education should be free

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Student Loans
• Paying for College

Should College Be Free? The Pros and Cons

Types of Publicly Funded College Tuition Programs

Pros: why college should be free, cons: why college should not be free, what the free college debate means for students, how to cut your college costs now, frequently asked questions (faqs).

damircudic / Getty Images

Americans have been debating the wisdom of free college for decades, and more than 30 states now offer some type of free college program. But it wasn't until 2021 that a nationwide free college program came close to becoming reality, re-energizing a longstanding debate over whether or not free college is a good idea. 

And despite a setback for the free-college advocates, the idea is still in play. The Biden administration's free community college proposal was scrapped from the American Families Plan . But close observers say that similar proposals promoting free community college have drawn solid bipartisan support in the past. "Community colleges are one of the relatively few areas where there's support from both Republicans and Democrats," said Tulane economics professor Douglas N. Harris, who has previously consulted with the Biden administration on free college, in an interview with The Balance. 

To get a sense of the various arguments for and against free college, as well as the potential impacts on U.S. students and taxpayers, The Balance combed through studies investigating the design and implementation of publicly funded free tuition programs and spoke with several higher education policy experts. Here's what we learned about the current debate over free college in the U.S.—and more about how you can cut your college costs or even get free tuition through existing programs.

Key Takeaways

• Research shows free tuition programs encourage more students to attend college and increase graduation rates, which creates a better-educated workforce and higher-earning consumers who can help boost the economy. 
• Some programs are criticized for not paying students’ non-tuition expenses, not benefiting students who need assistance most, or steering students toward community college instead of four-year programs.  
• If you want to find out about free programs in your area, the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education has a searchable database. You’ll find the link further down in this article. 

Before diving into the weeds of the free college debate, it's important to note that not all free college programs are alike. Most publicly funded tuition assistance programs are restricted to the first two years of study, typically at community colleges. Free college programs also vary widely in the ways they’re designed, funded, and structured:

• Last-dollar tuition-free programs : These programs cover any remaining tuition after a student has used up other financial aid , such as Pell Grants. Most state-run free college programs fall into this category. However, these programs don’t typically help with room and board or other expenses.
• First-dollar tuition-free programs : These programs pay for students' tuition upfront, although they’re much rarer than last-dollar programs. Any remaining financial aid that a student receives can then be applied to other expenses, such as books and fees. The California College Promise Grant is a first-dollar program because it waives enrollment fees for eligible students.
• Debt-free programs : These programs pay for all of a student's college expenses , including room and board, guaranteeing that they can graduate debt-free. But they’re also much less common, likely due to their expense.  

Proponents often argue that publicly funded college tuition programs eventually pay for themselves, in part by giving students the tools they need to find better jobs and earn higher incomes than they would with a high school education. The anticipated economic impact, they suggest, should help ease concerns about the costs of public financing education. Here’s a closer look at the arguments for free college programs.

A More Educated Workforce Benefits the Economy

Morley Winograd, President of the Campaign for Free College Tuition, points to the economic and tax benefits that result from the higher wages of college grads. "For government, it means more revenue," said Winograd in an interview with The Balance—the more a person earns, the more they will likely pay in taxes . In addition, "the country's economy gets better because the more skilled the workforce this country has, the better [it’s] able to compete globally." Similarly, local economies benefit from a more highly educated, better-paid workforce because higher earners have more to spend. "That's how the economy grows," Winograd explained, “by increasing disposable income."

According to Harris, the return on a government’s investment in free college can be substantial. "The additional finding of our analysis was that these things seem to consistently pass a cost-benefit analysis," he said. "The benefits seem to be at least double the cost in the long run when we look at the increased college attainment and the earnings that go along with that, relative to the cost and the additional funding and resources that go into them." 

Free College Programs Encourage More Students to Attend

Convincing students from underprivileged backgrounds to take a chance on college can be a challenge, particularly when students are worried about overextending themselves financially. But free college programs tend to have more success in persuading students to consider going, said Winograd, in part because they address students' fears that they can't afford higher education . "People who wouldn't otherwise think that they could go to college, or who think the reason they can't is [that] it's too expensive, [will] stop, pay attention, listen, decide it's an opportunity they want to take advantage of, and enroll," he said.

According to Harris, students also appear to like the certainty and simplicity of the free college message. "They didn't want to have to worry that next year they were not going to have enough money to pay their tuition bill," he said. "They don't know what their finances are going to look like a few months down the road, let alone next year, and it takes a while to get a degree. So that matters." 

Free college programs can also help send "a clear and tangible message" to students and their families that a college education is attainable for them, said Michelle Dimino, an Education Director with Third Way. This kind of messaging is especially important to first-generation and low-income students, she said. 

Free College Increases Graduation Rates and Financial Security

Free tuition programs appear to improve students’ chances of completing college. For example, Harris noted that his research found a meaningful link between free college tuition and higher graduation rates. "What we found is that it did increase college graduation at the two-year college level, so more students graduated than otherwise would have." 

Free college tuition programs also give people a better shot at living a richer, more comfortable life, say advocates. "It's almost an economic necessity to have some college education," noted Winograd. Similar to the way a high school diploma was viewed as crucial in the 20th century, employees are now learning that they need at least two years of college to compete in a global, information-driven economy. "Free community college is a way of making that happen quickly, effectively, and essentially," he explained. 

Free community college isn’t a universally popular idea. While many critics point to the potential costs of funding such programs, others identify issues with the effectiveness and fairness of current attempts to cover students’ college tuition. Here’s a closer look at the concerns about free college programs.

It Would Be Too Expensive

The idea of free community college has come under particular fire from critics who worry about the cost of social spending. Since community colleges aren't nearly as expensive as four-year colleges—often costing thousands of dollars a year—critics argue that individuals can often cover their costs using other forms of financial aid . But, they point out, community college costs would quickly add up when paid for in bulk through a free college program: Biden’s proposed free college plan would have cost $49.6 billion in its first year, according to an analysis from Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Some opponents argue that the funds could be put to better use in other ways, particularly by helping students complete their degrees.

Free College Isn't Really Free

One of the most consistent concerns that people have voiced about free college programs is that they don’t go far enough. Even if a program offers free tuition, students will need to find a way to pay for other college-related expenses , such as books, room and board, transportation, high-speed internet, and, potentially, child care. "Messaging is such a key part of this," said Dimino. Students "may apply or enroll in college, understanding it's going to be free, but then face other unexpected charges along the way." 

It's important for policymakers to consider these factors when designing future free college programs. Otherwise, Dimino and other observers fear that students could potentially wind up worse off if they enroll and invest in attending college and then are forced to drop out due to financial pressures. 

Free College Programs Don’t Help the Students Who Need Them Most

Critics point out that many free college programs are limited by a variety of quirks and restrictions, which can unintentionally shut out deserving students or reward wealthier ones. Most state-funded free college programs are last-dollar programs, which don’t kick in until students have applied financial aid to their tuition. That means these programs offer less support to low-income students who qualify for need-based aid—and more support for higher-income students who don’t.

Community College May Not Be the Best Path for All Students

Some critics also worry that all students will be encouraged to attend community college when some would have been better off at a four-year institution. Four-year colleges tend to have more resources than community colleges and can therefore offer more support to high-need students. 

In addition, some research has shown that students at community colleges are less likely to be academically successful than students at four-year colleges, said Dimino. "Statistically, the data show that there are poorer outcomes for students at community colleges […] such as lower graduation rates and sometimes low transfer rates from two- to four-year schools." 

With Congress focused on other priorities, a nationwide free college program is unlikely to happen anytime soon. However, some states and municipalities offer free tuition programs, so students may be able to access some form of free college, depending on where they live. A good resource is the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education’s searchable database of Promise Programs , which lists more than 100 free community college programs, though the majority are limited to California residents.

In the meantime, school leaders and policymakers may shift their focus to other access and equity interventions for low-income students. For example, higher education experts Eileen Strempel and Stephen Handel published a book in 2021 titled "Beyond Free College: Making Higher Education Work for 21st Century Students." The book argues that policymakers should focus more strongly on college completion, not just college access. "There hasn't been enough laser-focus on how we actually get people to complete their degrees," noted Strempel in an interview with The Balance. 

Rather than just improving access for low-income college students, Strempel and Handel argue that decision-makers should instead look more closely at the social and economic issues that affect students , such as food and housing insecurity, child care, transportation, and personal technology. For example, "If you don't have a computer, you don't have access to your education anymore," said Strempel. "It's like today's pencil."

Saving money on college costs can be challenging, but you can take steps to reduce your cost of living. For example, if you're interested in a college but haven't yet enrolled, pay close attention to where it's located and how much residents typically pay for major expenses, such as housing, utilities, and food. If the college is located in a high-cost area, it could be tough to justify the living expenses you'll incur. Similarly, if you plan to commute, take the time to check gas or public transportation prices and calculate how much you'll likely have to spend per month to go to and from campus several times a week. 

Now that more colleges offer classes online, it may also be worth looking at lower-cost programs in areas that are farther from where you live, particularly if they allow you to graduate without setting foot on campus. Also, check out state and federal financial aid programs that can help you slim down your expenses, or, in some cases, pay for them completely. Finally, look into need-based and merit-based grants and scholarships that can help you cover even more of your expenses. Also, consider applying to no-loan colleges , which promise to help students graduate without going into debt.

Should community college be free?

It’s a big question with varying viewpoints. Supporters of free community college cite the economic contributions of a more educated workforce and the individual benefit of financial security, while critics caution against the potential expense and the inefficiency of last-dollar free college programs. 

What states offer free college?

More than 30 states offer some type of tuition-free college program, including Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington State. The University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education lists over 100 last-dollar community college programs and 16 first-dollar community college programs, though the majority are limited to California residents.

Is there a free college?

There is no such thing as a truly free college education. But some colleges offer free tuition programs for students, and more than 30 states offer some type of tuition-free college program. In addition, students may also want to check out employer-based programs. A number of big employers now offer to pay for their employees' college tuition . Finally, some students may qualify for enough financial aid or scholarships to cover most of their college costs.

Scholarships360. " Which States Offer Tuition-Free Community College? "

The White House. “ Build Back Better Framework ,” see “Bringing Down Costs, Reducing Inflationary Pressures, and Strengthening the Middle Class.”

The White House. “ Fact Sheet: How the Build Back Better Plan Will Create a Better Future for Young Americans ,” see “Education and Workforce Opportunities.”

Coast Community College District. “ California College Promise Grant .”

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. “ The Dollars and Cents of Free College ,” see “Biden’s Free College Plan Would Pay for Itself Within 10 Years.”

Third Way. “ Why Free College Could Increase Inequality .”

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. “ The Dollars and Cents of Free College ,” see “Free-College Programs Have Different Effects on Race and Class Equity.”

University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education. “ College Promise Programs: A Comprehensive Catalog of College Promise Programs in the United States .”

Why Education Should Be Free: Exploring the Benefits for a Progressive Society

Written by Dan

Last updated February 13, 2024

The question of whether education, particularly higher education, should be free is a continuing debate marked by a multitude of opinions and perspectives.

Education stands as one of the most powerful tools for personal and societal advancement, and making it accessible to all could have profound impacts on a nation’s economic growth and social fabric.

Proponents of tuition-free education argue that it could create a better-educated workforce, improve the livelihoods of individuals, and contribute to overall economic prosperity.

However, the implementation of such a system carries complexity and considerations that spark considerable discourse among policymakers, educators, and the public.

Related : For more, check out our article on  The #1 Problem In Education  here.

Within the debate on free education lies a range of considerations, including the significant economic benefits it might confer.

A well-educated populace can be the driving force behind innovation, entrepreneurship, and a competitive global stance, according to research.

Moreover, social and cultural benefits are also cited by advocates, who see free higher education as a stepping stone towards greater societal well-being and equality.

Nevertheless, the challenges in implementing free higher education often center around fiscal sustainability, the potential for increased taxes, and the restructuring of existing educational frameworks.

Table of Contents

Key Takeaways

• Free higher education could serve as a critical driver of economic growth and innovation.
• It may contribute to social equality and cultural enrichment across communities.
• Implementation of tuition-free higher education requires careful consideration of economic and structural challenges.

Related : For more, check out our article on  AI In Education  here.

The Economic Benefits of Free Education

Free education carries the potential for significant economic impact, notably by fostering a more qualified workforce and alleviating financial strains associated with higher education.

Boosting the Workforce with Skilled Workers

Free education initiatives can lead to a rise in college enrollment and graduation rates, as seen in various studies and practical implementations.

This translates into a larger pool of skilled workers entering the workforce, which is critical for the sustained growth of the economy. With more educated individuals, industries can innovate faster and remain competitive on a global scale.

The subsequent increase in productivity and creative problem-solving bolsters the country’s economic profile.

Reducing Student Loan Debt and Financial Insecurity

One of the most immediate effects of tuition-free education is the reduction of student loan debt . Students who graduate without the burden of debt have more financial freedom and security, enabling them to contribute economically through higher consumer spending and investments.

This financial relief also means that graduates can potentially enter the housing market earlier and save for retirement, both of which are beneficial for long-term economic stability.

Reducing this financial insecurity not only benefits individual lives but also creates a positive ripple effect throughout the economy.

Related : For more, check out our article on  Teaching For Understanding  here.

Social and Cultural Impacts

Free education stands as a cornerstone for a more equitable society, providing a foundation for individuals to reach their full potential without the barrier of cost.

It fosters an inclusive culture where access to knowledge and the ability to contribute meaningfully to society are viewed as inalienable rights.

Creating Equality and Expanding Choices

Free education mitigates the socioeconomic disparities that often dictate the quality and level of education one can attain.

When tuition fees are eliminated, individuals from lower-income families are afforded the same educational opportunities as their wealthier counterparts, leading to a more level playing field .

Expanding educational access enables all members of society to pursue a wider array of careers and life paths, broadening personal choices and promoting a diverse workforce.

Free Education as a Human Right

Recognizing education as a human right underpins the movement for free education. Human Rights Watch emphasizes that all children should have access to a quality, inclusive, and free education.

This aligns with international agreements and the belief that education is not a privilege but a right that should be safeguarded for all, regardless of one’s socioeconomic status.

Redistributions within society can function to finance the institutions necessary to uphold this right, leading to long-term cultural and social benefits.

Challenges and Considerations for Implementation

Implementing free education systems presents a complex interplay of economic and academic factors. Policymakers must confront these critical issues to develop sustainable and effective programs.

Balancing Funding and Taxpayer Impact

Funding for free education programs primarily depends on the allocation of government resources, which often requires tax adjustments .

Legislators need to strike a balance between providing sufficient funding for education and maintaining a level of taxation that does not overburden the taxpayers .

Studies like those from The Balance provide insight into the economic implications, indicating a need for careful analysis to avoid unintended financial consequences.

Ensuring Quality in Free Higher Education Programs

Merit and quality assurance become paramount in free college programs to ensure that the value of education does not diminish. Programs need structured oversight and performance metrics to maintain high academic standards.

Free college systems, by extending access, may risk over-enrollment, which can strain resources and reduce educational quality if not managed correctly.

Global Perspectives and Trends in Free Education

In the realm of education, several countries have adopted policies to make learning accessible at no cost to the student. These efforts often aim to enhance social mobility and create a more educated workforce.

Case Studies: Argentina and Sweden

Argentina has long upheld the principle of free university education for its citizens. Public universities in Argentina do not charge tuition fees for undergraduate courses, emphasizing the country’s commitment to accessible education.

