What Colleges Sell (continued)

I’m obviously not one to prioritize quantity when it comes to writing. Counting this one, I’ve written four blog posts this year — not great for a guy whose New Year’s resolution set the pace at two per month. Even less so when you consider that half of them have now been follow-up posts.

However, there was some interesting Facebook discussion on my last post that I felt merited some elucidation here, where those who don’t follow me on social media can digest it. (I won’t ask anyone to follow on social, but to those of you who are here via social media, you should subscribe to get these posts by email.) I’m also working on something else that’s a bit involved, and I thought this would be a good stopgap.

As loyal readers are aware, my last post touched on the college-admissions scandal and the cultural legwork being done by our vision of education as a transformative asset.

Elite colleges sell these ideas back to us by marketing education as a transformative experience, an extrinsic asset to be wielded. In an unequal society, this is a particularly comforting message, because it implies:

  1. The world works on meritocracy. High-status individuals not only are better than most, they became so through efforts the rest of us can replicate.
  2. We can achieve equality of outcomes with sufficient resources. This has the added bonus of perpetuating the demand for high-end education.

An observation I couldn’t figure out how to work in is that getting into elite colleges seems by far the hardest part of graduating from them. Admissions is, after all, the part of the process the accused parents were cheating, and to my knowledge, none of the students involved were in danger of failing out, despite having been let in under false pretense.

The low bar for good grades at elite colleges, the “Harvard A,”¹ is so widely acknowledged that to call it an open secret would be misleading.² Stuart Rojstaczer, the author of gradeinflation.com documents two distinct periods of grade inflation in the last 50 years: the Vietnam War era, in which men who flunked out would likely be sent off to fight an unpopular war, and the “Student as a Consumer” era of today.

The transition to the latter has meant a change in teaching philosophy and an increased centrality of the admissions process. On his website, Mr Rojstaczer quotes a former University of Wisconsin Chancellor as saying, “Today, our attitude is we do our screening of students at the time of admission. Once students have been admitted, we have said to them, ‘You have what it takes to succeed.’ Then it’s our job to help them succeed.” (Emphasis mine.)

This is consistent with my not-so-between-the-lines theorizing that the later-in-life achievements of elite colleges grads are mostly attributable to selection effects, not education. It turns out this was studied by Alan Krueger and Stacy Dale, who found salary differences between elite college graduates and those who applied to elite schools but didn’t attend were “generally indistinguishable from zero.”

Of course, this is kind of depressing, because if good schools don’t make “winners,” but rather attract and rebrand them, then it’s a lot easier to attribute their graduates’ success to factors that are not only beyond their control but for which there are likely no or few policy levers — genetics, culture, family structure, and others.

I think this is an unwelcome conclusion to the point that even incontrovertible evidence — whatever that would look like — would be ignored or stigmatized by polite society. Most people probably agree that public policy should keep away from these areas of life.³

Regardless, I think we should be more honest with ourselves about our obsession with elite schools and our expectations of education more generally.

*

Footnotes:

  1. In case you don’t feel like clicking the link: In 2013, Harvard’s dean revealed the median grade awarded at the school to be an A-, while the most common grade given was a straight A.
  2. Though apparently to a lesser degree, this has been the case at four-year colleges across the board, not just top-tier private ones.
  3. Then again, maybe they don’t. A recent survey of over 400 US adults found “nontrivial” levels of support for eugenic policies among the public, increasing with the belief that various traits — intelligence, poverty, and criminality — are heritable and also associated with attitudes held by the respondent about the group in question. The questions in the study were framed as support for policies that would encourage or discourage people with particular traits to have more or fewer children. (If you have 10 minutes, read the study, freely accessible at slatestarcodex. Also good: Scott Alexander’s piece on social censorship, in which the aforementioned paper is linked.)
Advertisements

What Colleges Sell

The recent college-admissions scandal has me, and probably many of you, thinking about the institutional power of elite colleges. It’s remarkable that even those we would consider society’s “winners” aren’t immune to their pull. Take for example Olivia Giannulli, who is from a wealthy family; has nearly 2 million YouTube followers; owns a successful cosmetics line (pre-scandal, anyway); and whose parents, Laurie Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli, allegedly paid $500,000 to get her and her sister accepted to USC.

Why?

