By, Henry M. Levin and Cecilia E. Rouse
ONLY 21 states require
students to attend high school until they graduate or turn 18. The proposal President Obama announced on Tuesday night in his State of the Union address — to make such
attendance compulsory in every state — is a step in the right direction, but it
would not go far enough to reduce a dropout rate that imposes a heavy cost on
the entire economy, not just on those who fail to obtain a diploma.
In 1970, the United States had the world’s
highest rate of high school and college graduation. Today, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
we’ve slipped to No. 21 in high school completion and No. 15 in college
completion, as other countries surpassed us in the quality of their primary and
secondary education.
Only 7 of 10 ninth graders today will get high
school diplomas. A decade after the No Child Left Behind law mandated efforts to
reduce the racial gap, about 80 percent of white and Asian students graduate
from high school, compared with only 55 percent of blacks and Hispanics.
Like President Obama, many reformers focus their
dropout prevention efforts on high schoolers; replacing large high schools with
smaller learning communities where poor students can get individualized
instruction from dedicated teachers has been shown to be effective. Rigorous
evidence gathered over decades suggests that some of the most promising
approaches need to start even earlier: preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds, who
are fed and taught in small groups, followed up with home visits by teachers
and with group meetings of parents; reducing class size in the early grades;
and increasing teacher salaries from kindergarten through 12th grade.
These programs sound expensive — some Americans
probably think that preventing 1.3 million students from dropping out of high
school each year can’t be done — but in fact the costs of inaction are far
greater.
High school completion is, of course, the most
significant requirement for entering college. While our economic competitors
are rapidly increasing graduation rates at both levels, we continue to fall
behind. Educated workers are the basis of economic growth — they are especially
critical as sources of innovation and productivity given the pace and nature of
technological progress.
If we could reduce the current number of dropouts
by just half, we would yield almost 700,000 new graduates a year, and it would
more than pay for itself. Studies show that the typical high school graduate
will obtain higher employment and earnings — an astonishing 50 percent to 100
percent increase in lifetime income — and will be less likely to draw on public
money for health care and welfare and less likely to be involved in the
criminal justice system. Further, because of the increased income, the typical
graduate will contribute more in tax revenues over his lifetime than if he’d
dropped out.
When the costs of investment to produce a new
graduate are taken into account, there is a return of $1.45 to $3.55 for every
dollar of investment, depending upon the educational intervention strategy.
Under this estimate, each new graduate confers a net benefit to taxpayers of
about $127,000 over the graduate’s lifetime. This is a benefit to the public of
nearly $90 billion for each year of success in reducing the number of high
school dropouts by 700,000 — or something close to $1 trillion after 11 years.
That’s real money — and a reason both liberals and conservatives should rally
behind dropout prevention as an element of economic recovery, leaving aside the
ethical dimensions of educating our young people.
Some might argue that these estimates are too
large, that the relationships among the time-tested interventions, high school
graduation rates and adult outcomes have not been proved yet on a large scale.
Those are important considerations, but the evidence cannot be denied:
increased education does, indeed, improve skill levels and help individuals to
lead healthier and more productive lives. And despite the high unemployment
rate today, we have every reason to believe that many of these new graduates
would find work — our history is filled with sustained periods of economic
growth when increasing numbers of young people obtained more schooling and
received large economic benefits as a result.
Of course, there are other strategies for
improving educational attainment — researchers learn more every day about which
are effective and which are not. But even with what we know, a failure to
substantially reduce the numbers of high school dropouts is demonstrably
penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Proven educational strategies to increase high
school completion, like high-quality preschool, provide returns to the taxpayer
that are as much as three and a half times their cost. Investing our public
dollars wisely to reduce the number of high school dropouts must be a central
part of any strategy to raise long-run economic growth, reduce inequality and
return fiscal health to our federal, state and local governments.
Henry M. Levin is a professor of
economics and education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Cecilia E. Rouse, a professor of economics
and public affairs at Princeton University, was a member of President Obama’s
Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2011.
Op-ed in the New York
Times.
1 comment:
"To help decrease the high school dropout rate, we need to look at the causes and reasons on why students dropout. When we understand why the dropout rate has increased over the decades, we can create programs to help the students stay in high school. Once the high school dropout rate decreases, the money made off of the return on investment needs to be returned to the schools in a meaningful way that will help the students." Signed CSUS 118 Group 1
Posted for the students.
Post a Comment