This policy supports a key tenet of social justice, allowing a wide range of individuals to pursue higher education regardless of their financial situation.

In comparison, Sweden represents a prime example of advanced free education within Europe. Swedish universities offer free education not only to Swedish students but also to those from other countries within the European Union (EU).

For Swedes, this extends to include secondary education, which is also offered at no cost. Sweden’s approach exemplifies a commitment to educational equality and a well-informed citizenry.

International Approaches to Tuition-Free College

Examining the broader international landscape , there are diverse approaches to implementing tuition-free higher education.

For instance, some European countries like Spain have not entirely eliminated tuition fees but have kept them relatively low compared to the global average. These measures still align with the overarching goal of making education more accessible.

In contrast, there have been discussions and proposals in the United States about adopting tuition-free college programs, reflecting a growing global trend.

While the United States has not federally mandated free college education, there are initiatives, such as the Promise Programs, that offer tuition-free community college to eligible students in certain states, showcasing a step towards more inclusive educational opportunities.

Policy and Politics of Tuition-Free Education

The debate surrounding tuition-free education encompasses a complex interplay of bipartisan support and legislative efforts, with community colleges frequently at the policy’s epicenter.

Both ideological and financial considerations shape the trajectory of higher education policy in this context.

Bipartisan Support and Political Challenges

Bipartisan support for tuition-free education emerges from a recognition of community colleges as vital access points for higher education, particularly for lower-income families.

Initiatives such as the College Promise campaign reflect this shared commitment to removing economic barriers to education. However, political challenges persist, with Republicans often skeptical about the long-term feasibility and impact on the federal budget.

Such divisions underscore the politicized nature of the education discourse, situating it as a central issue in policy-making endeavors.

Legislative Framework and Higher Education Policy

The legislative framework for tuition-free education gained momentum under President Biden with the introduction of the American Families Plan .

This plan proposed substantial investments in higher education, particularly aimed at bolstering the role of community colleges. Central to this policy is the pledge to cover up to two years of tuition for eligible students.

The proposal reflects a significant step in reimagining higher education policy, though it requires navigating the intricacies of legislative procedures and fiscally conservative opposition to translate into actionable policy.

Frequently Asked Questions

This section addresses common queries regarding the prospect of free college education, its impact, and practical considerations for implementation.

What are the most compelling arguments for making college education free?

The most compelling arguments for tuition-free college highlight the removal of financial barriers, potential to increase social mobility, and a long-term investment in a more educated workforce , which can lead to economic growth.

How could the government implement free education policies without sacrificing quality?

To implement free education without compromising quality, governments need to ensure sustainable funding, invest in faculty, and enable effective administration. Such measures aim to maintain high standards while extending access.

In countries with free college education, what has been the impact on their economies and societies?

Countries with free college education have observed various impacts, including a more educated populace , increased rates of innovation, and in some instances, stronger economic growth due to a skilled workforce.

How does free education affect the accessibility and inclusivity of higher education?

Free education enhances accessibility and inclusivity by leveling the educational playing field, allowing students from all socioeconomic backgrounds to pursue higher education regardless of their financial capability.

What potential downsides exist to providing free college education to all students?

Potential downsides include the strain on governmental budgets, the risk of oversaturating certain job markets, and the possibility that the value of a degree may diminish if too many people obtain one without a corresponding increase in jobs requiring higher education.

How might free education be funded, and what are the financial implications for taxpayers?

Free education would likely be funded through taxation, and its financial implications for taxpayers could range from increased taxes to reprioritization of existing budget funds. The scale of any potential tax increase would depend on the cost of the education programs and the economic benefits they’re anticipated to produce.

Related Posts

About The Author

I'm Dan Higgins, one of the faces behind The Teaching Couple. With 15 years in the education sector and a decade as a teacher, I've witnessed the highs and lows of school life. Over the years, my passion for supporting fellow teachers and making school more bearable has grown. The Teaching Couple is my platform to share strategies, tips, and insights from my journey. Together, we can shape a better school experience for all.

Join our email list to receive the latest updates.

Add your form here

The right to education

Education is a basic human right that works to raise men and women out of poverty, level inequalities and ensure sustainable development. But worldwide 244 million children and youth are still out of school for social, economic and cultural reasons. Education is one of the most powerful tools in lifting excluded children and adults out of poverty and is a stepping stone to other fundamental human rights. It is the most sustainable investment. The right to quality education is already firmly rooted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international legal instruments, the majority of which are the result of the work of UNESCO and the United Nations.    

• What you need to know about the right to education
• Q&A with the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to education

Understanding the right to education

Enforcing the right to education.

Developing norms and standards

in reviewing and developing education legal and policy frameworks

Responding to challenges

The start of a global conversation

Say no to discrimination in education! - #RightToEducation campaign

Monitoring tools.

For any information, please contact:  [email protected]   

Monitoring SDG 4: access to education

Resources from UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Should Higher Education Be Free?

• Vijay Govindarajan
• Jatin Desai

Disruptive new models offer an alternative to expensive tuition.

In the United States, our higher education system is broken. Since 1980, we’ve seen a 400% increase in the cost of higher education, after adjustment for inflation — a higher cost escalation than any other industry, even health care. We have recently passed the trillion dollar mark in student loan debt in the United States.

• Vijay Govindarajan is the Coxe Distinguished Professor at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business, an executive fellow at Harvard Business School, and faculty partner at the Silicon Valley incubator Mach 49. He is a New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestselling author. His latest book is Fusion Strategy: How Real-Time Data and AI Will Power the Industrial Future . His Harvard Business Review articles “ Engineering Reverse Innovations ” and “ Stop the Innovation Wars ” won McKinsey Awards for best article published in HBR. His HBR articles “ How GE Is Disrupting Itself ” and “ The CEO’s Role in Business Model Reinvention ” are HBR all-time top-50 bestsellers. Follow him on LinkedIn . vgovindarajan
• JD Jatin Desai is co-founder and chief executive officer of The Desai Group and the author of  Innovation Engine: Driving Execution for Breakthrough Results .

Partner Center

RSS feed Facebook Twitter   Donate Share -->

• News & blog
• Monitoring guide
• Education as a right
• United Nations
• Humanitarian Law
• International Human Rights Mechanisms
• Inter-American
• Regional Human Rights Mechanisms
• What information to look at
• Where to find information
• Comparative Table on Minimum Age Legislation
• Adult education & learning
• Education 2030
• Education Financing
• Education in Emergencies
• Educational Freedoms
• Early Childhood Care and Education

Free Education

• Higher education
• Technology in education
• Justiciability
• Marginalised Groups
• Minimum Age
• Privatisation of Education
• Quality Education
• News and blog

You are here

Un_523257_classrom_timor.jpg.

According to international human rights law, primary education shall be compulsory and free of charge. Secondary and higher education shall be made progressively free of charge.

Free primary education is fundamental in guaranteeing everyone has access to education. However, in many developing countries, families often cannot afford to send their children to school, leaving millions of children of school-age deprived of education. Despite international obligations, some states keep on imposing fees to access primary education. In addition, there are often indirect costs associated with education, such as for school books, uniform or travel, that prevent children from low-income families accessing school.

Financial difficulties states may face cannot relieve them of their obligation to guarantee free primary education. If a state is unable to secure compulsory primary education, free of charge, when it ratifies the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966), it still has the immediate obligation, within two years, to work out and adopt a detailed plan of action for its progressive implementation, within a reasonable numbers of years, to be fixed in the plan (ICESCR, Article 14). For more information, see General Comment 11  (1999) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

'Progressive introduction of free education' means that while states must prioritise the provision of free primary education, they also have an obligation to take concrete steps towards achieving free secondary and higher education ( General Comment 13 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1999: Para. 14).

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948, Article 26)
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966, Articles 13 and 14)
• Convention on the Rights of the Child  (1982, Article 28)
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women  (1979, Article 10)
• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006, Article 24)
• UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education  (1960, Articles 4)
• ILO Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention (1999, Preamble, Articles 7 and 8)
• African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (1990, Article 11)
• African Youth Charter (2006, Articles 13 and 16)
• Charter of the Organisation of American States (1967, Article 49)
• Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights, Protocol of San Salvador (1988, Article 13)
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union  (2000, Article 14)
• European Social Charter  (revised) (1996, Articles 10 and 17)
• Arab Charter on Human Rights  (2004, Article 41)
• ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (2012, Article 31)

For more details, see International Instruments - Free and Compulsory Education

The following case-law on free education includes decisions of national, regional and international courts as well as decisions from national administrative bodies, national human rights institutions and international human rights bodies.

Claim of unconstitutionality against article 183 of the General Education Law (Colombia Constitutional Court; 2010)

Other issues.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Democrats overwhelmingly favor free college tuition, while Republicans are divided by age, education

American adults generally support making tuition free at public colleges and universities for all U.S. students, yet there are sizable partisan and demographic differences in views of tuition-free college.

Republicans, in particular, are divided by age and educational attainment in opinions on this issue, according to a new Pew Research Center survey conducted July 8-18, 2021.

Among all U.S. adults, 63% favor making tuition at public colleges free, including 34% who strongly favor the proposal. Slightly more than a third oppose tuition-free college (36%), with 20% strongly opposed. These views are little changed over the past year.

Large shares of Black (86%), Hispanic (82%) and Asian American (69%) adults favor making college free for all Americans, compared with 53% of White adults. And while 73% of adults under age 30 favor this proposal, only about half (51%) of those ages 65 and older support it.

For this analysis on views of tuition-free college, we surveyed 10,221 U.S. adults from July 8-18, 2021. Everyone who took part is a member of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the  ATP’s methodology.  

Here are  the questions used  for this report, along with responses, and its methodology .

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents overwhelmingly favor making college tuition free for all American students (85% support this). While 63% of Republicans and Republican leaners oppose making college tuition-free, 36% support this.

There are significant differences in these views among Republicans and GOP leaners: Those under age 30 are nearly twice as likely as those 65 and older to support making college tuition free for all Americans (45% vs. 23%).

And while Republicans who have completed college mostly oppose making tuition free for all American students, the proposal draws more support from Republicans who do not have a four-year degree.

The differences among Republicans are particularly stark when combining age and educational attainment. Among Republicans under age 50 who have not completed college, 52% favor making college tuition free for all Americans. Among Republican college graduates in this age group, only 30% support this.

Support for tuition-free college declines among older Republicans, regardless of whether or not they have completed college. However, even among Republicans ages 50 and older, those who have not completed college are more supportive of this proposal than those who have a college degree.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published Feb. 21, 2020. Here are  the questions used  for this report, along with responses, and its methodology .

• Comparison of Age Groups
• Education & Politics
• Higher Education
• Political Issues
• Politics & Policy

Hannah Hartig is a senior researcher focusing on U.S. politics and policy research at Pew Research Center .

About half of Americans say the best age for a U.S. president is in their 50s

Social trust in advanced economies is lower among young people and those with less education, experiences with the covid-19 outbreak can vary for americans of different ages, the financial risk to u.s. business owners posed by covid-19 outbreak varies by demographic group, young adult households are earning more than most older americans did at the same age, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Spring 2024

Why Free College Is Necessary

Higher education can’t solve inequality, but the debate about free college tuition does something extremely valuable. It reintroduces the concept of public good to education discourse.

[contentblock id=subscribe-ad]

Free college is not a new idea, but, with higher education costs (and student loan debt) dominating public perception, it’s one that appeals to more and more people—including me. The national debate about free, public higher education is long overdue. But let’s get a few things out of the way.

College is the domain of the relatively privileged, and will likely stay that way for the foreseeable future, even if tuition is eliminated. As of 2012, over half of the U.S. population has “some college” or postsecondary education. That category includes everything from an auto-mechanics class at a for-profit college to a business degree from Harvard. Even with such a broadly conceived category, we are still talking about just half of all Americans.

Why aren’t more people going to college? One obvious answer would be cost, especially the cost of tuition. But the problem isn’t just that college is expensive. It is also that going to college is complicated. It takes cultural and social, not just economic, capital. It means navigating advanced courses, standardized tests, forms. It means figuring out implicit rules—rules that can change.

Eliminating tuition would probably do very little to untangle the sailor’s knot of inequalities that make it hard for most Americans to go to college. It would not address the cultural and social barriers imposed by unequal K–12 schooling, which puts a select few students on the college pathway at the expense of millions of others. Neither would it address the changing social milieu of higher education, in which the majority are now non-traditional students. (“Non-traditional” students are classified in different ways depending on who is doing the defining, but the best way to understand the category is in contrast to our assumptions of a traditional college student—young, unfettered, and continuing to college straight from high school.) How and why they go to college can depend as much on things like whether a college is within driving distance or provides one-on-one admissions counseling as it does on the price.

Given all of these factors, free college would likely benefit only an outlying group of students who are currently shut out of higher education because of cost—students with the ability and/or some cultural capital but without wealth. In other words, any conversation about college is a pretty elite one even if the word “free” is right there in the descriptor.

The discussion about free college, outside of the Democratic primary race, has also largely been limited to community colleges, with some exceptions by state. Because I am primarily interested in education as an affirmative justice mechanism, I would like all minority-serving and historically black colleges (HBCUs)—almost all of which qualify as four-year degree institutions—to be included. HBCUs disproportionately serve students facing the intersecting effects of wealth inequality, systematic K–12 disparities, and discrimination. For those reasons, any effort to use higher education as a vehicle for greater equality must include support for HBCUs, allowing them to offer accessible degrees with less (or no) debt.

The Obama administration’s free community college plan, expanded in July to include grants that would reduce tuition at HBCUs, is a step in the right direction. Yet this is only the beginning of an educational justice agenda. An educational justice policy must include institutions of higher education but cannot only include institutions of higher education. Educational justice says that schools can and do reproduce inequalities as much as they ameliorate them. Educational justice says one hundred new Universities of Phoenix is not the same as access to high-quality instruction for the maximum number of willing students. And educational justice says that jobs programs that hire for ability over “fit” must be linked to millions of new credentials, no matter what form they take or how much they cost to obtain. Without that, some free college plans could reinforce prestige divisions between different types of schools, leaving the most vulnerable students no better off in the economy than they were before.

Free college plans are also limited by the reality that not everyone wants to go to college. Some people want to work and do not want to go to college forever and ever—for good reason. While the “opportunity costs” of spending four to six years earning a degree instead of working used to be balanced out by the promise of a “good job” after college, that rationale no longer holds, especially for poor students. Free-ninety-nine will not change that.

I am clear about all of that . . . and yet I don’t care. I do not care if free college won’t solve inequality. As an isolated policy, I know that it won’t. I don’t care that it will likely only benefit the high achievers among the statistically unprivileged—those with above-average test scores, know-how, or financial means compared to their cohort. Despite these problems, today’s debate about free college tuition does something extremely valuable. It reintroduces the concept of public good to higher education discourse—a concept that fifty years of individuation, efficiency fetishes, and a rightward drift in politics have nearly pummeled out of higher education altogether. We no longer have a way to talk about public education as a collective good because even we defenders have adopted the language of competition. President Obama justified his free community college plan on the grounds that “Every American . . . should be able to earn the skills and education necessary to compete and win in the twenty-first century economy.” Meanwhile, for-profit boosters claim that their institutions allow “greater access” to college for the public. But access to what kind of education? Those of us who believe in viable, affordable higher ed need a different kind of language. You cannot organize for what you cannot name.