The standard line is that the point of college is to learn. Getting into a better school avails one of better information, which translates into more marketable skills—human capital accrual, in economics jargon. The many deficiencies of this view have birthed the somewhat-cynical “signaling theory”: the idea that college degrees serve mainly as signals to employers of positive, pre-existing characteristics like intelligence or attention to detail.

Signalling theory is powerfully convincing, but it doesn’t fully explain the insanity endemic to the elite college scene. There’s more going on at the individual, familial, and societal levels.

First the individual. If the human capital isn’t the point, social capital could be. The student bodies of elite schools are well curated for networking among the intelligent, the wealthy, and what we might call the “legacy crowd”—non-mutually exclusive groups that mutually benefit from this four-year mixer. Who you sit next to in class might matter more than what’s being taught.

Colleges, particularly those of renown, provide a sense of unabashed community that is in short supply elsewhere in American life. If you read universities’ marketing or speak with admissions staff, this is often a selling point. The idea that former classmates and fraternity brothers become a nepotistic social network post-graduation is intuitive, and probably a very compelling reason to attend a particular school.¹

What’s true for the individual is true for the family. Parents want the best for their children, and they know the kinds of doors attending the right school will open. But for parents, there are added elements at stake: self- and peer-appraisal.² That is, as educational attainment has become accepted not only as a means to but validation of social mobility, parents have come to define their success by the institutions their children attend. YouGov polling found that thirty-four percent of parents would pay a college prep organization to take a college admittance test on their child’s behalf. One in four would pay college officials to get their child into a good school.

college bribery 2

I’d bet this is an understatement caused by social-desirability bias.³

Last up, and most interesting, is society at large. Even though most of us won’t attend a very prestigious university, if we attend one at all, the legitimacy of those institutions still rests on our perception. For us to be bought in, we need a culturally acceptable premise for the power enjoyed by Harvard, Yale, and the like—a role that can’t be filled by the networking and status-driven benefits I’ve described so far. This brings us full circle, back to the idea of higher education as a method of information conveyance.

Though the human capital accrual theory of education is probably bunk, most people’s belief in it feels sincere. In my view, this is the confluence of three phenomena: observed correlations between educational attainment and positive outcomes, our cultural commitments to self-sufficiency and equal opportunity, and a mostly unstated but potent desire to manufacture equality of outcomes.

Elite colleges sell these ideas back to us by marketing education as a transformative experience, an extrinsic asset to be wielded. In an unequal society, this is a particularly comforting message, because it implies:

  1. The world works on meritocracy. High-status individuals not only are better than most, they became so through efforts the rest of us can replicate.
  2. We can achieve equality of outcomes with sufficient resources. This has the added bonus of perpetuating the demand for high-end education.

The meritocratic, knowledge-driven higher education model is a product we’re all happy to buy because we like what it says about us. Its violation is disillusioning on a societal level, hence the disproportionate outrage created by scandal involving some 50 students.

Perhaps this is an opportunity to reexamine our relationship with and expectations of the upper echelons of higher education. If we find signaling theory compelling, and I personally do, shouldn’t a society committed to equality of opportunity and social mobility seek to marginalize, rather than fetishize, the institutional power of these universities?

Somewhat more darkly, we should ask ourselves if our belief in the transformative power of education might not be the product of our collective willing ignorance—a noble lie we tell ourselves to avoid confronting problems to which we have few or no solutions. If pre-existing traits—innate intelligence, social connections, wealth, and others—most accurately explain one’s success, what of the increasingly selective institutions that facilitate their convergence?

*

Footnotes:

  1. Though I’ve heard plenty of anecdotal claims to this effect (including from an admissions officer during a grad school interview), I don’t have any hard proof. If one of you knows of a such a study, point me in the right direction.
  2. I just wanted to note that this feels very in line with the general trend of wealthier people having fewer children but spending an enormous amount of resources to give them even very marginal advantages.
  3. This is when people respond to polls in the ways they think are more likely to be viewed favorably by others. Basically, people under-report bad behavior (maybe using drugs or committing crimes) and over-report good behavior (like voting).

A Glance at College Attainment in NYC

I’m taking a couple days off from work this week. Unfortunately, it’s raining, so I’m inside playing around with some county-level education data in R, and I thought I’d throw up a quick blog post. The data set, which goes back to the 1970s, comes courtesy of the USDA and can be found here.

