|
| |
Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red
Federation for American Immigration Reform*
June 2005
Providing K–12 Education to Illegal
Immigrants: Costs to States
Table
1: Estimated Costs of Educating Illegal Alien Students and U.S.-Born Children of
Illegal Aliens, 2004
Implications for the Move to Give
In-State Tuition Rates to Illegal Aliens
Table 2:
Potential Costs of Providing In-state Tuition to Illegal Alien Students in
Public Colleges and Universities in the Top 15 States
Conclusion
Endnotes
The estimated costs of educating illegal aliens and their children
exceed
28.6 billion dollars in 2004 alone.
With states straining under gaping budget
shortfalls, public schools throughout the country are facing some of the most
significant decreases in state education funding in decades. In some states,
drastic cuts mean lay-offs for teachers, larger class sizes, fewer textbooks,
and eliminating sports, language programs, and after-school activities. Nearly
two-thirds of the states have cut back or proposed reductions in support for
childcare and early childhood programs. Some are even shortening the school week
from five days to four.
While these massive budget deficits
cannot be attributed to any single source, the enormous impact of large-scale
illegal immigration cannot be ignored. The total K-12 school expenditure for
illegal immigrants costs the states nearly $12 billion annually, and when the
children born here to illegal aliens are added, the costs more than double to
$28.6 billion.1
This enormous expenditure of the
taxpayers’ hard-earned contributions does not, however, represent the total
costs. Special programs for non-English speakers are an additional fiscal burden
as well as a hindrance to the overall learning environment. A recent study found
that dual language programs represent an additional expense of $290 to $879 per
pupil depending on the size of the class.2 In addition, because these
children of illegal aliens come from families that are most often living in
poverty, there is also a major expenditure for them on supplemental feeding
programs in the schools. Those ancillary expenditures have not been included in
the calculations in this report.
The data presented here provide yet one
more illustration of the costs of turning a blind eye to illegal immigration and
should provide further impetus for states to demand that the federal government
finally take effective and decisive action to restore integrity to our nation's
immigration laws.3
Providing K–12 Education to Illegal
Immigrants: Costs to States
The 1.5 million school-aged illegal
immigrants residing in the United States4 and their 2 million
U.S.-born siblings can be divided among the states using government estimates of
the illegal alien population.5 Using each state’s per-pupil
expenditure reported by the U.S. Department of Education,6
cost
estimates for educating illegal immigrants in each state are shown below.
The calculation of the number of children
of illegal aliens in the K-12 public school system indicates that more than 15
percent of California’s students are children of illegal aliens, as are more
than ten percent of the students in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and
Texas. More than five percent of the students are the children of illegal aliens
in Florida, Georgia, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington.
Defenders of illegal aliens assert that
the cost of educating illegal alien students is offset by the taxes paid by
their parents, but study after study shows that immigrants cost taxpayers much
more in public services used than they pay into the system via taxes.7
This is particularly true of illegal immigrants, who are disproportionately
low-skilled and thus low-earning and are much more likely to be working in the
underground economy or providing contractual services and not withholding taxes.
A look at the top ten highest state
expenditures provides a stark illustration of the trade-offs for accommodating
large-scale illegal immigration:8
In California, the $7.7 billion spent
annually educating the children of illegal immigrants —nearly 13% of the overall
2004–5 education budget— could:
-
Cover the education budget shortfall
for the 2004-05 school year, estimated by the Legislative Analyst Office at $6
billion and nearly cover the $2 billion reduction this year from the
Proposition 98 formula.
-
Or, the remaining $1.7 billion could
pay the salaries of about 31,000 teachers and reduce per student ratios, or it
could furnish 2.8 million new computers—enough computers for about half of the
state’s students.
-
Prevent educational shortfalls
estimated at $9.8 billion over the past four years that have impacted on
“…class size, teacher layoffs, shorter library hours and fewer counselors,
nurses, custodians and groundskeepers.” (See Los Angeles Times, March 11,
2005)
In Texas, the $3.9 billion spent
annually educating the children of illegal immigrants could:
-
Cover more than the $2.3 billion
shortfall identified by the Texas Federation for Teachers for such things as
textbooks and pension contributions.
-
Make Texas’ salaries for teachers more
competitive by national standards, thereby reducing costly attrition, and
recruit the 5,000 new teachers needed each year.
In New York, the $3.1 billion spent
annually educating the children of illegal immigrants could:
-
Nearly cover the estimated $3.3 billion
required by the state’s Supreme Court under the decision in the Campaign for
Fiscal Equity case to establish equitable state funding for New York City’s
public school system.
-
Help to reduce the $1.8 billion revenue
shortfall for fiscal year 2005 in New York City.
-
Provide enough additional funding to
nearly meet the $3 billion in health care cuts in the current proposed budget
for payments to hospitals and nursing homes.