Already, the debate about if college should be free has forced us all to consider what higher education is for. We’re dusting off old words like class and race and labor. We are even casting about for new words like “precariat” and “generation debt.” The Debt Collective is a prime example of this. The group of hundreds of students and graduates of (mostly) for-profit colleges are doing the hard work of forming a class-based identity around debt as opposed to work or income. The broader cultural conversation about student debt, to which free college plans are a response, sets the stage for that kind of work. The good of those conversations outweighs for me the limited democratization potential of free college.

Tressie McMillan Cottom is an assistant professor of sociology at Virginia Commonwealth University and a contributing editor at Dissent . Her book Lower Ed: How For-Profit Colleges Deepen Inequality is forthcoming from the New Press.

This article is part of   Dissent’s special issue of “Arguments on the Left.” Click to read contending arguments from Matt Bruenig and Mike Konczal .

Sign up for the Dissent newsletter:

Socialist thought provides us with an imaginative and moral horizon.

For insights and analysis from the longest-running democratic socialist magazine in the United States, sign up for our newsletter:

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Is Education a Fundamental Right?

By Jill Lepore

Before sunrise on a morning just after Labor Day, 1977, Humberto and Jackeline Alvarez, Felix Hernandez, Rosario and Jose Robles, and Lidia and Jose Lopez huddled together in the basement of the United States Courthouse in Tyler, Texas , the Rose City, to decide just how much they were willing to risk for the sake of their children, for the sake of other people’s children, and for the sake, really, of everyone. Among them, the Alvarezes, Hernandez, the Robleses, and the Lopezes had sixteen children who, the week before, had been barred from entering Tyler’s public schools by order of James Plyler, Tyler’s school superintendent. On the first day of school, Rosario Robles had walked her five children to Bonner Elementary, where she was met by the principal, who asked her for the children’s birth certificates, and, when she couldn’t provide them, put her and the kids in his car and drove them home.

This hadn’t been the principal’s idea, or even Plyler’s. In 1975, when Texas passed a law allowing public schools to bar undocumented immigrants, Plyler ignored it. “I guess I was soft-hearted and concerned about the kids,” he said. Also, there weren’t many of them. About sixteen thousand children went to the schools in the East Texas city of Tyler, which considered itself the rose-growing capital of America and was named for John Tyler, the President of the United States who had pushed for the annexation of Texas in 1844, which led to a war with Mexico in 1846. Of those sixteen thousand students, fewer than sixty were the children of parents who had, without anyone’s permission, entered the United States from Mexico by crossing a border established in 1848, when the war ended with a treaty that turned the top half of Mexico into the bottom third of the United States. Jose Robles worked in a pipe factory. Humberto Alvarez worked in a meatpacking plant. They paid rent. They owned cars. They paid taxes. They grew roses.

Nevertheless, in July of 1977 Tyler’s school board, worried that Tyler would become a haven for immigrants driven away from other towns, insisted that undocumented children be kicked out of the city’s schools unless their parents paid a thousand dollars a year, per child, which few of them could afford, not even the Robleses, who owned their own home. Turned away from Bonner Elementary, the Robleses sent some of their kids to a local Catholic school—Jose did yard work in exchange for tuition—but they were put in touch with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which sent an attorney, Peter Roos, who filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Eastern District Court of Texas. It was presided over by a judge whose name was Justice. “There were two judges in Tyler,” Roos liked to say. “You got Justice, or no justice.”

Participating in a lawsuit as an undocumented immigrant is a very risky proposition. In a closed-door meeting, Roos asked that the parents be allowed to testify in chambers and so avoid revealing their identities, which could lead to deportation. They had come to the courthouse knowing that, at any moment, they could be arrested, and driven to Mexico, without so much as a goodbye. Judge William Wayne Justice refused to grant the protective order. “I am a United States magistrate and if I learn of a violation of the law, it’s my sworn duty to disclose it to the authorities,” he said. Roos went down to the basement, near the holding cells, to inform the families and give them a chance to think it over. They decided to go ahead with the suit, come what may. Justice did make efforts to protect them from publicity, and from harassment, decreeing that the proceeding would start before dawn, to keep the press and the public at bay, and that the plaintiffs’ names would be withheld.

Roos filed a motion requesting that the children be allowed to attend school, without paying tuition, while the case unfolded, which was expected to take years. “An educated populace is the basis of our democratic institutions,” his brief argued, citing Brown v. Board of Education. “A denial of educational opportunities is repugnant to our notions that an informed and educated citizenry is necessary to our society.” The case was docketed as Doe v. Plyler. “This is one that’s headed for the United States Supreme Court,” Justice told his clerk. Five years later, the appeal, Plyler v. Doe , went to Washington.

Some Supreme Court decisions are famous. Some are infamous. Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade. But Plyler v. Doe? It’s not any kind of famous. Outside the legal academy, where it is generally deemed to be of limited significance, the case is little known. (Earlier this year, during testimony before Congress, Betsy DeVos , the Secretary of Education, appeared not to have heard of it.) The obscurity of the case might end soon, though, not least because the Court’s opinion in Plyler v. Doe addressed questions that are central to ongoing debates about both education and immigration and that get to the heart of what schoolchildren and undocumented migrants have in common: vulnerability.

Plyler is arguably a controlling case in Gary B. v. Snyder, a lawsuit filed against the governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, by seven Detroit schoolchildren, for violating their constitutional right to an education. According to the complaint, “illiteracy is the norm” in the Detroit public schools; they are the most economically and racially segregated schools in the country and, in formal assessments of student proficiency, have been rated close to zero. In Brown, the Court had described an education as “a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” But the Detroit plaintiffs also cite Plyler, in which the majority deemed illiteracy to be “an enduring disability,” identified the absolute denial of education as a violation of the equal-protection clause, and ruled that no state can “deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders.” Dismissed by a district court in June, the case is now headed to the Sixth Circuit on appeal.

Plyler’s reach extends, too, to lawsuits filed this summer on behalf of immigrant children who were separated from their families at the U.S.-Mexico border. In June, the Texas State Teachers Association called on the governor of the state to make provisions for the education of the detained children, before the beginning of the school year, but has so far received no reply. Thousands of children are being held in more than a hundred detention centers around the country, many run by for-profit contractors. Conditions vary, but, on the whole, instruction is limited and supplies are few. “The kids barely learn anything,” a former social worker reported from Arizona.

Court-watchers have tended to consider Plyler insignificant because the Court’s holding was narrow. But in “ The Schoolhouse Gate: Public Education, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for the American Mind ” (Pantheon) Justin Driver, a law professor at the University of Chicago, argues that this view of Plyler is wrong. “Properly understood,” Driver writes, “it rests among the most egalitarian, momentous, and efficacious constitutional opinions that the Supreme Court has issued throughout its entire history.”

Driver is not alone in this view. In “ No Undocumented Child Left Behind ” (2012), the University of Houston law professor Michael A. Olivas called Plyler “the apex of the Court’s treatment of the undocumented.” In “ Immigration Outside the Law ” (2014), the U.C.L.A. law professor Hiroshi Motomura compared Plyler to Brown and described its influence as “fundamental, profound, and enduring.” Even people who think the case hasn’t been influential wish it had been. “Plyler v. Doe may be irrelevant in a strictly legal sense,” the legal journalist Linda Greenhouse wrote last year, “but there are strong reasons to resurrect its memory and ponder it today.” Because, for once, our tired, our poor, our huddled masses—the very littlest of them—breathed free.

Laura Alvarez, ten years old, rode in the family’s battered station wagon to the courthouse in Tyler, for a hearing held on September 9, 1977, at six in the morning. (During a related Texas case—later consolidated with Plyler—a nine-year-old girl spoke to the judge in chambers and told him that, since being barred from school, the only learning she was getting came from poring over the homework done by a younger sibling—an American citizen.) In Tyler, the assistant attorney general for the State of Texas showed up wearing bluejeans. She’d flown in late the night before, and had lost her luggage. After an attorney from the Carter Administration said that the Justice Department would not pursue the litigants while the trial proceeded, during which time the students would be able to attend school, Judge Justice issued the requested injunction.

Witnesses presented testimony about economies: educating these children cost the state money, particularly because they needed special English-language instruction, but not educating these children would be costly, too, in the long term, when they became legal residents but, uneducated, would be able to contribute very little to the tax base. The Judge had a policy preference: “The predictable effects of depriving an undocumented child of an education are clear and undisputed. Already disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, these children, without an education, will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class.” But the question didn’t turn on anyone’s policy preferences; it turned on the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees certain rights to “citizens” and makes two promises to “persons”: it prohibits a state from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and prohibits a state from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Before Plyler, the Supreme Court had established that the due-process clause applied to undocumented immigrants, who are, plainly, “persons,” but it had not established that the equal-protection clause extended to them, and the State of Texas said that it didn’t, because undocumented immigrants were in the state illegally. Judge Justice disagreed. “People who have entered the United States, by whatever means, are ‘within its jurisdiction’ in that they are within the territory of the United States and subject to its laws,” he wrote.

But how to apply that clause? The courts bring a standard known as “strict scrutiny” to laws that abridge a “fundamental right,” like the right to life, liberty, and property, and to laws that discriminate against a particular class of people, a “suspect class,” like the freed slaves in whose interest the amendment was originally written—that is, any population burdened with disabilities “or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.”

Is education a fundamental right? The Constitution, drafted in the summer of 1787, does not mention a right to education, but the Northwest Ordinance, passed by Congress that same summer, held that “religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” By 1868 the constitutions of twenty-eight of the thirty-two states in the Union had provided for free public education, open to all. Texas, in its 1869 constitution, provided for free public schooling for “all the inhabitants of this State,” a provision that was revised to exclude undocumented immigrants only in 1975.

Justice skirted the questions of whether education is a fundamental right and whether undocumented immigrants are a suspect class. Instead of applying the standard of “strict scrutiny” to the Texas law, he applied the lowest level of scrutiny to the law, which is known as the “rational basis test.” He decided that the Texas law failed this test. The State of Texas had argued that the law was rational because undocumented children are expensive to educate—they often require bilingual education, free meals, and even free clothing. But, Justice noted, so are other children, including native-born children, and children who have immigrated legally, and their families are not asked to bear the cost of their special education. As to why Texas had even passed such a law, he had two explanations, both cynical: “Children of illegal aliens had never been explicitly afforded any judicial protection, and little political uproar was likely to be raised in their behalf.”

In September, 1978, Justice ruled in favor of the children. Not long afterward, a small bouquet arrived at his house, sent by three Mexican workers. Then came the hate mail. A man from Lubbock wrote, on the back of a postcard, “Why in the hell don’t you illegally move to mexico?”

“The Schoolhouse Gate” is the first book-length history of Supreme Court cases involving the constitutional rights of schoolchildren, a set of cases that, though often written about, have never before been written about all together, as if they constituted a distinct body of law. In Driver’s view, “the public school has served as the single most significant site of constitutional interpretation within the nation’s history.” Millions of Americans spend most of their days in public schools—miniature states—where liberty, equality, rights, and privileges are matters of daily struggle. Schools are also, not incidentally, where Americans learn about liberty, equality, rights, and privileges. “The schoolroom is the first opportunity most citizens have to experience the power of government,” Justice John Paul Stevens once wrote.

The Supreme Court paid relatively little attention to public schools until after the Second World War, but, since then, it has ruled on a slew of cases. Do students have First Amendment rights? In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court said yes. Three students had sued when they were suspended for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. In a 7–2 opinion, the Court sided with the students, affirming that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” and that public schools, though not democracies, “may not be enclaves of totalitarianism,” either. Justice Hugo Black issued a heated dissent. “It may be that the Nation has outworn the old-fashioned slogan that ‘children are to be seen not heard,’ ” he wrote, but he hoped it was still true that we “send children to school on the premise that at their age they need to learn, not teach.” A still more strident version of Black’s position was taken by Justice Clarence Thomas, in Morse v. Frederick (2007), a case involving a student who, when a parade passed in front of the school, waved a banner that read “ BONG H i TS 4 JESUS .” Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts marked an exception to the free-speech rights established in Tinker: students are not free to endorse drug use, but Thomas, concurring, used the occasion to wax nostalgic: “In the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed.”

Link copied

Just because the courts have recognized students’ First Amendment rights, it doesn’t follow that students have other rights. Do students have Fourth Amendment protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures”? Do they have Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination? Do they have Eighth Amendment protections against “cruel and unusual punishment”? In Goss v. Lopez (1975), the Court ruled that students cannot be suspended or expelled without at least some form of due process, but, two years later, in Ingraham v. Wright , it said that schools could punish children, physically, and without any procedure at all. This shift took place amid a growing conservative reaction that viewed the Court’s schoolhouse opinions as an example of judicial overreach, as a violation of states’ rights, and as part of the rise of permissiveness and the decline of order. Lopez had extended to students a Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, partly on the back of the argument that granting students rights is a way of teaching them about citizenship, fairness, and decency. “To insist upon fair treatment before passing judgment against a student accused of wrongdoing is to demonstrate that society has high principles and the conviction to honor them,” the legal scholar William G. Buss wrote , in an influential law-review article in 1971.

Plenty of teachers and school administrators think that students don’t have any rights. “I am the Constitution,” Joe Clarke, the principal of a high school in Paterson, New Jersey, liked to say, roaming the hallways with a Willie Mays baseball bat in the nineteen-eighties. This was an era that Driver describes as marking a Reagan Justice Department campaign for “education law and order.” The era produced a 1985 decision, T.L.O. v. New Jersey , in which the Court ruled that schools require only reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, to search students and their backpacks and lockers and other belongings.

Together, the education law-and-order regime and the rise of school shootings, beginning with Columbine in 1999, have produced a new environment in the nation’s schools, more than half of which, as of 2007, are patrolled by police officers. It was a police officer’s closed-door questioning of a seventh grader, taken out of his social-studies class in Chapel Hill, that led to the Court’s 2011 decision, in J.D.B. v. North Carolina , establishing that only in certain circumstances do students have Fifth Amendment rights. Do students have Second Amendment rights? Not yet. But last year a Kentucky congressman introduced a Safe Students Act that would have repealed the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, and allowed guns in schools. Meanwhile, more and more schools are surveilled by cameras, and bordered by metal detectors. If the schoolhouse is a mini-state, it has also become, in many places, a military state.

Few discussions of Plyler are more keenly sensitive to its ambiguities than Ana Raquel Minian’s “ Undocumented Lives: The Untold Story of Mexican Migration ” (Harvard), a revealing study that, because “undocumented lives” are nearly impossible to trace in the archives, relies on hundreds of oral histories. For Minian, Plyler, by its very casting of undocumented children as innocents, underscored the perception of undocumented adults as culpable—criminals to be arrested, detained, prosecuted, and deported.

As Texas appealed to the Fifth Circuit, Woodrow Seals, a district judge in Houston, ruled for the children in a related case. Seals didn’t agree that the undocumented children were a suspect class, but he didn’t need to, because he believed the Texas statute was not rational, and, in any case, he thought that absolute denial of an education was so severe a harm that, on its own terms, it required strict scrutiny. Public school is “the most important institution in this country,” Seals wrote, and “the Constitution does not permit the states to deny access to education to a discrete group of children within its border.” Seals handed down his opinion in July, 1980, just months before the Presidential election. He wrote in a letter, “I hate to think what will happen to my decision if Governor Reagan wins the election and appoints four new justices to the Supreme Court.”