A quirk of New York City is that each of the five boroughs is also its own county. I took the opportunity to make some graphs illustrating how educational attainment has changed in the city and its boroughs over the past 50 years. There are a few interesting insights to be had here:

New York City’s college attainment rate closely mimics the country’s. Since 1970, the percentage of residents over the age of 25 in both groups who have attended at least some college has risen from just over 20% to just under 60%.

US NYC

But between the boroughs, there’s quite a bit of diversity. Manhattan is the only borough to have ever had a higher than city-average rate of college attainment. What’s more, the gap between the Manhattan and the New York City average has only grown over time. That said, because it started out with a higher rate of college-educated residents, Manhattan has experienced the lowest rate of growth in this area. Here’s each borough compared with the city’s average over the last 50 years:

Boroughs Some College

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given its reputation as a hotbed of gentrification, Brooklyn leads the way in terms of educational growth among its residents. In 1970, Brooklyn and the Bronx had similar rates of residents with at least some college (12 and 13 percent, respectively), compared with a US average of 21.3%. By 2016, however, the gap between the former had widened to 10.5%. Brooklyn has surpassed Queens and is closing in on the NYC average.

A more detailed look at the change in educational attainment in Brooklyn, which now has slightly more residents with than without some college experience:

Rise of Educated Brooklyn

 

Is College Worth It?

It’s a query that would have been unthinkable a generation or two ago. College was once – and in fairness, to a large extent, still is – viewed as a path to the middle class and a cultural rite of passage. But those assumptions are, on many fronts, being challenged. Radical changes on the cost and benefit sides of the equation have thrown the once axiomatic value of higher education into question.

Let’s talk about money first. It’s no secret that the price of a degree has climbed rapidly in recent decades. Between 1985 and 2015, the average cost of attending a four-year institution increased by 120 percent, according to data compiled by the National Center for Education Statistics, putting it in the neighborhood of $25,000 per year – a figure pushing 40 percent of the median income.

That increase has left students taking more and bigger loans to pay for their educations. According to ValuePenguin, a company that helps consumers understand financial decisions, between 2004 and 2014, the amount of student loan borrowers and their average balance size increased by 90 percent and 80 percent, respectively. Among the under-thirty crowd, 53 percent with a bachelor’s degree or higher now report carrying student debt.

Then there’s time to consider. Optimistically, a bachelor’s degree can be obtained after four years of study. For the minority of students who manage this increasingly rare feat, that’s still a hefty investment: time spent on campus can’t be spent doing other things, like work, travel, or even just enjoying the twilight of youth.

And for all the money and time students are sinking into their post-secondary educations, it’s not exactly clear they’re getting a good deal – whether gauged by future earnings or the measurable acquisition of knowledge. Consider the former: While there is a well acknowledged “college wage premium,” the forces powering it are up for debate. A Pew Research Center report from 2014 shows the growing disparity to be less a product of the rising value of a college diploma than the cratering value of a high school diploma. The same report notes that while the percentage of degree-holders aged 25-32 has soared since the Silent Generation, median earnings for full-time workers of that cohort have more or less stagnated across the same time period.

Meanwhile, some economists contend that to whatever extent the wage premium exists, it’s impossible to attribute to college education itself. Since the people most likely to be successful are also the most likely to go to college, we can’t know to what extent a diploma is a cause or consequence of what made them successful.

In fact, some believe the real purpose of formal education isn’t so much to learn as to display to employers that a degree-holder possess the attributes that correlate with success, a process known as signalling. As George Mason Professor of Economics (and noted higher-ed skeptic) Bryan Caplan has pointed out, much of what students learn, when they learn anything, isn’t relevant to the real world. Professor Caplan thinks students are wise to the true value of a degree, which could explain why almost no student ever audits a class, why students spend about 14 hours a week studying, and why two-thirds of students fail to leave university proficient in reading.

Having spent the last 550-ish words bashing graduates and calling into question the legitimacy of the financial returns on a degree, you might fairly ask if I’m saying college really isn’t worth your time and money. While I’d love to end it here and now with a hot take like that, the truth is it’s a really complicated, personal question, and I can’t give a definitive answer. What I can offer are some prompts that might help someone considering college to make that choice for themself, based on things I wish I’d known before heading off to school.

