A4 BAKER CITY HERALD • TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2022
BAKER CITY
Opinion
WRITE A LETTER
news@bakercityherald.com
Baker City, Oregon
EDITORIAL
State needs
to be held
accountable
T
hese days, it seems that whenever a state pro-
gram goes awry, leaders call for an audit. Th e
unemployment debacle that delayed payments
to thousands of laid-off workers for much of 2020?
Check. Th e months-long delay in issuing rental assis-
tance? Check again.
So, credit Secretary of State Shemia Fagan for think-
ing proactively. Last month, she released a “systemic
risk report” that outlines threats to the eff ectiveness
of new K-12 educational investments and strategies
set forth in the 2019 Student Success Act and the 2016
passage of Measure 98. Billed as the fi rst of its kind, the
report from Fagan’s auditing division synthesizes the
fi ndings of six previous K-12 audits and urged leaders
to guard against the weak scrutiny, lack of data-based
guidance, funding instability and ever-changing ambi-
tions that have plagued state oversight of education.
Th e hope, she told legislators last week, is that re-
minding leaders now of such known risks and off ering
solutions will help the state “stay on course toward that
north star that we all share of improving the lives of
our students and our schools.”
It’s a valuable message that legislators, educators and
Oregon’s next governor must hear. With $1 billion in
additional revenue fl owing in each year from a new cor-
porate activities tax, the ability to signifi cantly boost the
quality of public education is within reach.
But Oregon risks squandering this opportunity if
leaders — from local districts through state government
— fail to make accountability a daily commitment, rather
than something that comes only aft er a disaster occurs.
Th e risk report off ers several recommendations for
how to shore up weak spots. Among them: improve
and expand data collection to better track student
progress; check in on the Department of Education’s
monitoring of district performance and implementa-
tion of grant-funded programs; require more trans-
parent reporting of challenges standing in the way of
school improvement; strengthen the agency’s enforce-
ment of state standards on districts, such as diploma
requirements and academic content expectations;
support the education department in developing a
comprehensive approach for improving K-12 edu-
cation and clarifying or strengthening the education
department’s authority in statute.
Th e report also gets at the longstanding tension
between oversight from Salem and local control of
school districts. Even though the vast majority of dis-
tricts’ funding comes from state revenue, the education
department has hesitated to take a stronger hand in
guiding or demanding more from districts, even with
student outcomes hanging in the balance.
Changing this dynamic will take commitment from
the governor, who serves as Oregon’s superintendent of
public instruction and appoints the education depart-
ment head, and legislators who must assist in stabiliz-
ing education and keeping focused on achieving goals.
Oregonians should press the three candidates
running for governor on what specifi cally they would
do to shore up K-12 education and ensure that new
revenue is achieving the objectives that policymakers
identifi ed. Th ey should urge stronger and more visible
leadership by the Oregon State Board of Education on
the way forward for schools. And they should demand
more of their legislators, who have, at times, under-
mined education improvement eff orts or sent mixed
messages about what Oregon values.
Among their baffl ing decisions: Democrats used
their majority power last year to abolish a requirement
that high school seniors either pass a test or produce a
portfolio of work to demonstrate their profi ciency in
key areas to graduate. Education leaders — school dis-
tricts, the state education department and the school
boards association — had not called for such a change.
But anti-testing advocates supported the move.
And yet legislators failed to advance a bill this year
that would allow quicker state intervention for families
of children with disabilities whose instructional needs
are being shorted or denied by their local districts. Nei-
ther of these actions suggest a Legislature that under-
stands what problems it should seek to solve.
Fagan’s risk report breaks with tradition in pro-
actively asking leaders to reconsider their busi-
ness-as-usual tactics to make sure that our educational
system achieves the outcomes that students deserve.
Oregonians should hope that the message comes
through. We must stop making accountability an aft er-
thought when everything goes astray.
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the Baker City Herald.
Columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of
the authors and not necessarily that of the Baker City Herald.
COLUMN
A better way on student loans
BY RACHEL GRESZLER
AND LINDSEY BURKE
P
resident Joe Biden is set to “for-
give” $10,000 worth of student
loan debt per borrower, for a to-
tal of $360 billion in loan elimination.