In Illinois, the $2 billion spent
annually educating the children of illegal immigrants could:
-
Balance the current state
budget—estimated to be $2 billion in the red—and make unnecessary adoption of
the new taxes in the Education Funding Reform Act of 2005.
-
Help close the potential gap resulting
from decreased federal 2006 funding to the state of between $1.07–$1.35
billion.9
In New Jersey, the $1.5 billion spent
annually educating the children of illegal immigrants could:
-
Go a long way toward solving the
dilemma Gov. Codey noted on March 1, 2005, when he said, “I wish I could be
here discussing a major investment in higher education or an expansion of
health care because those are investments New Jersey needs to make, but I
can't have those discussions, not with this [fiscal] mess in front of us.”
-
Help close the potential gap resulting
from decreased federal 2006 funding to the state of between $682–$845 million.
In Florida, the $1.2 billion spent
annually educating the children of illegal immigrants could:
-
Fund the services eliminated as a
result of a cut in federal funding to Florida public schools estimated by the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to be $565 million over the next five
years beginning in 2006. Over the same period, the Center estimated an
additional $321 million has been lost to the state for adult and vocational
education as well as $3.2 billion in grants to the state and local governments
and $392 million in “Strengthening America’s Communities” block grants.
-
Help close the potential gap resulting
from decreased federal 2006 funding to the state of between $1.52–$1.89
billion.
In Georgia, the $952 million spent
annually educating the children of illegal immigrants could:
-
Raise the performance of the state’s
schools described by Gov. Perdue in his 2003 State of the State Address in
these terms, “Georgia’s education system is not what it should be. The
National Assessment of Education Progress is the nation’s education report
card. It shows Georgia is behind the national average on reading, writing,
math, and science. For each of those subjects more than 50% of Georgia
children are below the proficient level. Georgia also has one of the lowest
high school graduation rates in the nation. And, to our shame, we rank 50th in
SAT scores. We can sum up our report card in two words: “Needs improvement.”
-
Help close the potential gap resulting
from decreased federal 2006 funding to the state of between $847–$1,071
million.
In North Carolina, the $771 million
spent annually educating illegal immigrant children could:
-
Redress part of a $1.2 billion state
budget shortfall and obviate the need for new taxes proposed by Gov. Mike
Easley for the 2006 budget.
-
Help close the potential gap resulting
from decreased federal 2006 funding to the state of between $888–$1,129
million.
In Arizona, the $748 million spent
annually educating illegal immigrant children could:
-
Improve state funding for education,
which in this year’s Quality Counts 2005 state-by-state education report
ranked Arizona 50th in per-pupil spending. To close the gap with the national
average in spending per student would cost the state an additional $1.6
billion.
-
Help close the potential gap resulting
from decreased federal 2006 funding to the state of between $587–$763 million.
In Colorado, the $564 million spent
annually educating illegal immigrant children could:
-
Reduce the state budget deficit
estimated at $900 million in the 2003–’04 budget, and more recently by the
Independence Institute at around $158 million for 2006.
-
Help close the potential gap resulting
from decreased federal 2006 funding to the state of between $270–$337 million.
Implications for the Move to Give
In-State Tuition Rates to Illegal Aliens
Efforts are underway in several states
and in Congress to allow illegal aliens to pay steeply discounted in-state
tuition at public colleges and universities —rates not available to American
citizens from other states. As state universities across the country
increasingly limit enrollment, increasing the intake of illegal aliens into
these schools will mean fewer opportunities and less aid for U.S. citizens and
legal immigrants. It will also mean a higher cost to the state taxpayers;
out-of-state tuition is typically two to 3.5 times higher than in-state tuition.10
In 2000, about 126,000 illegal immigrants
under 21 were enrolled in college, according to research from the Congressional
Research Service.11 Using 2000 data, we calculated that at
non-resident tuition rates, they would be paying between $503 million and $655
million annually. If they were made eligible for in-state tuition discounts,
they would be paying less than one-third of that amount, i.e., $155 million to
$201 million —leaving taxpayers to make up the difference of $348 million to $454
million.12
We estimate that both the number of illegal aliens students and
in-state
tuition costs
will have increased since 2000. In 2004 the estimated outlays would be about
$839 million to $1.092 billion, and the discount for in-state tuition would
reduce that to about $258 million to $336 million —leaving the taxpayers to make
up the difference of $581 million to $756 million.
The cost estimates in the table at the
right, distributed to each state according to their proportion of the illegal
immigrant population,13 are for the 15 states with the highest
estimated expenditures:14 Several of these states are already
incurring these costs. In-state tuition provisions for illegal aliens are
currently in effect in California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Washington
and —through ‘don’t-ask, don’t tell’ provisions— in Georgia and Arizona.
