress, with high rates of return on the investment. And, as G&J policy director Angie Eilers points out in this op/ed piece, early childhood programs are especially attractive to those who favor market solutions, since parents can choose from a variety of options. But research also tells us that investment in early learning alone is not enough.

Key Gates on the Education Pathway 

Other important gates along the education pathway also deserve attention. What types of interventions at these other key gates will be most cost-effective in keeping kids on track and moving them toward graduation?

You can download a summary of the conference reports here.

I'm no education authority and am not familiar with most of the programs cited by the experts, so I'll just mention a couple general findings.

Evaluating payback

We often hear the claim we should pay teachers better. Sure enough, analysis  showed that paying more for quality teachers resulted in a 4/1 payback in terms of more graduates produced.

Reduced class sizes is another popular solution. Making classes smaller for all students delivered a nearly 2/1 payback, while payback on reducing class sizes for students who have greater academic challenges was better than 3/1. Other programs demonstrated even higher rates of return.

Targeting funds to certain groups may be far more cost-effective than spending a little on every student. But that can be controversial in a climate where taxpayers view their tax dollars like an individual investment account they should be able to direct for their greatest personal benefit.

For example, we know teens who avoid substance abuse, pregnancy and involvement in the juvenile justice system are more likely to graduate. Relatively low-cost after-school programs aimed at all youth may make parents feel better, but they don’t appear to be a good investment in terms of improving graduation rates. However, some more expensive out-of-school programs focusing on at-risk youth do show good results.

We know education drives individual and community prosperity. We know our state will decline unless we educate all our kids, so that more of them achieve some level of post-secondary degree. And we know that, without adequate budgets, policymakers still face tough choices that amount to picking winners and losers.

Instead of slugging it out in battles over spending and ideology, perhaps some divided communities can start a different conversation, drawing on our ongoing Smart Investments work.

— Charlie Quimby

Comments

[Colleen Nyman]

I came across this post rather by accident and was compelled to read it in full because of your powerful tagline: Minnesota blog for a prosperous, fair and sustainable economy.

This, I thought, is an organization that must have the best interest of all members of society in mind. How exciting!

With this in mind, I’m interested to know, as a rule, how much input do your students themselves get at such meetings as your “Smart Investments in Minnesota’s Students” summit? And what ways do government groups and others contact the students and collect their answers?

Sincerely,
Colleen Nyman, interested reader, completely uninvolved!

[Angie Eilers]

Colleen
Thank you for taking the time to read about our work at Growth & Justice. You raise an excellent question. Whenever education is involved, I also believe that those most "affected" should be at the table. Because our Smart Investments in Minnesota Students ranges from birth to college, by definition there should be a lot of people around the table. This project is guided by a 26 member steering committee--one of whom is a student. Granted, she is at the graduate student level; she is also the student representative on the Board of Regents at the University of Minnesota. The reason we did not involve younger students is because of the time commitment. (The steering committee also includes award winning teachers at the preschool, K12 and university level, as well as community, business, education and legislative representatives).

Back to student involvement in this process: we are in the middle of our 3-phased project and the 3rd phase will include roundtable discussions and community meetings. Your message reinforces our thought that at least one of these sessions should include students.

Thanks for writing.
Angie Eilers

[Hamed Elbarki]

Interesting, I've never heard of a "Graduation Gain" before.