A Modest Proposal by John Thomas (7/8/2023)
A Radical Plan To Improve PA Schools
John Thomas is a Libertarian candidate for Region 2 of the Armstrong School Board.
In an ideal world, all educational spending would be private. However, after many years of government-funded education, eliminating government spending entirely would be a bridge too far for most Americans. Yet, more Americans than ever are dissatisfied with the government school system. Whether it’s those on the right upset about concepts associated with Critical Race Theory or gender ideology making their way into public schools, or those on the left upset that some schools are eliminating certain books from the curriculum, there is a general dissatisfaction with education.
Following the COVID lockdowns, many families across Pennsylvania got a peak inside the classrooms as students began taking classes from home. What they saw disturbed them.
This presents a unique opportunity for educational reform in Pennsylvania.
The Armstrong School District serves about 4,800 students and has a budget of over $100 Million. This amounts to over $20,800 per student per year. In other words, even if we freeze educational spending at current levels, a student entering Kindergarten this year can expect to have over $250,000 spent on his behalf by the school district.
My modest proposal is that we close all government schools. We cut the educational spending by 25%, to $15,600 per pupil per year, and send that money to parents, to be used toward education. This spending will be capped at this rate for the next 50 years.
Any of the money that is not spent on education will go into a trust fund for the student, to be accessed when they turn 18.
This will present many benefits, including:
The immediate 25% reduction in school spending would mean lower property taxes.
Schools will be free from government regulation, to pursue strategies to make the most impact on students.
Students who do not want to be in school can leave school early. This may result in them settling for lower-paying jobs, but they could also have a sizeable trust fund, which could enable them to live more comfortably on a lower income. (For example, they could use the money from their trust fund to become homeowners, eliminating rent from their monthly expenses.)
Students who do not want to be in school will no longer cause a distraction for those who do want to be in school.
Students remaining in school will know the value of school, which will encourage them to be more focused on learning.
Some schools will teach curriculum including controversial topics, such as Critical Race Theory. Others will teach abstinence-only sex education. Others will focus exclusively on academic disciplines. Parents can choose the right fit for their child.
Because any money not spent on education will go toward a trust fund for the students, parents have an incentive to find the most cost-effective educational solutions. This will create price competition.
Because there is competition between schools, schools will have an incentive to provide the best quality product to students.
Addressing Criticisms
Like any proposal of this kind, this proposal is likely to face criticism. I will attempt to address those criticisms below. In doing so, I will present a few words of caution. Modifications to this program could indeed make the revised system worse than the present system.
A 25% cut in spending will result in lower-quality education.
This need not be the case. As mentioned above, the most motivated students are going to be the ones remaining in school, so there will be fewer distractions. Also, with money going directly to parents, spending that goes towards expensive programs as part of grant funding or to meet burdensome regulations could be eliminated. More money could be spent directly on teachers and curriculum, with improved student learning, thanks to free market mechanisms which will eliminate waste.
Imagine a good elementary school teacher who is currently making $70,000 per year in Pennsylvania, with a classroom of 25 students. If this new funding structure were passed, she could start her own school, open to just 10 students. She could charge the full educational allotment, of $15,600 per student per year, and take in over $150,000. Or, she could charge somewhat less, and allow the students to build up savings to be used toward college, starting up a business, or buying a home upon graduation. She could then follow those students throughout their elementary school career, building a level of trust and commitment with those students. Over the course of 5 years, in the present situation, the teacher would have had 125 students in her classroom. Under this situation, she would have had just 10. The commitment and dedication she could offer to those 10 students would far surpass anything she could offer to the 125.
Now, to be sure, she would have to provide all the curriculum, materials, and equipment herself, out of the $150,000. But, I’m sure she could do that at a far more reasonable rate than how it is currently provided in the public school structure. (She could also begin to build up capital in her micro-school. Over the course of those five years, under the proposed system, she could take in $780,000, versus $350,000 in the current system, plus she would already have a wealth of educational resources curated by the time her second cohort of students began learning.)