Carter’s Justice Department had supported the plaintiffs. Reagan’s did not. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Plyler v. Doe on December 1, 1981. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund considered the case to be as important as Brown v. Board of Education, which, in 1954, Thurgood Marshall, then the head of the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, had argued before the Court. Marshall had presented Brown as a Fourteenth Amendment, equal-protection case. The plaintiffs in Plyler were making, essentially, the same argument. Conceivably, their case could realize the promise of Brown by establishing a constitutional right to an education. They could even press the claim that undocumented immigrants were not only persons under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment but also, doctrinally, a suspect class. None of these objectives were politically within their reach, however, given the makeup of the bench.

During oral arguments, Marshall peppered John Hardy, representing Plyler, about what the State of Texas did and did not provide for undocumented immigrants:

M arshall : Could Texas deny them fire protection? H ardy : Deny them fire protection? M arshall : Yes, sir. F-i-r-e. H ardy : Okay. If their home is on fire, their home is going to be protected with the local fire services just— M arshall : Could Texas pass a law and say they cannot be protected? H ardy : —I don’t believe so. M arshall : Why not? If they could do this, why couldn’t they do that? H ardy : Because . . . I am going to take the position that it is an entitlement of the . . . Justice Marshall, let me think a second. You . . . that is . . . I don’t know. That’s a tough question. M arshall : Somebody’s house is more important than his child?

Later, Marshall came back at him, asking, “Could Texas pass a law denying admission to the schools of children of convicts?” Hardy said that they could, but that it wouldn’t be constitutional. Marshall’s reply: “We are dealing with children. I mean, here is a child that is the son of a murderer, but he can go to school, but the child that is the son of an unfortunate alien cannot?”

Three days later, the Justices held a conference. According to notes made by Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Chief Justice Warren Burger said, “14A applies as they are persons but illegals are not entitled to E/P.” Marshall said, “Children are not illegals. . . . E/P means what it says.” Five Justices wanted to uphold the lower court’s opinion, four to reverse it. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., volunteered to write the majority opinion. He circulated a draft that called for strict scrutiny, deeming the children “a discrete and historically demeaned group.” Powell said that he couldn’t sign it.

Powell, appointed by Nixon in 1971, had been, for a decade, the chair of the school board of Richmond, Virginia. Sometimes known as “the education justice,” he was deeply committed to public schools. But, because he was also committed to judicial restraint, he was opposed to declaring education to be a constitutional right. “It is not the province of this Court to create substantive constitutional rights in the name of guaranteeing equal protection of the laws,” he had written in 1973, in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez , a case that was widely seen as having shut the door on the idea. For Powell, establishing education as a fundamental right invited claims: are health care, food, and shelter fundamental rights, too?

Powell was unwilling to sign Brennan’s first draft, not only because it went against his opinion in Rodriguez but also because the draft contained language “that will be read as indicating that all illegal aliens, adults as well as children, may be ‘discrete and insular minorities for which the Constitution offers a special solicitude.’ ” Brennan wrote a second draft; Powell once again asked him to narrow his opinion. But other Justices, who wanted to uphold the lower court’s decision, sought to move Brennan further to the left. After reading a draft of Burger’s dissent (“The Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill,” the Chief Justice wrote, “nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem”), Justice Harry Blackmun circulated a proposal for issuing a different opinion, arguing that education has a special status because it’s foundational to all other political rights, being necessary “to preserve rights of expression and participation in the political process, and therefore to preserve individual rights generally.” Marshall, Brennan, and Stevens were prepared to join that opinion. But Blackmun needed Powell to make five. And Powell wouldn’t sign on. “As important as education has been in the life of my family for three generations,” he wrote to Blackmun, “I would hesitate before creating another heretofore unidentified right.”

In the end, Brennan crafted a compromise. Education is not a constitutional right, he wrote, “but neither is it merely some governmental ‘benefit.’ ” Undocumented migrants are not a suspect class, but their children are vulnerable, and laws that discriminate against them, while not subject to strict scrutiny, deserved “heightened scrutiny.” Powell wrote to Brennan after reading the draft, “Your final product is excellent and will be in every text and case book on Constitutional law.”

And yet its interpretation remains limited. “Powell wanted the case to be about the education of children, not the equal protection rights of immigrants, and so the decision was,” Linda Greenhouse remarked in a careful study of the Court’s deliberations, published a decade ago. For many legal scholars, Plyler looks like a dead end. It didn’t cut through any constitutional thickets; it opened no new road to equal rights for undocumented immigrants, and no new road to the right to an education. It simply meant that no state could pass a law barring undocumented children from public schools. But that is exactly why Driver thinks that Plyler was so significant: without it, states would have passed those laws, and millions of children would have been saddled with the disability of illiteracy.

In 1994, when Californians were contemplating Proposition 187, which would have denied services to undocumented immigrants, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times was able to track down thirteen of the original sixteen Plyler children. Ten had graduated from high school in Tyler. Two worked as teacher’s aides. Laura Alvarez and all six of her brothers and sisters stayed in Tyler after Judge Justice issued his opinion in Plyler. She became a legal resident of the United States under the terms of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, graduated in 1987 from John Tyler High School, and spent a decade working for the Tyler school district. “Without an education, I don’t know where I’d be right now,” she said.

“I’m glad we lost,” James Plyler said in an interview in 2007, when he was eighty-two, and long since retired, and enjoying his grandchildren, who are themselves of Mexican descent.

Lewis Powell retired from the Court in 1987. He was replaced by Anthony Kennedy. In another opinion, Powell had written that children should not be punished for the crimes of their parents. “Visiting this condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust,” because “legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing.” It’s hard to know what Kennedy’s likely replacement, Brett Kavanaugh, would say about whether the Constitution guarantees undocumented migrant children the equal protection of the law. He’s never cited Plyler in his scholarship and, in opinions issued from the bench, has cited it only once. He hasn’t written much about equal protection, either, though he has said, in passing, that he finds the equal-protection clause ambiguous. As for undocumented migrant children, he has issued one important opinion, a dissent in Garza v. Hargan, last year, that, while not citing Plyler, described the plaintiff in the case, an undocumented immigrant minor in Texas, as particularly vulnerable.

“The minor is alone and without family or friends,” Kavanaugh wrote. “She is in a U.S. Government detention facility in a country that, for her, is foreign. She is 17 years old.” The reason for her vulnerability? “She is pregnant and has to make a major life decision.” She wanted to have an abortion; Kavanaugh had earlier joined a decision ruling that she must first leave detention and find a sponsoring foster family. When, in a further appeal, the D.C. court vacated that ruling, Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that the court had acted on “a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand.” Her name was kept out of the proceedings. She was another Doe. It is not clear whether she ever finished her education. ♦

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Jonathan Blitzer

• University News
• Faculty & Research
• Health & Medicine
• Science & Technology
• Social Sciences
• Humanities & Arts
• Students & Alumni
• Arts & Culture
• Sports & Athletics
• The Professions
• International
• New England Guide

The Magazine

• Current Issue
• Past Issues

Class Notes & Obituaries

• Browse Class Notes
• Browse Obituaries

Collections

• Commencement
• The Context
• Harvard Squared
• Harvard in the Headlines

Support Harvard Magazine

• Why We Need Your Support
• How We Are Funded
• Ways to Support the Magazine
• Special Gifts
• Behind the Scenes

Classifieds

• Vacation Rentals & Travel
• Real Estate
• Products & Services
• Harvard Authors’ Bookshelf
• Education & Enrichment Resource
• Ad Prices & Information
• Place An Ad

Follow Harvard Magazine:

Right Now | Subsidy Shuffle

Could College Be Free?

January-February 2020

Illustration by Adam Niklewicz

Email David Deming 

Visit David Deming's website.

Hear David Deming discuss free college on HKS PolicyCast

etting ahead— or getting by—is increasingly difficult in the United States without a college degree. The demand for college education is at an all-time high, but so is the price tag. David Deming—professor of public policy at the Kennedy School and professor of education and economics at the Graduate School of Education—wants to ease that tension by reallocating government spending on higher education to make public colleges tuition-free. 

Deming’s argument is elegant. Public spending on higher education is unique among social services: it is an investment that pays for itself many times over in higher tax revenue generated by future college graduates, a rare example of an economic “free lunch.” In 2016 (the most recent year for which data are available), the United States spent $91 billion subsidizing access to higher education. According to Deming, that spending isn’t as progressive or effective as it could be. The National Center for Education Statistics indicates that it would cost roughly $79 billion a year to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. So, Deming asks, why not redistribute current funds to make public colleges tuition-free, instead of subsidizing higher education in other, roundabout ways? 

Of the estimated $91 billion the nation spends annually on higher education, $37 billion go to tax credits and tax benefits. These tax programs ease the burden of paying for both public and private colleges, but disproportionately benefit middle-class children who are probably going to college anyway. Instead of lowering costs for those students, Deming points out, a progressive public-education assistance program should probably redirect funds to incentivize students to go to college who wouldn’t otherwise consider it. 

Another $13 billion in federal spending subsidize interest payments on student loans for currently enrolled undergraduates. And the remaining $41 billion go to programs that benefit low-income students and military veterans, including $28.4 billion for Pell Grants and similar programs. Pell Grants are demand-side subsidies: they provide cash directly to those who pay for a service, i.e., students; supply-side subsidies (see below) channel funds to suppliers, such as colleges. Deming asserts that Pell Grant money, which travels with students, voucher-style, is increasingly gobbled up by low-quality, for-profit colleges. These colleges are often better at marketing their services than at graduating students or improving their graduates’ prospects, despite being highly subsidized by taxpayers . “The rise of for-profit colleges has, in some ways, been caused by disinvestment in public higher education. Our public university systems were built for a time when 20 percent of young people attended college,” says Deming. “Now it’s more like 60 percent, and we haven’t responded by devoting more resources to ensuring that young people can afford college and succeed when they get there.” As a result, an expensive, for-profit market has filled the educational shortage that government divestment has caused.

The vast majority of states have continuously divested in public education in recent decades, pushing a higher percentage of the cost burden of schools onto students. Deming believes this state-level divestment is the main reason for the precipitous rise in college tuition, which has outpaced the rest of the Consumer Price Index for 30 consecutive years. (Compounding reasons include rising salaries despite a lack of gains in productivity—a feature of many human-service-focused industries such as education and healthcare.) Against this backdrop, Deming writes, “at least some—and perhaps all—of the cost of universal tuition-free public higher education could be defrayed by redeploying money that the government is already spending.” (The need for some funding programs would remain, however, given the cost of room, board, books, and other college supplies.) 

Redirecting current funding to provide tuition-free public-school degrees is only one part of Deming’s proposal. He knows that making public higher education free could hurt the quality of instruction by inciting a race to the bottom, stretching teacher-student ratios and pinching other academic resources. He therefore argues that any tuition-free plan would need to be paired with increased state and federal investment, and programs focused on getting more students to graduate. Because rates of degree completion strongly correlate with per-student spending, Deming proposes introducing a federal matching grant for the first $5,000 of net per-student spending in states that implement free college. “Luckily,” he says, “spending more money is a policy lever we know how to pull.” 

Deming argues that shifting public funding to supply-side subsidies, channeled directly to public institutions, could nudge states to reinvest in public higher education. Such reinvestment would dampen the demand for low-quality, for-profit schools; increase college attendance in low-income communities; and improve the quality of services that public colleges and universities could offer. Early evidence of these positive effects has surfaced in some of the areas that are piloting free college-tuition programs, including the state of Tennessee and the city of Kalamazoo, Michigan. 

Higher education is an odd market because buyers (students) often don’t have good information about school quality and it’s a once-in-a-lifetime decision. Creating a supply-side subsidy system would take some freedom of choice away from prospective undergraduates who want government funding for private, four-year degrees. But, for Deming, that’s a trade-off worth making, if the state is better able to measure the effectiveness of certain colleges and allocate subsidies accordingly. Education is more than the mere acquisition of facts—which anyone can access freely online—because minds, like markets, learn best through feedback. Quality feedback is difficult to scale well without hiring more teachers and ramping up student-support resources. That’s why Deming thinks it’s high time for the public higher-education market to get a serious injection of cash.

You might also like

Harvard Corporation Rules Thirteen Students Cannot Graduate

Faculty of Arts and Sciences May 20 vote on protestors’ status does not confer “good standing.”

“Our Planet in Microcosm”

Nicholas Burns, U.S. Ambassador to China, addresses the Harvard Kennedy School.

Carrying a “Heavy Pack”

The largest Harvard ROTC cohort in 30 years is commissioned into the armed services.

Most popular

Photographs from Commencement Week 2024

A gallery of photographs from the Commencement celebration for the class of 2024

More to explore

Bernini’s Model Masterpieces at the Harvard Art Museums

Thirteen sculptures from Gian Lorenzo Bernini at Harvard Art Museums.

Private Equity in Medicine and the Quality of Care

Hundreds of U.S. hospitals are owned by private equity firms—does monetizing medicine affect the quality of care?

John Harvard's Journal

Sasha the Harvard Police Dog

Sasha, the police dog of Harvard University

Why free college is a good investment

In this section.

• The populism of self-destruction: How better policy can blunt the anti-clean energy backlash that threatens humanity’s future
• Public policy, values, and politics: Why so much depends on getting them right
• The Ghost Budget: How U.S. war spending went rogue, wasted billions, and how to fix it
• The Great Creep Backward: Policy responses to China’s slowing economy
• Two peoples. Two states. Why U.S. diplomacy in Israel and Palestine needs vision, partners, and a backbone
• We can productively discuss even the toughest topics—here’s how
• Legacy of privilege: David Deming and Raj Chetty on how elite college admissions policies affect who gains power and prestige
• Need to solve an intractable problem? Collaboration is hard but worth it.

HKS Professor David Deming says tuition-free public college is important for the future of work. It's also more affordable than many people think.

Featuring david deming, 25 minutes and 59 seconds.

Harvard Kennedy School Professor David Deming, whose research focuses on the economics of education, recently wrote a New York Times op-ed titled “Tuition-free College Could Cost Less Than You Think.” Making college education widely affordable in the U.S. is vital, Deming says, because a degree will likely be a prerequisite for the labor market of the not-too-distant future.

Professor Deming recently sat down with PolicyCast host Thoko Moyo to discuss not just how to lower college costs, but also how to improve educational quality and what that could mean for students across the socioeconomic spectrum. In addition to being a professor at HKS and the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Deming is also the new faculty director of the Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy at HKS and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He recently won the David Kershaw Prize, which is given to scholars under the age of 40 who have made distinguished contribution to the field of public policy and management.

For more information, please visit the Malcolm Wiener Center .

Produced by

Ralph Ranalli Susan Hughes

This episode is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you get your podcasts. 

I think in the very long run where we're headed is a world where just like we think of high school as being a prerequisite for having a good paying job, we're getting there with college. There's no law of nature, okay, that says that everybody should only get 12 years of education, but not 16. I think what's happening is we're living longer. Work is becoming more complex, the knowledge frontier is continuing to push outward. And so it makes sense to me that eventually we would want everyone to have something like a college education.

Thoko Moyo : So what exactly do we mean when we talk about free college in the US?

David Deming : Well, different people mean different things, but what I mean when I talk about it is zero tuition at all public two year and four year universities in the US.

