The Must Knows

• The college completion agenda resonates with legislators, but not as much as related workforce alignment messages. Degrees and certificates matter, but their translation to family-sustaining jobs matters even more.

• Now more than ever, legislatures are using multiple financial levers to impact student and institutional behavior. The increased use of competitive institutional grants and performance-based scholarships are potential game changers for influencing student and institutional decision-making.

• Foundation-funded efforts are having an impact on how legislators develop and implement policy. Legislators are wont to adopt what works, and foundations’ work at the institutional level has created a laboratory for innovation.

Interesting Findings

• Policies that encourage action but do not provide a framework for system and institutional improvement often result in confusion and uneven implementation. A clear rationale and/or set of incentives can improve the odds that states reach their goals.

• Tweaking existing policy can be a more efficient and effective way to increase completion rates than creating new models and strategies. Legislators, sometimes lacking a wider historical-policy context, create policies and strategies “from scratch” when actionable models already exist.

• Institutional memory only gets legislators so far. Continued state outreach from foundations and policy organizations  is critical to maintain effective policy implementation and evaluation.

• Let’s give legislators credit! Increasingly, they use data, judge evidence, and develop policy based on knowledge of how specific strategies affect the system as a whole.

Building with the Future in Mind

• Legislators must become the sponsor for and arbitrator of effective programs, models, and approaches. Increasingly limited resources and the proliferation of innovative models require state policymakers to judge which strategies could be most effective. This development requires greater use of data and evidence, as well as greater collaboration between policymakers, education leaders, and the private sector.

• Legislators must understand the power of data analytics, technology, and innovative student service models, and that these strategies are critical to increasing degree completion rates. Delivering college courses and degree programs more effectively is a key to improving attainment rates. Many institutions have piloted and implemented technology-based approaches to monitor and evaluate courses and programs in real time. These data are essential to implementing next-generation instructional models and student supports.

• Changes in postsecondary governance do not necessarily lead to higher completion rates. Modifying higher education structures, mechanisms, or leadership can be a key component of needed reform, but it should never be the only element. State legislatures need to make tough decisions that affect people and institutions. Policies that do not engage these challenges are a diversion from reaching completion and workforce goals.

Let us know what you think of our lessons learned. We welcome your feedback!

(1) A clear rationale or set of state goals

(2) Specific programs and strategies for implementation, and

(3) Evaluation structures to measure policy and program effectiveness.

This blog post highlights four policies that serve as exemplars of effective implementation and evaluation.

Implementation Strategies

Creating a Pilot Program before Implementing Strategy Statewide

Mississippi leads the nation in the percentage of high school graduates who immediately enroll in postsecondary institutions. These data are deceiving, though. High school dropout rates in Mississippi lead the nation. The legislature has developed a pilot program (Senate Bill 2792), where potential or recent high school dropouts dually enroll in their home high school and a local community college while pursuing a certificate, degree, or other postsecondary credential. If interim evaluations find significant improvement in high school completion and college enrollment rates, the program will be implemented statewide.

Coordinating State Goals and Funding

Recent Oregon legislation (Senate Bill 1581) requires the Oregon University System and community college districts to negotiate achievement compacts. These compacts would set institutional goals on a set of specific outcomes. In particular, the goals would serve as benchmarks for improvement. In addition to goals and metrics, institutions will have to validate course and program quality, as well as the workforce relevance of skills.

While the Mississippi policy deals with one significant challenge—high dropout rates—the Oregon legislation creates a set of financial and structural incentives to improve institutional outcomes.

Evaluation Strategies

Improving Student Course Outcomes

A new Iowa law (Senate File 2284) requires the Board of Regents to develop a program for implementing continuous improvement plans for each undergraduate course. Institutions must develop plans based on the results of student outcome assessments.

These plans could contain evaluation metrics, such as course completion rates, and leverage technology- and online-based platforms to pinpoint places in the curriculum where students succeed or fail. Improving course completion, especially in entry-level courses, is critical to student persistence and, ultimately, degree attainment.

Improving Adult Degree and Certificate Completion Rates

The Florida Legislature established a pilot program for near completers in 2012 (House Bill 5201). The pilot will assist adults with a significant amount of postsecondary credit in completing an associate or baccalaureate degree that is aligned to high-wage, high-skill careers. The program would identify and recruit adults in this subpopulation and use competency-based tools to assess prior experience to reduce time-to-degree.