Proposed federal legislation to give
illegal aliens in-state tuition rates would carry additional substantial costs.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, making illegal alien students
eligible for federal tuition assistance through Pell grants would have cost $195
million in 2003 and $362 million over the 2003-2006 period.15, 16
The estimate by the Congressional Budget
Office of costs for providing tuition assistance to illegal alien students and
the state cost estimates of providing access to in-state tuition at taxpayer
expense above do not include the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens because
they are already eligible to attend college as in-state residents. However, it
should be noted that these expenses, like their education at the primary and
secondary level, result from the illegal immigration of their parent(s) and
could be avoided if the immigration authorities more effectively deterred
illegal immigration and identified and removed those illegally residing in the
country.
All of our children —native-born and
immigrants alike— are receiving a poorer education as a result of the federal
government passing its immigration law enforcement failures on to the states.
The implications for the coming generations of workers, our future economy, and
our long-term competitiveness in the world cannot be ignored.
If the federal government remains
unwilling to undertake serious enforcement of the United States’ immigration
laws, it will eventually be forced to provide massive federal education funds to
the states. A far more logical and cost-effective alternative —and one with
considerable pay-offs in other areas as well— would be to substantially reduce
illegal immigration.
Without a serious commitment to doing
just that, the open borders and lax enforcement that allow millions of illegal
aliens to enter the U.S. each year —and to obtain driver’s licenses and other
official identification documents with virtually no fear of the law— will
continue to undermine the will of the American people, overburden our
communities’ financial resources, and imperil our children’s future.
Notes on Methodology
Breaking the Piggy Bank was
originally published by FAIR in 2003 using illegal alien population estimates
tied to the 2000 Census and limited to the costs of educating students who were,
themselves, illegally in the country. This update adjusts the illegal alien
population upwards for the continuing rise in that population, the continuing
increases in the cost of education, and to include the cost of educating the
U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. The cost estimate in the original version
was $7.4 billion.
Increases in the estimated per pupil
educational cost in the ‘03-’04 school year were based on the rate of increase
between ’00-’01 and ’01-’02. These increases generally were between 10%-25%.
There were three states with increases of less than 10% and eight with increases
greater than 25%.
The estimate of the increase in the
illegal alien student population was based on an estimate of the overall
increase in the illegal alien population, i.e., from 7 million in 2000 to at
least 10 million in 2004. The estimate of the illegal alien K-12 school
population is assumed to have similarly increased by about 43% (from slightly
less than 1.1 million to slightly less than 1.6 million students).
-
The population estimate
is for children enrolled in grades K-12. However the per student expenditures
used to calculate the total costs were for primary and secondary schools
(grades 1-12).
-
Lara-Alecio, Rafael et
al., “Texas Dual Language Program Cost Analysis,” January 2005.
-
Education is only one
of the significant costs to states resulting from mass illegal immigration.
There are countless others—health care, housing assistance, nutrition
programs, incarceration of criminal aliens, to name just a few.
-
Michael Fix and Jeffrey
Passel, "U.S. Immigration—Trends and Implications for Schools," Immigration
Studies Program, The Urban Institute, 2003.
-
"Estimates of the
Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990-2000,"
Office of Policy Planning, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service,
January 2003.
-
"Table 169, Current
Expenditure Per Pupil in Fall Enrollment in Public Elementary and Secondary
Schools, by State: 1969-70 to 1999-00," Digest of Education Statistics 2002,
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
-
See, for example,
The Net National Costs of Immigration, Donald Huddle, Rice University,
1997.
-
These calculations are
based on cost reports from news accounts and state departments of education.
-
The estimates of
potential federal funding reductions here and for the following states come
from the website of the Every Child Matters organization.
-
Maine, Montana, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming
were calculated together because the INS estimates their data as a group. In
order to estimate their cost, the average expenditure per student was
calculated.
-
Andorra Bruno and
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, "Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and Legislation,"
Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, May 16, 2003.
-
Ibid.
-
To estimate the
resident versus non-resident tuition costs, the 2002-2003 tuition for each
state (except for Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, and Wyoming, for which national
averages were used) was multiplied by the range of 50,000-65,000 illegal
immigrants who would qualify for in-state tuition, as estimated by the Urban
Institute. Sources: "National Comparison of Tuition and Required Fees 1998-99
through 2002-03," Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, December
2002; "Student Charges and Financial Aid 2002-2003," American Association of
State Colleges and Universities and the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, February 2003; Andorra Bruno and Jeffrey
J. Kuenzi, "Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and Legislation," Report for
Congress, Congressional Research Service, May 16, 2003.
-
The number of illegal
immigrant students was distributed to each state based on the estimate of
illegal immigrants per state: "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant
Population Residing in the United States: 1990-2000," Office of Policy
Planning, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, January 2003.
-
Because the cost
difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition varies by state, the
states with the top cost burdens here vary somewhat from the top most burdened
states for K-12 education.
-
"Cost Estimate for
S.1291 Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act," Congressional
Budget Office, July 26, 2002.
This report was prepared by Jack Martin,
Director of Special Projects.
_____
* Used with permission of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
See original at < http://www.fairus.org/research/research.cfm?id=2016&c=55 >.
|