Thoko Moyo : Okay, so that's public universities. Not touching the private universities.

David Deming : Yeah, for a couple of reasons. I think one is that most people go to public schools. And the second one is that of those people who attend private schools, they tend to be wealthier and the tuition at private schools is much more expensive. And so in terms of redistribution, sort of bang for buck, trying to accomplish the goals of expanding access to education, I think it's likely that free public tuition would draw a lot of students in who would otherwise not go to college at all. Whereas free tuition in private schools would mostly just subsidize tuition for people who are going to go anyway. And so that would just be a transfer from the tax payer to relatively well off.

Thoko Moyo : So let's come back to that. But first, let me understand. So what's the lay of the land at the moment? So most public universities offer some level of financial aid or grants. So let's talk about that a little bit and see what it looks like and then what it is that you're proposing or you're in support of.

David Deming : Sure. So I think the important thing to consider as you mentioned is that most people don't pay the sticker price of college tuition. A few do. But most families, particularly families in middle and lower middle income families who go to college don't pay the sticker price. But we often don't know that until long after a student has made the decision to go to college, filled out their financial aid forms, receive a complicated financial aid package. And so in some sense the fear of paying tuition comes long before the actual bill comes due. And so part of the design of a free college plan, I think, not just in my mind, but in the minds of many others who propose these things, is actually the transparent promise to families who are worried about college costs. That tuition will be free, you will not pay tuition. And the idea that just knowing that in advance months before you make the decision to attend a college is likely to attract many students that wouldn't otherwise come.

Thoko Moyo : But when you think about going to college, it's more than just the tuition though. When people think free, I mean assuming your child is going to stay on campus, there's room and board, there's books, et cetera. Does that come into the calculation at all? Let's just make sure we're clear about that as well.

David Deming : Yeah, sure. So most of the free college plans that are out there proposed by let's say Senator Bernie Sanders or Senator Elizabeth Warren, and then also some of the plans that have been enacted in states like New Mexico and Tennessee and New York. None of those plans to my knowledge, pay for room and board. They pay for tuition and required fees. And I think there's a couple of reasons for that. One is that a lot of people live at home and they go to college and that's a decision that folks make depending on the type of school and depending on financial situations. The other thing is you'd have to pay for living expenses even if you don't go to college, right?

Thoko Moyo : True.

David Deming : And so in a sense, the tuition and fees are really the direct fee for service component of the plan. And so while no one is saying that a free college plan means there will literally be no expenses at all associated with going. I think that dramatically lowers the cost of going and has people thinking in a more forward looking way about whether or not they can afford it, right? So you might still have to borrow money to go to college, even if you weren't paying tuition because of room and board because you wouldn't be working. So the opportunity cost of going to college is still quite high because the alternative is working in a regular paying job for a lot of young people. And so none of those things are going to go away. College is still going to be a financial stretch for a lot of people if tuition were free. But this is a way to make it easier.

Thoko Moyo : So just for the benefit of our listeners who may not be in the US and sort of have a sense of what it costs to go to a public university here, do you have sort of a sense of what the numbers are?

David Deming : Sure. So for a two year college, sometimes called community college tuition is very low. Something like, oh I can't get the numbers off the top of my head. It's somewhere between $3,000 and $4,000 per year.

Thoko Moyo : Per year.

David Deming : Yeah. And then for a public four year school, tuition is less than $10,000. I want to say it's $9,000 something. I can't remember exactly. But that's the average tuition. So when you hear ... I think one of the issues here is in the public understanding of tuition, newspaper articles are written about very high tuition schools that are a very tiny slice of where people go.

Thoko Moyo : They're usually private.

David Deming : That's right. So school like Harvard, the institution here, we're charging something like $60,000 a year for tuition. But that is by far the upper end of the distribution. Most students, particularly in public schools pay much, much less than that.

Thoko Moyo : Yeah. So let's say if we stay with a price of say 10,000 a year. Now you're saying most families don't pay the sticker price. So there are some grants that come in. So how does that work?

David Deming : That's right. Yeah, so the largest federal financial aid program's called the Pell Grant and families that are roughly in the bottom half of the US income distribution qualify for some Pell Grant funding. And that, I believe the maximum is up to something like $5,000, a bit less.

Thoko Moyo : Which could be half of what you'll pay.

David Deming : Which could be half. Yeah. For the lowest income families. And so the Pell Grant works on a sliding scale. So the lowest income families get the full amount and then it gives you less as you have a higher family income. So the issue though is that you don't ... So when students go to college, they have to apply for something called the federal application.

Thoko Moyo : FAFSA. (Note: FAFSA is an acronym for Free Application for Federal Student Aid.)

David Deming : Yeah. So families have to fill out the FAFSA before they go to college and that is a complicated arrangement. It's a very long form. It takes many hours to fill out, requires a determination, not just a family income, but also assets, extended families sometimes, things like that. And-

Thoko Moyo : That can be daunting.

David Deming : Very daunting. Yeah. Not all families are financially literate. We're talking about a first ... a bunch of first generation students who have never faced this issue before. A lot of times you have young people going to college who may not know how much their parents make, may have complicated family situations that they're being addressed for the first time in filling out the FAFSA. And so that really deters a lot of people. And then you fill it out, you send it in, and then you get a financial aid package from colleges many ... sometimes many months later that lets you know how you can attend as a function of the grants you qualify for. And then also student loans and the packages really vary quite a lot. And the terms can be complicated. And so while we do have financial aid at the federal government level, it's not really working for us to lower the price of college at the time when students are most likely making that decision, right?

Thoko Moyo : Right.

David Deming : So you sort of decide to apply, you fill out the application, you fill out the FAFSA, you find out whether or not you got in and only then do you get your financial aid package, right? Which is very different than knowing, okay, if I go to the University of Massachusetts, I'm going to pay zero tuition.

Thoko Moyo : So you're more likely to attract more people. Some of whom might've been put off just by the idea of they couldn't afford college. So I have to ask you this. The idea of free tuition was tried in some places elsewhere in the world. So for instance, in the UK they used to have free tuition. But over the past decade or maybe the past 15 years, they've moved to actually charging tuition. So that seems a little different from the sort of direction that you're proposing. Why would that be?

David Deming : Yeah, so I think it's important to consider the context for something like this, and part of what's happening not just in the UK but in other countries, is that more and more people are going to ... choosing to go to college, right? And so that puts a lot of financial strain on the system. More people coming, you have to hire more faculty, you have to expand buildings, and it's expensive. And so there's kind of two parts of any calculation with free college. One is what is the price you're paying? The other one is what are you getting for the money? Right? And so in the UK and increasingly in the US as well, what we have is more and more people go to college, but the public investment in higher ed, that is dollars going directly to universities to support the educational mission are not increasing in a way that keeps pace with the increasing demand for slots.

Thoko Moyo : And this is what you talk about when you talk about quality of college?

David Deming : Yes. The quality of college, right? So a school, even a school like Harvard may charge 60 something thousand dollars a year in tuition, but is actually spending close to a hundred thousand dollars per student on the educational experience. And the difference is made up by endowment. So investments of the university's income that then goes and feeds into this experience and grants and other things, right? And so every college is actually spending a lot more money per student than it's charging. And at public schools, the subsidy rate is very high, right? So UMass might be charging 8 or $9,000 a year, but they might be spending 35 or $40,000, right?

Thoko Moyo : Per season, right.

David Deming : Yeah. And for public universities, a lot of that difference is actually made up for by direct subsidies from state governments, usually in the US. So the state of Massachusetts will give legislative appropriations, will vote to appropriate a bunch of money to the UMass system, which will then use that money to pay for the difference between the true cost of the education and what students are actually paying. And so in the UK and in the US what's happened is that subsidy, that amount, for which the public is subsidizing each individual student has gone down quite a lot. And that just puts a lot of strain on resources. And in the US what's happened is we've decided we're going to ask students themselves to cover a higher and higher share of the cost of their education.

Thoko Moyo : I see.

David Deming : Yeah. And so that's the issue faced by many countries that they're basically ... the UK is going in the opposite direction relative to what's happening in a lot of US states. But the underlying financial issue is the same, which is that we used to have a country where maybe 20 or 30% are people are going to college and now it's 40 or 50 or 60 and so who's going to pay for that?

Thoko Moyo : Right. And let's stick with that idea. Who's going to pay for that? So if we were to get to a point in the US where you get free tuition at public universities, where would that money come from? And I'm curious to hear sort of your comments about subsidies from the state going into the quality piece of college. So what's the relationship between those two numbers?

David Deming : Yeah, it's a great question. So an important piece of context for our non US listeners is that in the US, the federal government has all the money but education is regulated and created mostly at the state and local levels. And state governments, for example, the governor of Massachusetts cannot usually run a deficit. So the federal government can borrow a bunch of money and we have a large national deficit and can finance their way out of recessions and state governments can't do that, right? So usually. A lot of states have things like balanced budget amendments or laws called tax and expenditure limitations that say you can't spend more, you can't increase spending more than some percent of the tax base.

And so what that means is state governments, when there's a recession or when they have a shortfall in revenues have to cut. They can't just borrow money and wait until the good times come back. And higher education is the largest discretionary item on most states budgets. And so what that means is during bad times, higher ed budgets get cut. And state governments, I think that's a situation that's unlikely to get better anytime soon, especially because the states have other obligations like the cost of healthcare that are increasing all the time. And so what you really need I think to pay for all this increase in higher [inaudible 00:11:54] in the long run, in a way that sustainable is you need the federal government to get involved.

And so what I propose and what other people have proposed, like Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii have proposed essentially a matching grant structure where the federal government would tell states, "Listen, if you spend a dollar to increase the quality of your educational institutions, the federal government will match that with another dollar, match it with $2," or whatever the match rate could be. And that's a way for the federal government to use the power of the purse to help states increase the quality of their educational institutions, expand access to students, increase affordability while also not getting intimately involved in the details of how state governments, state universities operate.

Thoko Moyo : Right. But what's the case that you make to federal government to open up the purse strings and do the matching grants? And give me some numbers as well. I mean, what would it actually ... I know you've done some estimations of how much is currently being spent on subsidies and what it might cost to make tuition freeze. So throw some numbers in there.

David Deming : Yeah, I'll throw some numbers there for you. So in a rough calculation, it would cost about $79 billion to zero out tuition at all public, two year and four year colleges in the country. That's a big number. It's a big number. However, for context we already spend a little more than half of that subsidizing higher education only at the federal level, not considering states at all. So we spend about a third of it actually, about $27, $28 billion on tax credits for higher education.

So if you send a kid to college, you can claim it, a deduction on your taxes for the tuition expenses you pay. And the thing about that is like the FAFSA, that reimbursement comes long after the decision to enroll your kid in college. And so a bunch of people have studied this very carefully and found that essentially these tax benefits do not do anything to increase the number of people going to college. It doesn't affect people's behavior at all. It's really not a higher ed program. It's really just a redistribution program. Because it doesn't affect behavior at all. So I propose you take a ... you could end those. Now that would be painful for middle class families who are paying for college for sure.

Thoko Moyo : Because they are the ones that mostly feel the benefit of this tax credit.

David Deming : That's right. On the other hand. For those families who are sending their kids to public college, they wouldn't need to claim a credit because they would no longer be paying tuition because they would have free tuition. Right. So that's the upside of it. The point that I made in a recent op-ed in the New York Times about free college, it was not that it would be easy to do, but that actually that 79 billion is a lot less than you think compared to what we're already spending.

So we could get a long way toward just shifting the way the federal government spends money subsidizing higher education to a way that I think gets more bang for the buck, which is saying it's free or super low cost. If somebody said you can't have free but you can charge what the University of California charged a generation ago, which was something like a thousand dollars or $1,500 a semester. I think that would be fine too. I think you do get some mileage out of calling it free, but I think what families really want to know when they're making these important decisions, is that it's going to be affordable and we're not doing that now.

Thoko Moyo : Yeah. They want to know early and upfront.

David Deming : That's right. That's right. And I think we're leaving a lot of value on the table in terms of actually affecting behavior, getting a lot of families to take the plunge and say, "Yes, my child's going to go to college. I'm going to set aside some money to help them pay for living expenses because I know tuition is free or whatever." I think it's a lot of families who are just worried they can't afford that. Even if it turns out once they get the FAFSA back, they can. I think a lot of them aren't going because they just don't know.

Thoko Moyo : Right. So we'll come back to the numbers. What you're saying is that it probably won't cost that much more extra to be able to roll out free college tuition across public universities-

David Deming : Public universities.

Thoko Moyo : In the US.

David Deming : Yeah. I mean to be clear, that 79 billion assumes that nobody else goes ... that is the static cost of sending everybody who currently goes to college for free. But if the program works in the way that I'm describing more people will go. And it will be more expensive. So I don't mean to suggest that hey, everyone gets free college. No big deal. But I think if you compare the cost of zeroing out tuition to a lot of other things, like for example, debt forgiveness, which is something that both Senator Warren and Senator Sanders have proposed, that's actually a lot more expensive than subsidizing free college. Because what you're doing is you're paying off some very high dollar loans for people who are going to graduate school and things like that. The bottom line is that tuition expenses at public schools are just not that high. There are other costs, tuition expenses at fancy private schools are very high. But that's not what we're talking about.

Thoko Moyo : So remind me again, so what, when people argue against the idea of free college, what are the main arguments, what are the main concerns?

David Deming : Yeah, I think there are some understandable concerns. I think there's an idea that if you make it free, people won't value it as highly. There's an argument that we can't afford it. And I think while each of those has some merit, ultimately they don't pass muster from me just by comparison to other things that we're already doing. So for example, I can imagine people making this, we can't afford it, and people won't value it highly enough, and not everyone is college material type arguments. A hundred years ago when we expanded to universal high school in this country. So a hundred years ago, the high school graduation rate was 20 something percent. And yet what happened was local, small high school started all across the country that people were paying tuition for in small towns all across the US because people needed to get basic literacy and numeracy education to work in factories during kind of the dawn of the industrial revolution in this country.

And what happened was these local communities saw that there was a lot of demand for this education. And eventually communities started to finance it on their own. That is rather than having a situation where yeah, you might have some subsidy and lower income families get it and you just say, "Look, listen, if everyone needs this, what we're going to do instead, it's more efficient for us to tax everybody and then publicly provide K through 12 education all the way up to high school." And that's eventually what happened, right? And so now our high school graduation rate is over 90%.

Thoko Moyo : But does everyone need go to college?

David Deming : Not today, but eventually I think so, yes, I do. I think in the very long run where we're headed is a world where just like we think of high school as being a prerequisite for having a good paying job, we're getting there with college. Now, will it take a hundred years or 50 years or 20 years? I don't know. I mean, I could guess, but I think that there's no reason, there's no law of nature, okay, that says that everybody should only get 12 years of education, but not 16. I think what's happening is we're living longer. Work is becoming more complex, the knowledge frontier is continuing to push outward. And so it makes sense to me that eventually we would want everyone to have something like a college education.

Thoko Moyo : Okay. And by college education, I mean some people will argue that you don't need a go to college. You could learn a trade. You could think about the future of work. Maybe the sort of training around the type of skills that will be required are more important than going to get a college degree. What would your response be to that? I mean, how should people be thinking about that?