In most states, between 25 and 35% of working adults have some exposure to postsecondary education but no credential to show for it. Some of these adults, termed ‘eligibles’ by research Cliff Adelman, are within one year (i.e., two semesters) of completing a credential.

Bringing It Together: State Policy and the Completion Agenda

Data and evaluation strategies can provide legislators with the tools necessary to make judgments on which programs and models to fund, especially in light of constrained resources.

Boosting College Completion observed a wider state use of the Common Completion Metrics created by Complete College America and the National Governors Association. The use of progress and outcome metrics reinforces critical development and implementation strategies.

Policy development and implementation are necessary but not sufficient; evaluation is critical to improving college completion rates. Real time data analytics delivered on online- and technological-based platforms could bring institutional and programmatic review into the 21st century.

States now have the ability to compare postsecondary and workforce outcomes through the use of employment and wage records. Education and wage data matches have the potential to change the policy conversation by indicating which state investments might reap a higher, long-term return.

The Demand Side: Workforce Needs

Employment data clarify occupational needs by measuring the number of jobs going unfilled because of skills mismatch or sector growth. These data also can hint at expected earnings of graduates in shortage areas.

The earning premium enjoyed by college graduates has increased over the last 40 years. The workforce data suggest that certain fields, such as STEM and allied health occupations, produce an additional salary boost. When policymakers hear data generalizations like the one above, it is easy to interpret them as a way of reallocating postsecondary investments to produce higher-paying jobs. These targeted investments in narrow fields are essential to sustained economic growth but must be accompanied with broad-based investments across the postsecondary programs. Each state has a different “balance point” between narrow and broad investments based on economic need. While the data cannot identify the exact balance point to prime a state for economic growth, it can identify the areas of focus.

The Supply Side: The Postsecondary Role

Micro-production in three-to-four career clusters might meet immediate industry needs but could lead to overproduction in these narrow fields. Oversupply of college-educated workers in specific occupations drives down salaries and could lead to workers relocating to other states. On the other hand, producing without regard to the demand side also has negative ramifications.

To achieve a balance point between micro- and macro-degree production, states should consider industry profiles. These profiles allow for data matches between education and occupational records, which consumers, employers, and postsecondary institutions can use. Recent enactments in Florida and Virginia will allow consumers and employers to examine median incomes generated by specific programs of study.

By replicating the national methodologies embedded in the Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys, states could measure economic growth prospects. With this idea, however, comes a caution to use data responsibly. The employment records generally measure incomes six months to five years after graduation. What the data do not show is the convergence of salaries for bachelor’s degree holders. While applied and scientific credentials produce a more immediate earnings boost, adults with liberal arts degrees earn comparable salaries after 10 years. The graph below illustrates this phenomenon.

The postsecondary community can play a role by studying the employment and wage data to create more responsive high-demand certificates and associate degree programs. If implemented with quality, these programs could deliver high-need programs quicker and more cheaply.

The Deciders: The Legislative Role

Legislators play the main role in the interplay between workforce data and the allocation of state funds. These new workforce data come with caveats, though. They are imperfect and not diagnostic; in most situations, they do not provide the type of specificity that states would need to use these data for accountability purposes. Still, data matches can be used to estimate workforce demand, provide consumers with median wages by program of study, and guide postsecondary allocation decisions. With employment and wage records uncovering the demand-side of the postsecondary equation, policymakers can have a more thorough conversation of how investments lead to economic growth.

This blog post is the first of three focusing on the Boosting College Completion Legislative Workshop held in Atlanta, Georgia on July 12, 2012. The first session featured Patrick Kelly from the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) and Nicole Smith from the Georgetown University Center for Education and the Workforce.

To view the blog post on state postsecondary strategies, click here.

To view the blog post on technology game changers in postsecondary education, click here.

State legislatures and governors often have the authority to set policies without the consultation of postsecondary institutions. Unilateral approaches, however, can lead to impulsive policymaking and haphazard implementation. Missouri and Virginia have avoided this pitfall by choosing a collaborative and deliberative model, where they consulted the data, research-based evidence, and out-of-state experts to craft a clear and sustainable strategy for advancing state economic development goals.