This may sound like a neat and easy
solution, but the direct result will be to
increase inflation, drive college costs
even higher, and place lower-cost and
more effective education alternatives at
a disadvantage.
College is far more expensive than
it should be, and many students grad-
uate with significant loan debt. Worse,
employers increasingly report that col-
leges are not equipping students with
the education and skills they need in
the workplace.
Those are significant problems in
need of solutions. But Biden’s plan pa-
pers over the fact that government
policies are the cause of these prob-
lems. Student loan “forgiveness” will
exacerbate these problems, not elim-
inate them. And it’s morally wrong,
economically bad and educationally
harmful.
Morally wrong. Forgiving a debt
could be a morally virtuous act, but
forgiveness — by definition — can
only come from the one to whom the
debt is owed. In the case of federal stu-
dent loans, that’s the taxpayer. Biden’s
plan to transfer $360 billion worth of
individual student loan debts to tax-
payers without their consent is closer
to theft than “forgiveness.”
Canceling student loan debt is also
incredibly regressive, as individuals
with a higher education tend to have
the highest earnings. Fifty-six percent
of all student loan debt is owned by
a select group of individuals with ad-
vanced degrees, such as doctors, law-
yers and engineers. Meanwhile, the
much larger group of people in the
U.S. — 37 percent of all adults ages 25
and older — who have a high school
degree or less hold no student loan
debt at all.
The Committee for a Responsible
Federal Budget estimates that house-
holds in the top two income quintiles
would receive 57 percent of student
loan “forgiveness,” while those in the
bottom two quintiles would receive
only 17 percent. Working-class Amer-
icans without college degrees, peo-
ple who worked their way through
school without loans, and those who’ve
worked hard to pay off their loans will
be the ones paying for others’ student
loan “forgiveness.”
Economically bad. The economy
and inflation are Americans’ top con-
cerns today, and loan forgiveness
would hurt both. On top of trillions
of new dollars in federal spending, the
Committee for a Responsible Federal
Budget estimates that 90 percent of the
new consumption induced by student
loan forgiveness would lead to price
increases instead of economic growth.
Boosting the spending of high-income
households as the average worker has
become $1,800 poorer over the past
year due to inflation is bad economic
policy.
Educationally harmful. Most perti-
nently, student loan forgiveness would
exacerbate existing problems in the
U.S. higher education system. The root
cause of problems like college costs
more than doubling (in real, infla-
tion-adjusted dollars) over the past two
decades, poor graduation rates — with
only three in five students complet-
ing a four-year degree within six years
— and graduates failing to gain the
knowledge and skills they need in the
workplace is government intervention
in higher education.
Student loan subsidies drive up ed-
ucation costs without increasing the
value of degrees. A Federal Reserve
study found that each dollar of feder-
ally subsidized student loans that col-
leges receive leads to a 60-cent increase
in tuition. Federal subsidies for higher
education have also restricted the
growth of more effective, lower-cost
alternatives, like performance-based
and income-sharing arrangement edu-
cation programs and employer-driven
education.
Forgiveness would likely encourage
students to borrow at even higher rates
in the future, in anticipation that they,
too, would have some portion of their
loan balance forgiven. And they could
be induced to attend more expensive
schools as well.
Instead of adding yet another prob-
lematic and harmful policy on top of
existing ones, federal policymakers
should remove current policies that
are driving up college costs, increasing
student loan debt, and widening the
growing skills gap.
Among the solutions in a recent
Heritage Foundation report:
• Phasing out federal subsidies for
higher education to reduce inflated
costs and allow a more level playing
field across different education op-
tions.
• Allowing apprenticeship programs
to expand by directing the Depart-
ment of Labor to revive the nascent but
flourishing Industry Recognized Ap-
prenticeship Program.
• Ending failed federal job training
programs so that individuals can ob-
tain more effective training from the
private sector and better-tailored state
and local government initiatives.
Removing problematic policies
may not be as politically appealing
as “gifting” the most affluent Ameri-
cans $10,000 of other people’s money,
but it would provide far more good
for civil society, for the economy, and
for the future of the American work-
force.