David Deming : Yeah, that's a great question. I think it's important to draw a distinction between education that is career focused or teaches you work skills, which I think is important for everyone. And then also the level of education, right? And so I think what happens, at least in the US context is we tend to put these two things together. So we say, "Well you can either go get a four year degree that is sort of bachelor's degree that gives you a general skillset that you then take and you get a white collar job, or you can go get a two year degree at a community college by the way, that has a lower graduation rate and isn't funded as well as the four year colleges and you can go work in a blue collar vocational job." And I don't think we should separate things that way.

I think all education, including education here at Harvard should be more focused on teaching people the kinds of skills they need in the modern workplace so that we should make education more, I don't want to say vocational, but more focused on skills that are relevant in today's workplace. But I also don't think we should decide that what people, what we need is kind of a education on the cheap for a class of people who are not kind of four year college material. I think that's a mistake. I think it's kind of class ... I think at some level, what we're talking about is if you're advocating for an educational model that is for other people's kids and not for your own, then I don't think it's ultimately going to work either politically. And I also ... I don't think it's right.

Thoko Moyo : Okay. So I mean I can see one of the advantages as you say, is that encouraging or getting more people to actually consider going to college. Because there's this guarantee or this sense that you can afford the tuition because there is no tuition. But part of the challenge when we think about college these days is not just the numbers of people going to college. You also have a lot of people dropping out-

David Deming : That's right.

Thoko Moyo : Before graduation. So how do you balance that?

David Deming : Yeah. That's right. So I think it is definitely a bad outcome to invest a lot of money in a college education and have high drop out rates, have students dropping out. So we need to also push on the institution side to increase the quality of the college education, and to implement a variety of strategies to help students get through and to help support-

Thoko Moyo : People drop out because the quality of education is not good.

David Deming : That is not the only reason that people drop out. But if you look across colleges in the US, even just across public colleges, let's leave the kind of Harvards out of the conversation. There's a very strong relationship between per student spending in the college and graduation rates. And part of that of course is because of differences in academic preparation of the students. And so there's going to be some students who would graduate no matter what college they went to. But I think it's a lot less than people realize. If I look around again at a place like Harvard or even a well-funded public university, what I see is a lot of what the money is going to is smaller classes, more tutoring, more counseling, basically adults around to help students who after all are still just 18 or 19 years old, navigate a new situation. Make sure they stay on top of their classes, make sure that they're doing well in terms of their mental health and they're getting ... they're adjusting to life in college.

And I think at a college that has less resources, you don't have those supports and students fall through the cracks. I went to a public school, Ohio State University, it was a good school. It worked out great for me. But I also had friends who I thought could have graduated if people had paid a lot more attention to them. Kind of slipped through the cracks because when you're in a 500 person lecture, nobody knows if you miss two weeks of class.

Thoko Moyo : Yeah. So you don't identify the kids.

David Deming : And it's not about aptitude. It's not about aptitude for everybody. It's also about are you allowed to make a mistake? Are you in a situation where you can be supported? And I think that's what, when you have a college that spends a lot of money, that's often what they're spending the money on is supports for students to help them get through. And there's a lot of good research evidence suggesting those supports really boost graduation rates. And so I think one answer to the dropout problem is just to spend more money on the quality of the college experience. And I'm not just talking about faculty, I'm mostly talking about supports for students. Although I think smaller classes, more contact with faculty is a big component of that.

Thoko Moyo : So let's come back to this. So free tuition and more spent on the quality of education would be the sort of-

David Deming : Yeah, so I mean I'm an education economist. Okay. So I think we should spend more money on my pet issue. There's no question about that. Okay. But I also think if you look across the body of social science evidence, and my students have heard me talk about this ad nauseum. I think there are very few findings that are more robust and have been found in more contexts and in more different ways than the fact that there's a high return to education. Education pays. If we spend money on increasing the quality of education, if we have some kind of policy that gets more people into school. They do well, they earn more money, they're happier, they live longer, they're more likely to get married, they have children in wedlock instead of out of wedlock. They pay more in tax revenue.

It's an investment in our future. And I think one that we sorely need to be making, we're not making enough. And so yeah, I mean I'm an advocate for spending more money on education. I also happen to think that higher ed is a very, very important source of inequality in the US today. Especially even compared to K through 12 education. And so I do. I think we need to spend more money both on the price side, that is subsidizing the tuition so it gets lower to attract people in. But then once they get in, it's also about improving the quality of the experience so that people can get through and graduate.

Thoko Moyo : Is there anywhere in the world that you've seen that has had success in doing this?

David Deming : Well, it's interesting you asked that. I mean a generation ago, the US was a world leader in tertiary education and now that's no longer true. So I think actually a lot of places have not figured out ...

Thoko Moyo : Asia perhaps, or?

David Deming : Sorry.

Thoko Moyo : In Asia or [crosstalk 00:24:13].

David Deming : Yes. Asia. Countries in East Asia have had some of the largest increases in postsecondary education over a generation. Places like South Korea and China. And I do think those are places that are economically thriving, that are on an upward trajectory. And I mean there are a lot of differences between those places and the US over this generation. But a big one is investments in education for sure.

Thoko Moyo : Wonderful. Well, thank you very much for your time. This was really informational and educational for me. It was wonderful to have you here. Thanks so much.

David Deming : My pleasure. Thank you for having me.

More from PolicyCast

Fixing ourselves is hard, high-stakes negotiation and authentic leadership, navigating the robot car revolution.

7 Reasons Why Education Should Be Free

Besides being the cornerstone of success in a society, many barely understand why education should be free. This blog post covers that and more. 

Education is the only mechanism available to you that allows you to shape your life. It is the most powerful weapon you can take up in the fight against ignorance. Unfortunately, it is mostly used as a tool for economic gain. 

The rise in the cost of education is one of the biggest problems to hit our world today. The rising costs make it even harder if you have limited means to get educated and compete with those who can afford it. 

This post views reasons why education should be free, and how it helps develop society while improving your standard of living. 

What is Free Education?

Free education is  education without economic cost , tuition, fees, or other products. You could also define it as one controlled or completely funded by the state, free of charge, or free to all students.

Over the past decade, small but devoted groups of people have worked together to make education accessible to everyone. After all, education should be free because it helps you develop your abilities and take part more in society.

Also, free education means expanded access to education by everyone. So, instead of education being available to certain people based on social status, it expands to everyone to ensure that they can attend for free.

Free schooling should always be available to everyone, not fee-based as with most universities and colleges.

What are the Importance of Free Education?

The idea of free education is growing around the world as more and more people realize the importance of free schooling. Some countries provide free education for their citizens, but it is not as common as it should be.

However, free education helps create a better and more productive future for people around the globe. Also, it provides you with the knowledge needed to succeed and allows you to take on challenges with confidence.

1. Education Empowers People to Be Agents of Change

Education empowers us to be agents of change. It is the only sustainable force for global progress and social justice. It should be free because it is also a human right that goes beyond school.

Quality education also extends to you learning beyond the classroom through life experiences.

Also, education is important to create real, sustainable change in the world. It equips you with knowledge and building capacity for marginalized or oppressed individuals. Access to free education can also make positive changes toward a more fair world.

2. It Will Stop the Brain Drain

Brain drain is the migration of skilled workers from one region to another in search of quality life and better standards of living. This includes better education, higher salaries, better healthcare, access to state-of-the-art technology, and better security.

More educated people will stop the brain drain. The human capital theory describes how knowledge is always of value to everyone. This means that if you have acquired knowledge, you hold more value than an ordinary person. 

Hence, access to free education leads to an increase in skilled workers available in your country. A country with more skilled workers will not suffer from brain drain when some move in search of greener pastures. 

3. It Increases the Choices Available to Learners

Free education increases the choices available to learners and reduces the barriers we currently face. The goal of education should be to free us from a controlled and scheduled curriculum and not to limit or define our thinking and creativity.

4. Education Is a Basic Human Right

Education being a human right is a statement confirming that it should be available to all without restriction due to financial, cultural, linguistic, or gender disparities. 

Also, education is a basic right because it is a form of human capital that facilitates capacity building and opportunities in life. It also allows you to live a fulfilling and productive life.

In modern times, uses of this right may include public literacy programs, public libraries, open universities, and free Internet resources .

What are the Benefits of Free Education?

Education should be free and accessible for every individual.

There’s no better way to have the tools and skills needed to succeed in today’s ever-changing world than through higher education. If the government doesn’t invest in human capital, we will end up with a workforce lacking vital job skills.

Also, an under-educated population will bring down the economy. While educational platforms like Coursera and Udemy help by offering free courses to people, more can be done to make it a reality.

Below are some reasons why access to free education is crucial.

1. Access to Free Education Increases Your Opportunities

By removing the financial barrier to education, everyone can enjoy all the gifts and benefits education can offer. Free education will break the poverty cycle and give people the power to get out of poverty. 

2. It Reduces Inequality

Education should be for everyone, despite your financial position. After all, education contributes to success and equality and increases your chances of prospering in a nation.  

Through free education, you will get the same amount of knowledge as others with higher societal standards. You also won’t have to live with such a big gap between you and those who attend expensive institutions.

3. Free Education Leads to Lower Crime Rates 

The argument that a more educated society has fewer crimes is one of the most popular arguments for free public education.

Studying improves human behavior and reduces government costs on law enforcement. This also means lesser costs on damage repairs caused by criminals.

Also, two-thirds of juvenile crimes are from people who lack a high school diploma or proper education. 

4. Free Education Helps Develop the Economy

Education allows a country to grow economically as it becomes more educated. Education equips you with the skills to work in the job market, from entry-level jobs to higher-paying jobs.

The more skilled labor that exists in a country, the more economic growth that country experiences.

5. Free Education Attracts Tourists 

If education is free in a country, that country records a rise in tourists coming to enjoy the top-notch education system. This in turn leads to diversity and economic growth.

6. It Helps Prevent Conflict 

While education is the key to any nation’s success, the lack of access to education leads to ignorance and the rise of conflicts.

Yet, when proper education is free and available for all, we can better handle social and political problems. It also helps us live together peacefully.

7. Free Education Means More Better-Educated Employees 

Education promotes critical thinking, creative development, public speaking, and resourcefulness. 

These skills help businesses to thrive and develop. So not only does free education create informed workers, but it also creates a higher level of understanding among you and your colleagues. 

Businesses benefit by hiring educated staff who are smarter and more productive than uneducated ones. 

What Are the Challenges Facing Free Education?

Challenges facing the actualization of free learning include inadequate facilities, systematic corruption, and insufficient funding.

Also, inadequate support from the community, negligence from the government, and a high level of insecurity contribute to the challenges faced. 

Free education finance is a long-term problem for governments worldwide. These challenges make it difficult for most countries to effect free schooling in the system, as their attention is usually diverted.

Corruption within the system and among the politicians in power also makes the implementation of free education a hard task to perform.

Ways to tackle the challenges facing free education include:

• Combating corruption in the system.
• By preventing acts of terrorism and insecurity that cause damage to infrastructure.
• Allocating more funds to the education sector.
• By helping communities provide more support to combat illiteracy in society.

Examples of Countries with Free Education Systems 

Ideally, the education system should be fair. The rich should not live a better life through education simply because they can afford it.

There are several countries where you can find free higher education such as:

How does education improve your life?

Education helps you by building your knowledge, improving your abilities, and getting you a good job. It also helps in making a decent living and in bringing an overall improvement in your lifestyle. 

Why is education so expensive?

One key reason is educational bureaucracy.

Modern education models are set up to be extremely bureaucratic with different entities controlling various aspects of education. This can stifle innovation and give rise to corruption at all levels of the ecosystem. 

How does the high cost of education affect your standard of living?

It becomes harder for you to have a complete education when schools charge higher fees. While this might not affect people of higher social status, it affects the common man.

As a result, you may have to take out student loans or work many jobs to pay for your education.

What is the greatest advantage of free education?

The greatest advantage of free education is that it is available to all who need it.

A lot of us are not given the chance to receive higher education due to its high cost. However, if education is available to everyone, everyone would have a shot at getting a good job that pays well. 

Also, as a business owner who is better educated, you make wiser decisions for yourself and your employees.

Your employees will also be more informed about the way they work because of their ability to understand. This means that you and your staff can improve the business, maximize profits, and help people.

Does lack of access to free education lead to poverty?

Yes, the lack of affordable or free education leads to poverty for the majority.

Education is perhaps the cornerstone for both children and adults of the future. Because most parents do not have that much money to pay for their child’s education, a college education is often neglected.

Furthermore, as a result of this inability to afford an education, a good job is out of reach leading to poverty. This is a circumstance that no one deserves.

A lack of proper education means limitations to most high-paying jobs. It also means more turn to a life of crime in other to get a better life.

Education is a powerful and important tool for shaping the world. It empowers you and sets you free, allowing you to do anything you want to do in life.

Unfortunately, education is not currently free in most countries but is a business. And like all businesses, education serves to make money.

Effective education should not be a luxury for the rich, it is a necessity in any society, in any culture, and in any country. Also, education isn’t just a workplace skill—it’s an economic and societal driver. It breeds success and helps families succeed. 

Additionally, education leads to new careers, higher wages, a secure society, innovation, tolerance, better healthcare, improved law enforcement, and much more. 

Finally, free education should not be a charity, but rather an investment in human capital. I believe this will lead to economic growth and societal development.

You should also read more about why education is important to society . You will be convinced of the benefits of free learning if you read this.

I hope you found this post helpful. Thanks for reading. 

You may also like:

• Top 11 Reasons Why Education Is Important to Society
• 10 Major Purposes of Education
• What Is Life Skills Education: Importance, Challenges, & Categories
• Benefits Of Education: Why Education Is Important
• A Guide to Liberal Education

People Also Read:

Why Do Waiters Get Paid So Little [+ How To Make More Money]

Navigating Workplace Norms: Can You Email A Resignation Letter?

Difference Between Roles And Responsibilities

Does Suspension Mean Termination?

Moral Claim: Definition, Significance, Contemporary Issues, & Challenges

Why Can’t You Flush The Toilet After A Drug Test?

This school choice ‘evangelist’ is leading a revolution that's changing American education

Parents could see what was happening with their children's education during the covid pandemic, and they didn’t like it. study after study confirms how devastating virtual 'learning' was for kids..

I didn’t think it was possible for anyone to be more despised by the teachers unions than Betsy DeVos , the former Education secretary and billionaire Republican donor who has devoted decades to promoting school choice.

Yet, it seems Corey DeAngelis has taken on that mantle. And he’s loving it. 

DeAngelis bears the label “ school choice evangelist ” with pride, and in the past few years he has quickly risen as one of the most prominent voices in the education freedom realm. In many ways, he’s become the face of the sharp rise in private school choice that’s spread across the country since 2020. 

The senior fellow at the American Federation for Children and visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution has written a book documenting this trend. “ The Parent Revolution: Rescuing Your Kids from the Radicals Ruining Our Schools ” hit the bookshelves this week. 

The dedication sets the tone for DeAngelis’ book: 

" To Randi Weingarten and the teachers unions . You’re doing more to advance freedom in education than anyone could have ever imagined. Thank you for overplaying your hand, showing your true colors, and sparking the Parent Revolution. America is beyond grateful."

Sarcastic? Sure. 

It’s also true. 

A bright side to COVID pandemic: Parents got fed up

DeAngelis credits Weingarten with the school choice explosion because of the COVID-19 school closures that teachers unions forced far beyond what was necessary . 

Parents could see what was happening to their children, and they didn’t like it. Study after study confirms how devastating virtual “learning” was for kids . 