Missouri: Leading with Research & Data

Missouri could no longer stomach ineffective remedial education delivery models and inefficient transfer mechanisms. House Bill 1042, authored by Representative Mike Thomson and signed into law this summer, directs the coordinating board to adopt evidence-based remedial approaches and ensure transferability of 25 courses across all institutions. Thomson did not punish the coordinating board or system institutions for failing to meet expectations. Instead, the legislature crafted an authoritative statement, choosing to clarify state goals and offering ways to achieve these objectives.

The data and evidence needed to build consensus and create urgency came from various sources, but Complete College America was instrumental in equipping Missouri’s state team with these resources. By avoiding the urge to be overly punitive, granting flexibility for institutions to innovate, and by supporting the adoption of new student-success models, Missouri has developed the mutual responsibility and accountability needed to sustain long-term reforms.

Virginia: Agenda-Setting from the Top

Almost immediately after being elected, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell pushed the reset button on higher education and workforce development. He created a Commission on Higher Education Reform, Innovation, and Investment, inviting multiple stakeholders and constituencies to offer their solution for the problems ailing the state. The Governor’s Commission released their findings in 2010, and the recommendations led to the drafting of House Bill 2510 (2011), more commonly known as the Virginia Higher Education Opportunity Act.

The act created the Higher Education Advisory Committee, which has representation from the legislature and postsecondary institutions. The committee has developed state- and institution-specific economic opportunity metrics to measure progress toward the state goal of producing 100,000 additional undergraduate degrees by 2025. The bill also introduces incentive funding as a way of achieving the 2025 goal. The governor introduced an aggressive initiative but his approach in engaging legislative and postsecondary leaders lessened the resistance to reform.

More Effective Policymaking through Shared Leadership

Both Missouri and Virginia have shifted away from punitive accountability systems, opting for a more consultative approach where the governor, state legislature, and all postsecondary institutions share responsibility for student performance. We should not ignore the reality, however, that policy often is developed unilaterally by state leaders, which can invite resistance from institutions. Missouri and Virginia avoided pushback by recognizing that all stakeholders are mutually responsible for student success and attainment of state goals.

This blog post is the second of three focusing on the Boosting College Completion Legislative Workshop held in Atlanta, Georgia on July 12, 2012. The second session featured Missouri Representative Mike Thomson and Virginia Secretary of Education Laura Fornash.

To view the blog post on workforce data, click here.

To view the blog post on technology game changers in postsecondary education, click here.

Bigfoot is Out There

We all have seen grainy photos or the plastered footprints of the Bigfoot. The giant is elusive, but he is out there waiting to be discovered. For many policymakers and higher education leaders, technology is a bit like Bigfoot.

We have heard about the transformative potential of technology but have not fully leveraged it. If the potential of technology is undefined, we run the risk of dismissing its potential or reinforcing myths based on anecdotal, random accounts.

Several states, including California, Florida, and Iowa, have established pilot projects to experiment with technology and individualized instruction. While the picture has become clearer and the endgame nearer, innovation is still in process. Jarrett challenged the legislators in attendance to consider four game changers, which, if implemented, could build upon current legislative efforts to increase attainment rates.

What are the Game Changers?

Customized remediation

Customized remediation involves self-paced mastery of English and math content, diagnostic testing to isolate deficits, and remedial supports embedded within the college-level course. These customized, modular, and student-based progress models came about because few students were succeeding in course-based, semester-long remediation. Texas’ new developmental education master plan emphasizes technology and customized supports. Connecticut, through Senate Bill 40 (2012), allows students to bypass remedial education courses and enroll in entry-level courses. Institutions must provide lab and tutorial supports for these students.

Structured degree pathways and personalized student support

Structured degree programs allow students to progress on a clear pathway by not taking unnecessary courses. A combination of online and face-to-face advisement can reinforce structured pathways by ensuring that students understand the connection between individual courses, degree requirements, and career expectations. Nebraska and Utah have invested in pilots that provide accelerated, structured degree programs or create online counseling platforms.

Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs)

When Jarrett described MOOCs, most legislators seemed transfixed. The idea of an online course, with tens of thousands enrolled, might make sense for larger, general education courses. This instructional approach could allow for economies of scale, especially in large states like California, New York, and Texas. Two platforms—Coursera and Udacity—provide easy access to these open online courses. In separate partnerships, highly selective private institutions, such as Harvard, MIT, and Stanford, have set up open learning initiatives. This New York Times article explains the emerging movement.