█
Rachel Greszler is a senior research fellow in
The Heritage Foundation’s Hermann Center for
the Federal Budget. Lindsey Burke is director of
Heritage’s Center for Education Policy.
OTHER VIEWS
West must bridge the Ukraine divide
EDITORIAL FROM BLOOMBERG OPINION:
One aspect of the war in Ukraine
demands much closer attention — the
failure of the U.S. and its rich-country
friends to build strong partnerships
with the developing world. Many gov-
ernments in Africa, Latin America and
Asia have distanced themselves from
the allies’ response to Russia’s aggres-
sion. This is helping Moscow and does
nothing to discourage other regimes
with expansionist ambitions. The ne-
glect that allowed it to happen was a se-
rious error, and putting it right should
be a high priority.
When the General Assembly of the
United Nations voted to condemn
the invasion shortly after it started,
35 countries abstained. It wasn’t just
China and fellow dictatorships such as
Cuba and Nicaragua, but also India,
South Africa and Senegal. Others, in-
cluding Ethiopia and Morocco, didn’t
vote at all. A combination of Russian
arms supplies, Chinese investment and
American inattention persuaded too
many governments that their interests
weren’t served by aligning with the U.S.
It’s part of a wider pattern. The Sum-
mit of the Americas, taking place this
week in Los Angeles, was seen partly
as a way to atone for Donald Trump’s
refusal to attend the event in 2018. It’s
instead become another source of fric-
tion, with the region’s leaders balking
at U.S. efforts to manage the guest list.
President Joe Biden’s administration
has little goodwill to fall back on and
continues to struggle with basics like
appointing ambassadors. Obstruction-
ist senators are partly to blame for that
— but the White House doesn’t dis-
guise the fact that it has other priorities.
In May, a U.S.-ASEAN summit in
Washington fizzled, ending with just
$150 million of new initiatives for
Southeast Asia. The Biden adminis-
tration is now talking up its Indo-Pa-
cific Economic Framework for Pros-
perity — an initiative notable for its
lack of ambition, which left many of
America’s would-be partners distinctly
unimpressed. Last year’s promise of a
summit with Africa’s leaders to counter
China’s triennial Forum on China-Af-
rica Cooperation gathering has gone
nowhere.
Meanwhile, China’s policy banks
have provided more than $130 bil-
lion in loan commitments for Latin
America and the Caribbean alone be-
tween 2009 and 2019. Beijing supplied
COVID-19 vaccines to many desper-
ate nations. Russia is a crucial seller of
weapons to India and much of Africa,
and a main supplier of grain and fertil-
izer. Neither Moscow nor Beijing asks
too many questions about free elec-
tions and human rights.
To win better support from devel-
oping countries, on Russia and other
matters as well, Western governments
should, for a start, be less quick to ad-
monish. Appeals to liberal values tend
to fall flat with people who remember
less principled Western interventions.
Also, many see the war in Ukraine as
a proxy fight between Moscow and
Washington — one where they have
little at stake. The remedy is to frame
the conflict not as punishing Russia
and its autocratic leader, but as aiding
Ukraine’s fight for self-determination.
A powerful nation started this war by
scorning sovereign borders: That’s a
threat all can recognize.
Here’s another. A prolonged war will
keep food, energy and fertilizer prices
elevated, and this puts poor countries,
with fewer resources to buffer the im-
pact, in particular danger. It makes
sense for the allies to say so, but their
warning will get a better response if
combined with prompt and gener-
ous support for the countries worst
affected and most in need. Looking
farther ahead, new efforts to address
deeper economic vulnerabilities — for
instance, by supporting African agri-
culture and logistics — would serve the
diplomatic purpose and help deliver
longer-term prosperity.
Resources aren’t infinite, but sup-
porting closer cooperation with the
developing world would be money well
spent. Whether it’s weaning countries
off Russian weapons, improving food
security for the planet’s poorest people,
or promoting efforts to address climate
change, the benefits would be huge.
The Global South’s unnerving toler-
ance of Putin’s crimes marks a failure
on the part of the U.S. and its friends. It
needs urgent attention.