“It was nonstop fearmongering making themselves (unions) look pathetic,” DeAngelis told me this week. “But when they overplayed their hand, what they were really trying to do in pushing to keep the schools closed was to hold children's education hostage as long as possible to extract as many resources from the taxpayer as possible.”

DeSantis is more than anti-'woke.' He just delivered universal school choice to Florida.

In the short run, the unions’ strategy proved effective. Schools got $190 billion in so-called emergency COVID-19 relief , while many remained shuttered to in-person learning.  

“Their plan quickly backfired in a spectacular fashion because through remote learning, which we really should just call it remotely learning because there wasn't a lot of learning going on, families got to see what was happening in the classroom, and parents who thought their kids were in good public schools based on their test scores started to see another dimension of school quality,” DeAngelis said.

They also saw what kids were being taught about race and gender. And many families didn’t think these lessons meshed with their values.

Thus, the beginning of the parent revolution. 

Can this school choice revolution last? 

School choice advocates like DeAngelis seized the frustration that parents felt as an opportunity for substantial change. 

It worked. 

DeAngelis has traveled to states across the nation, working with governors and legislatures to pass expansive choice laws. And organizations like the American Federation for Children helped fund candidates with a strong stance on education freedom.   

'There's going to be a real backlash': Biden's new Title IX rules bring back 'kangaroo courts.' They will hurt, not help, women.

Since 2021, 10 states (eight last year alone) have passed universal or near-universal school choice programs that include private schools – something that didn’t exist on such a broad basis before the pandemic. Those include large states such as Florida and Ohio. 

More than 20 states expanded their choice options in other ways . 

While the major wins have been in red states, DeAngelis hopes that more Democrats will join the movement. As more states offer families more choices for their children's education, it will put pressure on blue states to do the same. 

As a longtime proponent of school choice, I’ve been thrilled to see these developments in recent years. But is it really a sustainable revolution?

DeAngelis believes it is, although teachers unions will try their darnedest to quell this competition, which they hate.

“Parents are never going to unsee what they saw in 2020,” he said. “So this mobilization is going to continue going forward because parents care about their kids more than anybody else, and it’s becoming such a political winner to support parental rights in education.”

Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at [email protected] or on X, formerly Twitter: @ Ingrid_Jacques

Who are Brockton school board members locked in power struggle? What does each side want?

BROCKTON — The power struggle for the Brockton School Committee vice-chair position continued Tuesday, as the committee’s eight members deadlocked 4-4 again for a fourth straight meeting, halting some business for the school district.

Each faction — the four members who support incumbent Vice Chair Kathy Ehlers and the other four who support nominee Tony Rodrigues — held strongly onto their vote for an eighth election at a roughly 10-minute special meeting on Jan 23.

The special meeting, where the only prominent agenda item was the vice chair election, was adjourned just nine minutes after it started, with two short rounds of voting taking place both 4-4 ties.

Recipe for stalemate: Why deadlocked Brockton school board has even number of members

Who voted for which candidate?

The following four School Committee members voted for Ehlers: Mayor Robert Sullivan — who automatically sits on the School Committee and serves as chair by virtue of being mayor — Timothy Sullivan, Judy Sullivan and Ehlers.

The following four School Committee members voted for Rodrigues: Joyce Asack, Ana Oliver, Claudio Gomes and Rodrigues himself.

What about suggestion to have 2 vice chairs?

School district attorney Sarah Spatafore said at the Jan. 23 meeting that having two vice chairs is not an option. The city's laws state that one person must be elected to the position, according to Brockton's charter.

Broken drink machine, smoking cannabis Groups of Brockton students can stress restaurants

Who is Kathy Ehlers?

Ward 1 committee member Kathy Ehlers served as vice chair throughout 2023 — a pivotal year for the school district as it was faced with the discovery of a nearly $20 million deficit, dropping enrollment and safety and discipline concerns and general chaos.

In her career, Ehlers works as the vice president of enrollment management, financial services and marketing at Urban College of Boston and has a master's in education from Southern New Hampshire University, according to her LinkedIn profile .

"We have been through a rough, rough year," said School Committee member Tim Sullivan. "I think Kathy Ehlers has held us together quite well over this past year and looks forward to doing it again in 2024."

In her third year on the board, Ehlers was reelected to her seat on the School Committee, running unopposed, in November. She joined the committee after running unopposed in 2021.

In January 2023, Ehlers was elected as committee vice chair after two tied 4-4 votes at last year’s organizational meeting. Former member Jared Homer, in the third round of voting last year, switched his vote from then-incumbent Joyce Asack to Ehlers.

“Kathy is there for all the members and that's what is really needed,” Judy Sullivan said at the Jan. 3 meeting. “I thank you Kathy for everything that you've done as you've done a lot, and I thank you. And I really stand by you for everything that you've done.”

Brockton High principal: Kevin McCaskill named new BHS principal as district faces turmoil

Who is Tony Rodrigues?

Rodrigues, who works as a corrections officer in Brockton, joined the committee in 2019. He attended Massasoit Community College and is a Brockton Public Schools parent.

Several community members said they see Rodrigues at many BPS events throughout the year, most recently Brockton High’s National Honor’s Society induction on Jan. 22.

“What Tony has done for us at South has been tremendous,” said Jim Stapleton, a teacher at South Middle School, at the Jan. 3 meeting. “He is, to me, the epitome, of a [School Committee member].”

While some community members spoke at the meeting in support of Rodrigues, some expressed concerns over his becoming the vice chair. Cynthia Hodges, a Brockton resident and mother of former school committee candidate Jamie Hodges, said that he doesn’t “support me as an African American woman” and that he can’t agree with his fellow committee members.

But committee member Joyce Asack, who previously served as vice chair and said the role requires “a lot of work,” said she thinks the committee should switch up the chair.

“We need transparency and we need leadership,” she said at a Jan. 9 meeting. “I nominated Mr. Rodrigues. I like Tony, I might not agree with everything he says, we do butt heads at times, but he knows our policies, he knows our procedures.”

What does vice chair do?

The vice chair’s responsibilities — a point of debate for the board — are succinctly described in the committee’s policy and the state’s charter: they primarily take over tasks delegated to them by the chair, who in Brockton's case, is always the mayor.

While their role is vague, the vice chair works closely with the mayor and the Brockton Public Schools superintendent and runs committee meetings in the chair’s absence.

The vice chair carries the same voting power as all other members of the board.

Repeat of last year’s vice chair deadlock

The 2023 vice chair election witnessed two stalemates before Ehlers was elected — an unusual event for the committee despite an even number of voters. The election between Asack and Ehlers ended in a 4-4 tie twice a year ago.

The same bloc of members — Mayor Robert Sullivan, Ehlers, Judy Sullivan and Tim Sullivan — who voted for Ehlers last year have voted for her again this year.

Meanwhile, Asack and Rodrigues continue to vote against Ehlers, both voting for Asack in 2023 and Rodrigues in 2024. The two new members — Ana Oliver and Claudio Gomes — voted for Rodrigues, replacing former members Homer's and Cynthia Rivas Mendes' votes for Asack the previous year.

Should vice chair be a new person each year?

"I've been on for nine years and, you know, I think it should be a different person every year," Judy Sullivan said at the 2023 vice chair election meeting on Jan. 3, 2023 — despite the fact she now supports the incumbent this time around.

The mayor agreed at that 2023 meeting that the school committee should consider switching out the vice chair every year, similar to how the Brockton City Council does at its yearly organizational meeting.

“Last year at this time, what I said was I believe as a former city councilor it's good to change every year,” the mayor said at the Jan. 3, 2024, meeting. “In a normal year it's good. This isn't a normal year, ladies and gentlemen. We have a multi-million-dollar deficit we have to deal with.”

Blog The Education Hub

https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/05/13/before-and-after-school-childcare-what-is-wraparound-childcare/

Wraparound childcare: Everything you need to know about before and after school childcare

We’re supporting working families through the UK government’s biggest ever investment in childcare, to make it more affordable, available and flexible.

As part of this announcement, we’re expanding wraparound care for primary school children across England by increasing the number of places available, to support working families.

But what exactly is wraparound childcare? We explain everything you need to know, from what it is to how you can access it.

What is wraparound childcare?

Wraparound childcare is before and after school care for primary school aged children in England during term time, such as  and regular afterschool provision that runs until 6pm or later.

The childcare should be available every school day outside of regular  school  hours and is aimed at helping parents access more  childcare  and work the hours they want to.

This is different from out-of-school activities, or school clubs, which are less frequent and can be a one-off activity.

Around 60 percent of primary schools across England offer wraparound childcare, both before and after school.

Private, voluntary, and independent providers, including childminders and early years settings, are also able to offer wraparound childcare. Often, it’s run on a school site or another setting in the local area.

How do I find wraparound childcare near me?

Parents looking for  childcare options  for their primary school child should speak to their child’s school or the Family Information Service run by their local authority to find out what wraparound childcare is currently available in the area.

From September 2024, parents can expect to see an increase in the number of wraparound childcare places available across the country.

We expect all parents who need it to have access to wraparound childcare, either from their school or from another provider in their local area, by September 2026.

We encourage parents to talk to their child’s school or the Family Information Service in their local authority about their need for wraparound childcare, even if it’s not currently available.

Who will be eligible for wraparound childcare?

Our ambition is that all parents in England with primary school aged children will be able to access wraparound care in their local area by September 2026.

How much will it cost and is financial support available ?

Providers will set their own fees for wraparound places, so prices will vary.

Parents will pay their wraparound childcare provider directly for their child’s place.

Parents eligible for  Tax-Free Childcare  or  Universal Credit Childcare  will be able to use the support to help pay for wraparound care.

Tax-Free Childcare could save eligible parents up to £2,000 per year for children aged up to 11, or £4,000 per year for children aged up to 17 with disabilities.

Universal Credit Childcare could save eligible parents up to 85% of their childcare costs for children aged up to 16.

To check if you are eligible for Tax-Free Childcare or Universal Credit Childcare, visit the Childcare Choices website.

What if wraparound childcare is not available in my area ?

If you live in England you can request that your child’s school consider setting up wraparound childcare for your child if they don’t already provide it.

You should write to your child’s school by letter or e-mail and include when you most need wraparound childcare, detailing the days and times you need it. The school will get back to you with a decision within a school-term.

How are we supporting local authorities to deliver the wraparound childcare expansion?

To make more available wraparound care possible, local authorities will receive a share of £289 million to help map out and accommodate the needs of parents in their area.

They will also be able to use the funds to test different ways to increase their wraparound options, including working with local private providers or partnering with schools.

We’re also giving local authorities a share of a further £100 million to ensure childcare settings in the area – including both early years and wraparound settings – have enough physical space to roll out the programme from next year.

What else are we doing to improve access to childcare for under 5s for working parents ?

We’re doubling the amount we are investing in childcare over the next few years from around £4 billion to around £8 billion each year.

As part of this investment, by September 2025, working parents will be able to claim 30 hours childcare a week, over 38 weeks of the year, all the way through from nine months up to their child starting school.

Nurseries are also set to receive a £204 million cash boost which they can use to ease cost pressures such as staffing costs, training and bills.

You can read more about how we’re investing in childcare in England on the Education Hub .

You may also be interested in:

• Thousands of parents of two-year-olds benefit from 15 hours free childcare - here's how
• Free childcare: How we are tackling the cost of childcare
• How to apply for 30 hours free childcare and find out if you’re eligible

Tags: After school childcare , Before school childcare , Breakfast Clubs , Childcare , What is wraparound care , What is wraparound childcare , Wraparound care , wraparound childcare

Sharing and comments

Share this page, related content and links, about the education hub.

The Education Hub is a site for parents, pupils, education professionals and the media that captures all you need to know about the education system. You’ll find accessible, straightforward information on popular topics, Q&As, interviews, case studies, and more.

Please note that for media enquiries, journalists should call our central Newsdesk on 020 7783 8300. This media-only line operates from Monday to Friday, 8am to 7pm. Outside of these hours the number will divert to the duty media officer.

Members of the public should call our general enquiries line on 0370 000 2288.

Sign up and manage updates

Follow us on social media, search by date, comments and moderation policy.

Harrison Butker’s commencement speech: Wives should stay at home. His mom’s a medical physicist

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

Harrison Butker is a three-time Super Bowl champion and one of the most accurate field-goal kickers in NFL history.

As such, the Kansas City Chiefs kicker was given a platform to express his views as the commencement speaker at Benedictine College .

The devout Christian used the opportunity to give some radical thoughts and controversial opinions during a 20-minute speech delivered at the ceremony honoring the 485 students graduating from the Catholic private liberal arts school in Atchison, Kan., on Saturday.

Butker took shots at gender roles, abortion, President Biden and Pride month during his Benedictine address. Now the NFL appears to be distancing itself from the 28-year-old.

“Harrison Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity,” Jonathan Beane, NFL senior vice president and chief diversity and inclusion officer, said in a statement emailed to The Times. “His views are not those of the NFL as an organization. The NFL is steadfast in our commitment to inclusion, which only makes our league stronger.”

Entertainment & Arts

What’s the deal with Jerry Seinfeld? His Duke University address sparks student walkout

Duke University enlisted Jerry Seinfeld to deliver its 2024 commencement speech, but a group of pro-Palestinian student protesters refused to stay for his punchline.

May 13, 2024

At Benedictine, Butker told the male graduates to “be unapologetic in your masculinity” and congratulated the female graduates on their “amazing accomplishment.” He went on to tell the women that he “would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.”

Butker then told those women that “my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. I’m on this stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation.”

Butker — whose mother, Elizabeth Keller Butker, is a medical physicist at Emory University’s Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, where she’s worked since 1988 — then started getting choked up.

“I’m beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me,” Butker said, “but it cannot be overstated that all my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.”

That statement was met with 18 seconds of enthusiastic cheers and applause. Butker continued praising his wife and her role in their family.

“She’s the primary educator to our children. She’s the one who ensures I never let football or my business become a distraction from that of a husband and a father. She is the person that knows me best at my core and it is through our marriage that, Lord willing, we both will attain salvation.”

Silenced USC valedictorian walked the stage and the crowd reaction was anything but silent

Diplomas will be handed out Friday during individual school events for graduating seniors at USC.

May 10, 2024

During his opening remarks, Butker stated that “things like abortion , in vitro fertilization , surrogacy , euthanasia, as well as a growing support for the degenerate cultural values and media, all stem from the pervasiveness of disorder.”

He also said that Biden “has been so vocal in his support for the murder of innocent babies that I’m sure to many people it appears you can be both Catholic and pro-choice.”

At one point, Butker mentioned the word “pride” — then clarified that he wasn’t talking about “the deadly sins sort of Pride that has an entire month dedicated to it, but the true God-centered pride that is cooperating with the Holy Ghost to glorify Him.”

The comment, a jab at the LGBTQ+ community that celebrates Pride month every June, received a few chuckles from the audience.

When Butker finished his address, the crowd rose for an ovation. Susannah Leisegang , a former Benedictine track and field athlete who graduated Saturday with a degree in graphic design, said she was among the handful of people who did not stand.

“Some of us did boo — me and my roommate definitely did,” Leisegang said in a video she posted on TikTok . “There was a standing ovation from everyone in the room, except from me, my roommate and about 10 to 15 other women. You also have to keep in mind this was at a Catholic and conservative college, so a lot of the men were like, ‘F— yeah!’ They were excited. But it was horrible. Most of the women were looking back and forth at each other like, ‘What the f— is going on?’”