High-quality degree programs for $5,000 per year or less

State policymakers have considered ways of reducing programmatic costs for students, especially for courses in high-demand majors. Obstacles to attaining this goal include the length of time students take to complete a degree, issues with financing the cost of attendance, and unclear program completion requirements. Tennessee Technology Centers offer competency-based instruction, compressed, one-year programs, and financial aid that covers the cost of attendance. States can deliver high-quality, low-cost programs by using technology in several areas, including advisement, financial aid, and instruction.

The Way Forward

Even if states can find a way to harness the power of technology, can it lead to increase education attainment rates? Early evidence of some of the game changers being currently implemented suggests that the answer is an emphatic “yes.”

Legislators must recognize that technology is a tool that can be leveraged, but must be done so thoughtfully and in a manner consistent with research and practice. Already, state policymakers are being entrepreneurial and innovative, working to achieve their degree completion goals by accelerating credit accumulation, encouraging adults to finish their programs of study, and exploring accelerated and compressed degree pathways. To connect current policy development with the four technology game changers, legislatures have to develop clear policy frameworks about how to use and fully leverage technology. Without a clear strategy or plan, technology as a tool for education reform could go the way of Bigfoot: a myth with a set of true believers trying to convince us that it exists.

This blog post is the final one focusing on the Boosting College Completion Legislative Workshop held in Atlanta, Georgia, on July 12, 2012.

To view the blog post on workforce data, click here.

To view the blog post on state postsecondary strategies, click here.

ECS’ Boosting College Completion project produced an Emerging Trends document, which surfaces ten legislative trends from this year.

While legislatures covered a wide array of issues, most of the trends include a prominent workforce element. Even issues appearing peripheral to workforce development, such as increased scrutiny of for-profit institutions and expanded use of competitive grants, have a substantial workforce basis.

Browsing the document, you will find an explanation of specific trends, the states enacting policies in this space, and a policy example that illuminates the issue.

Year of the…?

The 2011 legislative session was the Year of Performance Funding. With one in four states enacting policies related to performance funding, we wondered if the issue would make an encore in 2012. To our surprise, only one state (i.e., Florida) has considered performance funding in 2012.

While policymakers are concerned about higher education finance and the role of the state in that process, a Boosting College Completion policy scan surfaced ten emerging trends. The four candidates for “Year of…” are:

• Veterans’ Education

• Expanded Use of Competitive Grants & Program Piloting

• Legislative Actions that Promote Workforce Alignment

• Nontraditional Approaches to Common Legislative Actions

We proclaim 2012 the Year of Workforce Alignment because legislatures have invested so much energy in developing strategies that more efficiently and effectively drive students toward high-demand college credentials.

By the Numbers

38: Number of states with a 2012 policy in the database

129: Number of policy records entered into the Boosting College Completion Policy Database, as of June 29, 2012

70%: Percent of the top 10 trends with a substantial workforce element

Workshop Presentations

The Economic Value of a Postsecondary Education in the 21st Century
Nicole Smith, Center for Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University

The Fast-Approaching Frontier: Employment Outcomes of College Graduates
Patrick Kelly, National Center for Higher Education  Management Systems

Student Success at Scale: Four Game-Changing Innovations
Josh Jarret, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Break Through the Noise: Postsecondary Messages that Work
Libby May and Debbie Stein, The Hatcher Group and Iris Palmer, HCM Strategists

Workshop Handouts

Legislative Retrospective: College Completion and Workforce Policies 2011-12

State Strategies to Bolster Workforce Development
Bill summaries for Connecticut, Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia

2012 Policy Trends for Postsecondary Education and Workforce Development

Please contact Brady Delander at bdelander@ecs.org with any questions about the presentations.