  • College graduates fare better on average by many metrics. Even if costs of attendance are rising, they still have to be weighed against the potential benefits. Income, unemployment, retirement benefits, and health care: those with a degree really do fare better. Even if we can’t be sure of the direction or extent this relationship is causal, one could reasonably conclude the benefits are worth the uncertainty.
  • Credentialism might not be fair, but it’s real. Plenty of employers use education level as a proxy for job performance. If the signalling theory really is accurate, the students who pursue a degree without bogging themselves down with pointless knowledge are acting rationally. As Professor Caplan points out in what seems a protracted, nerdy online feud with Bloomberg View’s Noah Smith, the decision to attend school isn’t made in a cultural vacuum. Sometimes, there are real benefits to conformity – in this case, getting a prospective employer to give you a shot at an interview. Despite my having never worked as a sociologist (alas!), my degree has probably opened more than a few doors for me.
  • What and where you study are important. Some degrees have markedly higher returns than others, and if money is part of the consideration (and I hope it would be), students owe it to themselves to research this stuff beforehand.
  • For the love of god, if you’re taking loans, know how compound interest works. A younger, more ignorant version of myself once thought I could pay my loans off in a few years. How did I reach this improbable conclusion? I conveniently ignored the fact that interest on my loans would compound. Debt can be a real bummer. It can keep you tethered to things you might prefer to change, say a job or location, and it makes saving a challenge.
  • Relatedly, be familiar with the economic concept of opportunity cost. In short, this just means that time and money spent doing one thing can’t do something else. To calculate the “economic cost” of college, students have to include the money they could have made by working for those four years. If we conservatively put this number at $25,000 per year, that means they should add $100,000 in lost wages to the other costs of attending college (less if they work during the school year and summer).
  • Alternatives to the traditional four-year path are emerging. Online classes, some of which are offering credentials of their own, are gaining popularity. If they’re able to gain enough repute among employers and other institutions, they might be able to provide a cheaper alternative for credentialing the masses. Community colleges are also presenting themselves as a viable option for those looking to save money, an option increasingly popular among middle class families.

There’s certainly more to consider, but I think the most important thing is that prospective students take time to consider the decision and not simply take it on faith that higher education is the right move for everyone. After all, we’re talking about a huge investment of time and money.

A different version of this article was published on Merion West.

Smith College Protests: Beneath Outrage, Statistical Confusion

Two leaked letters between staff and administrators at the Smith College School for Social Work have led to mass student protests of perceived institutional racism.

Professors alleged that admissions staff were doing a disservice–particularly to minority students–by admitting unprepared students to the program, despite “overwhelming data that demonstrates that many…students, including white­-identified students, cannot offer clients a social work intervention that is based upon competence, skills and ethics.”

The unnamed source of the leak, as well as students, took umbrage over some of the terminology and implications of the letters, citing “violent, racist rhetoric.”

Protests at Smith College are somewhat of a perennial occurrence, but this case is particularly interesting because it deals in part with matters that can be verified through existing data. Moreover, arguments from the students present good opportunities to debunk common fallacious assumptions and underscore the importance of viewing statistics in proper context.

The first such assumption is that members of differing groups should be expected to achieve similar results and outside factors are to blame when this isn’t the case.

Contemporary politics are inundated with references to various forms of inequality. Why would we expect that there would be huge differences across people of varying (ethnic) groups except when it comes to academic performance? Indeed, racial achievement gaps are a widely acknowledged phenomenon.

For this reason, student Chris Watkins’ statement that a “disproportionate amount of black and Latino students” are under review, which can endanger their chances of graduation, isn’t enough to indicate racism. There’s no reason to assume that black and Latin students as a group would do as well as whites or Asians besides that we might find it ideologically appealing.

The second assumption is that multivariate groups of people can be divided neatly by single variables. Speaking of black, Latino, and white students assumes that the students that fall into these categories share all other variables that might affect educational performance.

Students could just as easily be separated by family income or some other variable that correlates to academic success. We wouldn’t expect black students from poor, single-parent households and upper class black students whose parents are Ivy League alumni to succeed at the same rates, even though both are black. Any discussion of racial outcomes that doesn’t take other factors into account is too blunt to deserve much weight.