Some parents would not spend the money on education, and it could be spent feeding harmful habits, such as drug addiction.
While there is no way to prevent this entirely, we need not pretend to live in a world where this doesn’t already occur. The money that goes towards educational salaries in some, albeit few, cases goes into the pockets of drug dealers. We don’t use the rare case of a teacher getting paid by the school board to support a drug addiction as justification to eliminate teacher salaries altogether. Likewise, we shouldn’t use the potential for a few parents to use their children’s educational funds on addictive chemicals as a reason to maintain the status quo.
What do we do, then, in the cases where the money is indeed wasted?
I would propose that this would be handled through civil law. The money is the child’s and the parent is the custodian of the funds. It is the parent’s responsibility to use it in the best interest of the child. If the parent wastes it, then the child, upon turning 18, will be able to sue the parent in civil court. If it is shown that no reasonable person would consider their choice in how to utilize the money as advancing the child’s education, then the parent will be found to be at fault, and the parent would have wages or savings directed toward the child.
Wouldn’t this just lead to the government regulating private schools, the same way they regulate public schools now, and ultimately result in fewer choices, with all simply being cookie-cutters of government dictates?
This is indeed a danger, and when this program is passed, all power must be left in the hands of the parents. There should be no government bureaucrats defining what is and is not educational spending. The parents know their children better than bureaucrats know them and are in the best position to determine what form of educational spending is right for their children. In the rare cases where the parents do not care about the educational well-being of their children, and waste the money, then it could be settled in a court of law as explained above.
The availability of grants and loans led to an increase in the costs of college education. Wouldn’t the same thing happen with K-12 education under this system?
The key difference between college grants and this program is that financial aid for college is expected to be spent. Under this program, there would be an incentive to NOT spend the money – a trust fund for the child. This incentive to save, rather than spend, will keep downward pressure on prices, and make education more affordable.
Without the government setting standards for schools, wouldn’t we have dangerous conditions for schools, with some sweatshops masquerading as schools?
This is unlikely to happen. The market has a way of regulating itself, and private credentialing firms will also likely step up to offer stamps of approval for larger educational institutions. In the world of Yelp, Google Reviews, etc., it is difficult to imagine a scenario where a patently unsafe school is able to attract students.
This is more likely to create an Uber-ization of education. When Uber first arose, one of the criticisms was that drivers did not have to pass the level of background checks that were required of taxi drivers. Predictions were made of Uber drivers regularly assaulting passengers. However, those predictions never came to fruition. Assaulting a passenger would be the end of your career. Likewise, an educator who assaults a student, in the world absent government schools, would see his or her educational career end. (This would be a substantial improvement over our current situation, where large teachers’ unions protect teachers who have been accused of assault. I would predict that students are more likely to be assaulted by a teacher under our present arrangement than they would be under a fully privatized system.)
Would this result in taxpayer money going to religious schools?
We need to stop pretending like taxpayer money is not already going to religious institutions. Anyone who collects welfare, disability, or social security, and tithes on that income, is taking money from the state, and giving it to a religious institution. This money will be the family’s money, to be used how they think will best serve the educational interests of their child. If they think a secular education is best, they can choose that. If they think a Christian education is best, they can choose that. If they think a Muslim education is best, they can choose that. This proposal would do nothing to establish a church and would be well within the anti-establishment language of the constitution.
Would this create more rent-seeking lobbyists, trying to get this number increased above the $15,600 limit?
Yes, and that’s why it should be set in stone for the first 50 years. This is a position that should not budge. If politicians are allowed to adjust this, then it will indeed lead to rent-seeking and may lead to a situation that is just as bad as our current situation in regard to spending.
Conclusion
This proposal may seem a bit bold, but with student reading and math scores at a 30-year low, we need bold proposals. Doing more of the same is not going to serve our students well. We need solutions that will improve student learning as radically as the current system is harming it.