Certificates result from completion of a compressed program of study, usually in a specific occupational field. They are distinct from certifications, which result from adults demonstrating mastery of career skills through an industry-recognized assessment. A recent report by the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, Certificates: Gateway to Gainful Employment and College Degrees, surfaced several trends related to certificates:

• On average, certificate holders earn 20% more than workers with only a high school diploma
• Less academically prepared students benefit most from robust certificate options
• Certificates in STEM and applied fields, such as information technology, engineering, and electronics, provide the greatest immediate earnings
• The majority of certificates awarded in 2010 were less than one year in program length. Generally, certificates of less than a year do not produce as large of an earnings boost, but there are exceptions (e.g., police and EMT certification, metalworking, heating and air conditioning)
• Three- to six-month certificate programs in certified nursing assistance and phlebotomy produce little or no income boost over a high school diploma, mostly because the certificates do not articulate to nursing degrees.

How are states incorporating certificates into their postsecondary strategy?

Certificate programs that promote sustained job security and provide an articulated pathway toward an associate or baccalaureate degree can help states achieve their postsecondary and workforce goals. Right now, policymakers are studying which certificate investments will produce a high return on investment and meet workforce needs. The three primary modes of legislative action appear below.

States are studying the impact of certificates in the context of current state postsecondary goals

In the last three legislative sessions, California, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, and Texas have studied career pathways including certificates or have incorporated certificate attainment into state goals. Minnesota Senate File 184 (2010) required a legislative report, which evaluated the potential impact of an integrated, articulated career pathway. The pathway would provide workers with an immediate earnings boost while creating a means for pursuing higher degrees.

States are incorporating certificate enrollment and completion into data reports and performance systems

Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin have enacted policies that require data collection or performance tracking for certificate attainment. Oregon Senate Bill 1581 (2012) directs institutions to set and achieve certificate completion targets as a requirement of receiving state appropriations.

States are extending financial aid to certificate programs

Arkansas, Florida, New York, Texas, and Wyoming, among other states, have expanded state aid to certificate programs. Florida House Bill 5201 (2012) allows students eligible for the initial Bright Futures Scholarship to use financial aid for an applied technology diploma, technical degree, or career certificate. In general, however, states have not considered how they might extend financial aid to adult learners, who might find certificates programs appealing.

Certificates in policy context: A substantial but incomplete solution

As state legislators explore investments in certificate programs, they should consider three issues:

• Not all certificates produce an income premium: Program length, level of market saturation, and occupational field all play a role. Generally programs between one and two years, in high-demand fields, and in applied fields produce the greatest immediate return.
• Geographic variation in value is important, yet understated: The data suggest that certificate value is related to the composition of local economies, regional labor markets, and the state postsecondary system. While high certificate growth states in the South and West share common demographic and economic characteristics, they have wildly divergent economic values accruing to certificate holders.
• The value of certificates is enhanced by transferability to associate and bachelor’s degree programs: Certificates might produce an immediate earnings boost but the increase dissipates over time and usually disappears after eight to 10 years. Therefore, states should examine how all certificates can be articulated to degrees to sustain lifelong earning potential.

The combined unemployment and underemployment rate for recent college graduates was more than 28% between April 2011 and March 2012, despite well-established data demonstrating the benefits of completing a college degree. State policymakers can mitigate this structural and economic problem by encouraging stronger alignment between degree production and workforce needs.

A three-part blog series will explore policy options that states and institutions could consider to reduce the level of unemployment among recent graduates. The first appears below:

Consider changes to financial aid policies that would provide incentives for students to pursue degrees that are in high demand in the state or region.

Implementing a policy based on this principle can provide a number of benefits, including:

• Helping ensure that the higher education system is producing a sufficient number of graduates skilled in the particular areas demanded by the state economy
• Providing an opportunity for institutions and states to tie financial aid to student performance metrics, such as progress towards degree, without affecting base financial aid
• Reducing the number of low-income students – those who are the least likely to have a substantial safety net – who will find themselves unable to find a job that utilizes their degree after graduation.

Across the nation, states already have begun implementing a variety of financial aid policies intended to increase degree completion in high-need areas. These policies can be divided into three key categories:

1)      Policies that target specific programs. Many states have enacted laws designed to increase degree completion in specific careers, typically in health care or education. California, for example, created a nursing pilot program in 2010, where students receive financial aid and intensive student supports to facilitate degree attainment. Programs like these are ideal for filling very specific workforce needs, but tend to be too narrowly targeted to provide a noticeable benefit to the student population as a whole.