Even if racism were a factor in determining which students are put on review, as Watkins seems to allege, the proportion of students on review by race wouldn’t tell us that, which brings me to my third point: Gross statistics are easily digestible, but can rarely be trusted to convey the nuances of a situation. Discrimination could be inferred statistically, but Watkins is looking in the wrong place for evidence.

In 1991 the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston found that after adjusting for several factors, blacks loan applicants were rejected about 17% of the time, compared with 11% for white applicants. The Boston FED felt that this was enough to infer racial discrimination on the part of lenders, which confirmed an existing belief held by the researcher.

It was only later that a writer at Forbes pointed out that racial discrimination would be evidenced not in the percentage of rejected applicants, but in the default rates of the borrowers. Lower rates of default among black borrowers would indicate that their applications were being held to tighter standards than comparable white applications. Since black and white default rates were even, it appeared that race was not a deciding factor in the lenders’ decision-making process.

We can apply the same logic to this accusation of faculty racism at Smith College. It’s not enough to demonstrate that a higher proportion of black and Latino students are placed under review; we need to know they’re outperforming white students who are also placed on review, or inversely, if among students not under review whites had a lower GPA than black and Latino students.

Similarly, we can evaluate the complaints of Professor Dennis Miehls and the “Concerned Adjuncts.”

If, as the letters from staff seem to imply, unqualified students were being admitted because of an administrative predilection for non-academic qualities,[1] we would probably find some evidence of that in the incoming GPAs (or other metric of gauging academic preparedness) of students under review relative to their successful peers. Since the Smith College MSW program doesn’t require applicants to take a GRE, work experience, undergraduate GPA, and SAT scores might be the best such indicators.

In a school so often embattled by protests and accusations of racism, students and faculty should take this chance to quantitatively assess whether or not racism is affecting the performance of minority students on campus. With any luck, someone with access to the right data will perform a competent analysis.

[1] It would hardly be the first time a university admitted based on preferential characteristics that had nothing to do with academic success. Among students admitted to medical schools between 2013 and 2016, black and Latino students have lower median GPAs and MCAT scores than white applicants, who are similarly behind Asian applicants. Among applicants with comparable MCAT and GPAs, black and Latino students are far more likely to be accepted, indicating an admissions preference.

 

“Free” College Would be a Terrible Idea

The free college crusade represents a perfect collision of ignorance and entitlement. The movement is popular with self-interested students seeking debt forgiveness or a free ride and contributes heavily to the appeal of Bernie Sanders’ candidacy among them. While he is the most extreme in his rhetoric and supposed intentions, the venerable senator is only one among many high-profile Democrats to opine that higher education should be at least partially subsidized by federal money (or more accurately that federal subsidies should be expanded, since they already exist).

Their argument is predicated on the idea that there is a moral or economic obligation to protect students from the rising costs of college education. The underlying assumption is that the federal government is actually capable of containing such inflation by throwing money at it. However you dice it—morally or financially—it’s a bunk policy move that, if implemented, would certainly do more harm than good.

There is no free lunch…or sociology class

Let’s start off with the obvious; professors, administrators, and other faculty aren’t going to work for free. Nor can universities maintain, power, and supply themselves free of charge. It will still cost a lot to keep a college operating, so free college is a misnomer. It will still be paid for, but we would change the payer.

A basic tenet of economics is that costs should be borne by the consumer. There’s good reason for this. When consumers have skin in the game, they ration much more effectively because they’re confronted with the opportunity costs of their decisions (any money or time spent on education can’t be spent on something else) as well as the reality of paying that money back some day.

By contrast, having prospective students make unobligated investments with other people’s money would almost guarantee that more bad investments are made. That means too many people earning degrees in areas that aren’t in high demand and are unlikely to pay for themselves. It’s not that I don’t want anyone to major in art history or theology, but if you’re going to you should pay for it yourself.

Funneling more money into education will inflate costs further

Think about it: if a stranger gave $10,000 to a pizza place so that other people could eat for free, customers would probably order more than the efficient amount of pizza. Why not? There’s no risk involved, at least not to the guy taking the pizzas home.