Supreme Court to pregnant women: Good luck with that

Forget the ‘split court’ garbage. This Supreme Court is not going to protect even emergency abortions. Here’s what you need to know.

April 25, 2024

Leisegang pointed out that she is 21 and has a job lined up in her field.

“Getting married and having kids is not my ideal situation right now,” she said. “So, yeah, it was definitely horrible and it definitely made graduation feel a little less special, knowing I had to sit through that and get told I’m nothing but a homemaker.”

Other members of the graduating class who participated in the ceremony have shared a variety of opinions on Butker’s speech. Elle Wilbers, 22, a future medical school student, told the Associated Press she thought Butker’s reference to the LGBTQ+ community was “horrible.”

“We should have compassion for the people who have been told all their life that the person they love is like, it’s not OK to love that person,” she said.

Kassidy Neuner, 22, who plans to teach for a year before going to law school, told the AP that being a stay-at-home parent is “a wonderful decision” but “it’s also not for everybody.”

“I think that he should have addressed more that it’s not always an option,” she said. “And, if it is your option in life, that’s amazing for you. But there’s also the option to be a mother and a career woman.”

Company Town

Hollywood’s stunt-driving industry is dominated by men. These women are fighting for change

Olivia Summers and Dee Bryant are building a team of all-women stunt drivers to make the stunt-driving industry more inclusive.

April 10, 2024

ValerieAnne Volpe, 20, who graduated with an art degree, told the AP she thought Butker said things that “people are scared to say.”

“You can just hear that he loves his wife,” Volpe said. “You can hear that he loves his family,” she said.

Butker has not commented publicly since the address. His previous social media posts are being used by people leaving comments both blasting and supporting his remarks. Heavy.com reports that all images of Isabelle Butker have been removed from her husband’s X and Instagram feeds in recent days.

Benedictine has not publicly addressed Butker’s controversial statements and did not immediately respond to multiple messages from The Times. The college’s social media feeds have been flooded with angry comments regarding Butker’s speech, and the comment section for the YouTube video of it has been disabled.

An article on Benedictine’s website about the commencement ceremony had initially referred to Butker’s speech as “inspiring.” The uncredited piece includes a reworked version of Butker’s “homemaker” quote that does not include that word, with no indication that the quote had been altered.

California high school football team refuses to play against girls, even after settling Title IX lawsuit

Despite settling a Title IX lawsuit, Santa Maria Valley Christian Academy again didn’t allow its high school football team to play against an opponent with female players.

Oct. 5, 2023

The Chiefs did not respond to a request for comment from The Times. Tavia Hunt, wife of Chiefs owner Clark Hunt , appeared to express her support for Butker in a lengthy Instagram post Thursday.

“Countless highly educated women devote their lives to nurturing and guiding their children,” she wrote. “Someone disagreeing with you doesn’t make them hateful; it simply means they have a different opinion. Let’s celebrate families, motherhood and fatherhood.”

Gracie Hunt, 25, one of Clark and Tavia Hunt’s three children was asked about Butker’s speech Friday on “ Fox & Friends .”

“I can only speak from my own experience, which is I had the most incredible mom who had the ability to stay home and be with us as kids growing up,” Gracie Hunt said. “And I understand that there are many women out there who can’t make that decision but for me in my life, I know it was really formative in shaping me and my siblings to be who we are.”

Asked if she understood what Butker was talking about, Hunt said, “For sure, and I really respect Harrison and his Christian faith and what he’s accomplished on and off the field.”

A change.org petition calling for the team to release the kicker because of his comments has received more than 185,000 signatures. Eight petitions supporting Butker appear on the site as well. One has more than 11,000 signatures while the rest have fewer than 800 each.

The Chargers poked fun at Butker on Wednesday in their schedule-release video, which is modeled after “The Sims” video game. In the video, Butker’s likeness is shown baking a pie, scrubbing a kitchen counter and arranging flowers.

should we REALLY make our schedule release video in the sims? yes yes yesyes yesyes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesyes yes yes yes yesye yes yes yes yes yesyes pic.twitter.com/MXzfAPyhe8 — Los Angeles Chargers (@chargers) May 16, 2024

The official X account for Kansas City also appeared to attempt putting a humorous spin on the matter, posting a “reminder” that Butker lives in a different city Wednesday night before deleting it and posting an apology .

Earlier in the week on X, Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas appeared to defend Butker’s right to express his views .

Grown folks have opinions, even if they play sports. I disagree with many, but I recognize our right to different views. Nobody should have to stick to anything. Varied and shall I say—diverse—viewpoints help the world go round. — Mayor Q (@QuintonLucasKC) May 14, 2024

I think he holds a minority viewpoint, even in this state and the bordering one. I also believe more athletes, if freer to speak, would stand up for the voices of many marginalized communities. I hate “stick to sports” when used to muzzle Black athletes. I’m with consistency. — Mayor Q (@QuintonLucasKC) May 14, 2024

Last year, Butker gave the commencement address at his alma mater, Georgia Tech, advising the graduates to “ get married and start a family .”

The fight to move the Catholic Church in America to the right — and the little-known O.C. lawyer behind it

As Pope Francis nudges the Roman Catholic Church to the left globally, layman Tim Busch of Irvine is pushing American Catholicism to the right.

Dec. 18, 2023

More to Read

Granderson: A football player said something stupid about women. Let it go

May 17, 2024

Biden’s Morehouse College graduation invitation draws backlash

April 24, 2024

L.A. Affairs: I went to USC. He went to UCLA. Could I fight on in the name of love?

April 12, 2024

Get our high school sports newsletter

Prep Rally is devoted to the SoCal high school sports experience, bringing you scores, stories and a behind-the-scenes look at what makes prep sports so popular.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Chuck Schilken is a sports reporter on the Fast Break team. He spent more than 18 years with the Los Angeles Times’ Sports Department in a variety of roles. Before joining The Times, he worked for more than a decade as a sports reporter and editor at newspapers in Virginia and Maryland.

More From the Los Angeles Times

In final round of gig drivers’ fight over Prop. 22, California Supreme Court to decide if it stays

Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis launches Democratic PAC to mobilize voters on abortion rights

California bill aims to end school gender notification policies — and protect teachers

Like Caitlin Clark, LeBron James started pro career 0-4. Lakers star hopes ‘she kills’ in WNBA

• Share full article

How Free School Meals Went Mainstream

Over the past decade, many more schools started to offer free meals to all children, regardless of family income.

More than 21 million American children now attend schools that offer free meals regardless of family income — a tenfold increase from 2010. Credit... Will Warasila for The New York Times

Supported by

By Susan Shain

• May 21, 2024

Kurt Marthaller, who oversees school food programs in Butte, Mont., faces many cafeteria-related challenges: children skipping the lunch line because they fear being judged, parents fuming about surprise bills they can’t afford, unpaid meal debts of $70,000 districtwide.

But at nearly half of Mr. Marthaller’s schools, these concerns have vanished. At those schools, all students get free breakfast and lunch, regardless of their family’s income. At one school, West Elementary, children grab milk cartons, cereal bars and bananas from folding tables on their way to class, with almost 80 percent of students eating breakfast there each school day.

“We’ve done a lot of good things to feed kids here in Butte,” Mr. Marthaller said. But introducing universal free meals, he added, was “probably the best thing we ever did.”

Advocates for free school meals have pushed for them to be offered to every student for a long time, but saw significant progress in the last decade and a half. Their first big win came quietly, in 2010, when Congress passed an under-the-radar policy called the community eligibility provision , which made it easier for schools to serve free meals to all. Then, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the federal government let every public school student eat for free, rapidly transforming the nation’s thinking around school meals.

Eight states have passed their own universal free meal legislation since the federal largesse ended in 2022. Dozens more have introduced similar bills or have one in the works. A surge of additional schools — nearly 7,000 — have signed up for the community eligibility program that West Elementary participates in: As of the 2022-23 school year, roughly four in 10 public schools were enrolled.

In total, more than 21 million American children now attend schools that offer free meals to all — a tenfold increase from 2010. “Schools did not want to go back to charging some kids,” said Crystal FitzSimons, the director of child nutrition programs and policy at the nonprofit Food Research and Action Center. “They saw the huge benefits of providing free meals to all students: supporting families, supporting kids, changing the culture of the cafeteria.”

A tale of two lunches

From above, Butte looks as if it were carved out of a mountain range with an ice cream scoop. Once known as “ the richest hill on Earth ” for its copper mines, Butte was one of the largest cities west of the Mississippi in its heyday. Today it has approximately 35,000 residents, many of whom have been there for generations.

Amber Moore lives on the east side of town, in a blue house with a view of Our Lady of the Rockies, a 90-foot-tall mountaintop statue of the Virgin Mary. A stay-at-home mom, she lives with her husband, Jake, a telecommunications technician, and their five children, four cats and two dogs.

The Moores’ house is zoned for Whittier Elementary School, which, unlike West, does not participate in community eligibility and does not have universal free meals. So five nights a week, Ms. Moore clears off a patch of her kitchen counter and sets out five lunchboxes. In goes the SunnyD, the cheese stick, the ham-and-cheese sandwich, the Lay’s, the clementine and the fruit snacks. Ms. Moore uses three loaves of bread each week just on lunches. Add breakfast to the equation and she spends about $250 per month on the two meals.

“That’s like a power bill,” she said. “It’s not a small amount.” That bill was eliminated during the pandemic. For those two years, Ms. Moore’s children ate breakfast and lunch at school every day. Then, like the majority of schools around the country, Whittier returned to charging for meals in August 2022. And Ms. Moore returned to packing lunches.

Though low-income students at all American public schools technically qualify for free and reduced-price meals, one-third of eligible students do not participate, according to a Food Research and Action Center estimate. One reason is stigma: Because the school-provided meal, often called “hot lunch,” has long been viewed as a form of welfare , eating it can be a painful marker of poverty.

Parents may also fail to complete the requisite paperwork because they have volatile incomes, face language barriers or are embarrassed about their finances. (As Mr. Marthaller put it, “I think it’s a pride thing.”) Others may be struggling but ineligible: To receive free or reduced-price meals, a family of four must earn less than $55,500 per year . When meals are free to all, advocates say, these obstacles are eliminated.

The Moores don’t qualify for reduced-price meals: Mr. Moore’s income puts them over the limit by $465 a month. “It’s one of those frustrating things,” Ms. Moore said. “I’m sure a lot of parents are in that middle area where it’s like, well, shoot.”

‘Their brains are fired up’

The push for a national school lunch program initially came during the Great Depression , when children were hungry and farmers had surpluses to sell. In the 1960s, school breakfast was added. School meals have since become the nation’s second-largest food safety net , after food stamps.

As childhood obesity rates soared, however, the lunch program was criticized as a contributing factor. In 2010, the first lady, Michelle Obama, who made childhood obesity a signature issue, pressed for the passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which led school cafeterias to serve more fruits, vegetables and whole grains and less salt, sugar and unhealthy fats. Policymakers also saw it as an opportunity to feed more hungry children. So, without much fanfare, they tucked the community eligibility provision, or C.E.P., inside the bill.

Under the C.E.P., offering universal free meals became less cumbersome: If 40 percent of a school or district’s students qualify for programs like food stamps or Head Start or are homeless, migrants or in foster care, it can serve free meals to everyone . It does not need to collect individual applications; it simply applies for the program and is qualified for the next four years.

Even the C.E.P.’s architects have been surprised by its impact. “I certainly did not foresee that a little more than 10 years later, 20 million kids would be enrolled in schools that were doing C.E.P.,” said Cindy Long, administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service of the Agriculture Department, who helped design the 2010 act.

The benefits of universal free meals are myriad, experts say. Most crucially, more children eat , helping to combat hunger in a country where 17 percent of households with children experience food insecurity. They also eat more healthful food . When students are well fed, they learn better: Some research suggests that schoolwide free meals can improve test scores , attendance and behavior . Such programs also help schools, by lessening paperwork, and parents, by reducing food expenses .

Like most people, Amanda Denny, a fourth-grade teacher at West Elementary, had never heard of the C.E.P. But she has seen the difference that universal school meals can make. “In my classroom, when those kids do eat breakfast, they are ready to start their day,” she said. “Their brains are fired up, and they’re ready to learn.”

Last October, the threshold to qualify for the C.E.P. was lowered , making more schools and districts eligible. The Moores’ school, Whittier, is now eligible, as are most other schools in Butte. But because of how the federal government calculates reimbursements for school meals, only schools with high populations of needy students break even using the C.E.P.; the rest usually lose money by participating . Advocates have been pushing for higher reimbursement rates so more schools can afford the program.

But in one draft federal budget, House Republicans proposed ending the C.E.P. altogether, arguing that public funds shouldn’t pay for wealthy children to eat lunch . Jonathan Butcher, an education researcher at the Heritage Foundation, believes school lunch aid has ballooned far beyond its original intent. He would like to see the provision repealed.

“They’re not just saying, ‘How can we better get food to kids that need it? They’re saying: ‘Eh, let’s not bother with the details. Let’s just give it to everybody’,” Mr. Butcher said. “That’s not being respectful to taxpayers, nor is it advancing the idea that we should improve a very wasteful school lunch program.”

Most of the states that have passed their own free school meal legislation did so with bipartisan support. To pay for the programs, California, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Vermont and Michigan tapped general revenue or education funds ; Massachusetts and Colorado raised taxes on their highest earners. (In Colorado, the program has been so popular that it is facing a $56 million funding shortfall this year.)

Ms. FitzSimons, of the Food Research and Action Center, believes food is just as integral to public education as transportation and books, which are typically offered to students at no charge. “We spend billions of dollars on funding for education,” she said. “If kids are sitting in class unable to learn because they’re hungry, because their stomachs are growling, then we’re wasting our money.”

At West Elementary, a stuffed bison head presides over the cafeteria. There is no cash register, and at lunchtime, children whiz through the line, grabbing trays of applesauce and teriyaki-doused “steakettes.” They plop down next to friends eating peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches from colorful lunchboxes.

Ryder is a third grader who wants to be a YouTuber or a police officer when he grows up (and, he said, “if that doesn’t work out, NASA”). He was shocked to learn that children at other schools have to pay for lunch. “That’s mean,” he said. His friend Louis agreed: “That is cold.”

Things were different for Kaylee Rabson, a fifth-generation Butte resident whose son attends West. “When we were younger, it was definitely very separated,” she said. “Like, if you went to hot lunch, you were kind of embarrassed.” Now, all her son’s friends eat the school lunch — at least when pizza or walking tacos (ground beef, veggies and cheese in a Doritos bag) are on the menu.

“It’s ‘I eat hot lunch because it sounds good, not because I need to.’ It really has erased the stigma,” Ms. Rabson said. “They’re just there having lunch together.”

What are your experiences with free or reduced-price lunch?

This story was published by The New York Times’s Headway team in partnership with High Country News.

The Headway initiative is funded through grants from the Ford Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF), with Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors serving as a fiscal sponsor. The Woodcock Foundation is a funder of Headway’s public square. Funders have no control over the selection or focus of stories or the editing process and do not review stories before publication. The Times retains full editorial control of the Headway initiative.

Susan Shain is a reporting fellow for Headway, a section of The Times that explores the world's challenges through the lens of progress. More about Susan Shain

Advertisement