2)      Policies that focus on high-demand career clusters but do not contain a need-based component. Legislation in several states provides additional financial aid to students who enter high-demand fields regardless of financial need. Among these states, Utah provides a scholarship to students who are enrolled in engineering, computer sciences, or related technology degrees and who continue to make satisfactory progress towards a degree. North Dakota provides scholarships to students enrolled in career and technical education programs who maintain a minimum 2.75 GPA.

3)      Policies that focus on high-demand career clusters and contain a substantial need-based component.  A few states have implemented programs that are designed to provide additional financial aid to students with demonstrated financial need who are seeking degrees in high-need areas. Texas has grant programs for both two-year and four-year institutions in which students receive a need-based scholarship if they pursue a major in a shortage field and maintain satisfactory progress towards a degree. Illinois, Montana, and Washington have similar programs, each targeting a different group of students pursuing particular careers.

A review of the policies that have been created in recent years demonstrates a wide range of options that institutions and states can consider to provide students with greater opportunities for success after graduation. Depending on the needs and characteristics of your constituency a variety of components may be appropriate for your policy, including: academic merit, financial need, demographic characteristics, and workforce needs.

Josh Diller is completing an internship with the Education Commission of the States. He is a graduate student pursuing a Masters of Public Administration at the University of Colorado Denver.

Community colleges are under pressure — critics cite low graduation rates as the ultimate evidence that these colleges are failing our students and bilking taxpayers.

But this is wrong.

Community colleges are efficient in the most important economic sense of the word: they take in inputs (students) and produce an output (educated persons) that is worth more than they spend.

In a recent working paper I wrote for the Community College Research Center, I looked in detail at what colleges spend and related this to what they produce.  The bottom line is that taxpayers get a really good deal.

Let’s assume that all taxpayers care about are the graduates from community college — the certificates and associate degrees.  So we add all these up. This is unfair to the colleges, of course — at least 20% of students transfer to four-year institutions without a degree.  But let’s just work with this low-ball measure of output.

Next I count up what each taxpayer invests in education, excluding all the unrelated spending and the fees students pay.

In 2008, across almost 900 comprehensive community colleges, the average cost per associate degree was $52,900; across the almost 200 vocational colleges, the average cost was $42,700.  These figures might seem like a lot of money to produce an associate degree — but what are the benefits?  In one detailed study,** all the benefits to taxpayers of an associate degree over a lifetime were added up.  These amounted to $127,200.

In the economic sense of producing something of value therefore, community colleges are efficient — for every dollar the taxpayer invests into the community college system, it gets back $2.50.

But the picture is even rosier than this.  Community colleges actually have been getting more efficient over time.  Since 2000, the cost to produce each associate degree in real dollars has fallen by at least $10,000.

However, there is another meaning of efficiency — that colleges should spend the least amount of money to produce each graduate.  Using this definition, we see two related puzzles.

First, colleges vary dramatically in how much it costs them to produce each associate degree.  There are quite a few colleges where the cost is over $100,000; but there are also quite a few where the cost is less than $40,000.  What drives these differences, we don’t know.  It can’t be fully explained away by variation in student ability or poverty levels.

Second, more efficient colleges — those producing degrees for $40,000 — don’t appear to be able to sustain their advantage.  The colleges that are more efficient in one time period are not necessarily more efficient in the next.  For instance, between 1993 and 1996, one-quarter of colleges achieved efficiency gains of over 10%, i.e. they produced degrees for 10% less than they had at the start of the period.  But these gains were not sustained.  In the next four-year period, these colleges reverted back to the average efficiency levels.

Colleges don’t look like businesses, where a market leader might grow progressively more efficient because it has a clear technological advantage. They seem more like tortoises and hares, where each college takes a turn at playing each role.

If we want community colleges to become increasingly and consistently efficient, more work is needed to find the answers to these confounding puzzles.

**Trostel, P. 2010. The fiscal impacts of college attainment. Research in Higher Education, 51, 220-247.

 Clive Belfield is a Research Affiliate at the Community College Research Center and an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics, Queens College, City University of New York.  Dr. Belfield’s most recent book is The Price We Pay: The Economic and Social Costs of Inadequate Education. He has authored numerous articles on the economics of education and has served as a consultant to the World Bank, the U.S. Department of Education, and the British Government, as well as non-profit foundations and education think tanks.