Let’s say this generous stranger kept funding the restaurant so consumers could continue to enjoy “free” pizza. What might we expect to happen to the cost of pizza? You might be tempted to think that it will stay the same, but the truth is that it would probably rise as overhead and total cost increase. Of course, customers wouldn’t feel the burden of rising prices, and would keep eating away happily.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes the shop has had to hire more cooks and cleaning staff; order more ingredients; use more electricity etc. because they have to produce ever more pizza. Where does that money come from, if not the customers? It comes from the generous stranger, our allegorical taxpayer, who is analogous in all but one crucial aspect: her funding is given by choice and can be halted when the cost becomes prohibitive.

In real life, taxpayers would be on the hook for an increasing amount as constraints on demand are removed and overhead costs increase. A cheaper and more effective method of reducing the cost of college might be easing the accreditation process. Costs might (and probably will) also be driven down by innovations such as online learning and other challenges to the traditional college process.

Free college wouldn’t help the right people

A tuition subsidy would directly benefit the education industry and students who have, are, or will go to college. None of these groups is so destitute as to warrant burdening taxpayers, 68% of which don’t hold a diploma, with the cost of their voluntary, secondary education. On the contrary, 81% of college graduates in 2012 came from families with above-average incomes while merely 7% came from families in the bottom quintile.

Free tuition would fall in with subsidies for electric cars and solar panels: well-meaning policies that essentially transfer wealth up the income ladder to those who are much more likely to take advantage of such incentives. This makes it a very bizarre choice for a candidate, and indeed an entire party, that spends so much time perseverating on the onerous effects of economic inequality.

A major point of college is to accrue human capital: to improve your skills and come out more valuable and employable than you were when you went in. Secondary education is an investment: the benefits of which are enjoyed by the recipient in the form of higher future earnings. Making the taxpayer foot the bill for wealthy kids to invest in their futures is pretty cynical, even by modern standards.

How can you decry tax cuts on the rich and then turn around and hand them a blank check for college? More importantly, how can any of us get behind this? Campuses all over America are full of kids condemning social and economic privilege. And yet they want to vote themselves, the most fortunate echelon of the richest generation ever, out of debt with other people’s money. Let the petulance of that sink in.

What it boils down to is a notable dearth of understanding of basic economics among our generation. Even very smart people that I know are simply unable to reckon with the most fundamental principles of supply and demand and basic price theory.

A better way to help

Even if fully subsidized tuition did make it more likely that low-income people attended college, that wouldn’t necessarily be a good thing and certainly wouldn’t be the best way to improve their lot. It’s pretty unlikely that someone from a poor community who has been forced to attend an underfunded school in their neighborhood is going to be adequately prepared for a college curriculum.

We see this play out again and again. We saw it with affirmative action and we see it in community colleges, where a measly 20% of students seeking a degree receive one within 3 years. It seems a large part of succeeding in college is being prepared to attend it—who could have guessed?

The most frustrating thing about this is that there is a very clear method by which we might compensate for this–it’s just wretchedly unpopular with Democrats[1]…and teachers unions.

What if instead of waiting for someone to turn 18 and encouraging them to enter a college they’re not ready for, we allowed them the ability to choose better schools as children? Instead of sequestering children from poor areas in underfunded and overcrowded schools, we should help parents send their young kids to better schools.

Make no mistake; school choice isn’t a magic bullet or a catch-all solution to educational inequality. But it would greatly improve on some of our current policies, in my opinion.

Tying kids down to public schools (44% of whose funding is procured locally) in their district is a recipe for disaster. Financing public schools through property taxes might work well in affluent communities, but it perpetuates a lack of access to education in poorer areas. Allowing people to choose where to send their kids and giving poor families vouchers for primary education would make a lot more sense than shelling out money to send unprepared students to universities. The only trouble is getting the politics to align.

If the Democratic Party really cared about improving access to education, increasing social mobility for the poor, or cultivating a competent workforce, they would give parents more choice in the schooling of their children. They might also acknowledge that there are other paths to success that don’t involve credentialism and a rigid bureaucratic structure.

Instead, they propose a plan that would pump $70 billion of public money annually into dubious investments and subsidies for the wealthy. It might not make any economic sense, but it’s great for courting votes.

 

[1] To her credit, Hillary Clinton isn’t totally against school choice. She would be fine with allowing for choice among public schools, but not private. Oddly, she cited a fear of parochial schools training terrorists to support her decision. She also thought that a voucher system would be unconstitutional. Sanders stated that he was “strongly against” any program that might redirect funding from public to private schools, including doing so in the form of tax credits.