When/If you post a comment (and I hope you will!), be sure to put in a URL --- even if you just use mine (http://alan.batie.org/) --- if you don't, your email address will get put in as a link on your name, and you'll suddenly find yourself on Spam Central. Not my doing, I promise you! They scan websites for embedded email addresses. You've been warned --- I really don't wish spam on anyone (well, ok, maybe the spammers themselves)!
Finally, if you want to be notified when I post the this blog, signup on the lemmings mailing list.
The biggest problem in Oregon right now is school funding. Fully half of all our taxes go towards it, and people have had enough, while schools are struggling. I believe there is a solution, though it probably won't be popular, and it's pretty radical. This is a first draft of my proposed solution...
Principles:
1. In this day and age, kids are *not* necessities. We can't just suddenly stop having
them without disastrous consequences, but in general, we've got way too many people on
this planet as it is and there's no requirement from a "survival" perspective to keep
having as many as we do. I don't have anything against kids, I love *other people's*
kids ;-) but I raise this as a lead in to the next point:
2. When parents *do* choose to have kids, it is their responsibility to raise them, and that
includes educating them. Yes, it is in society's best interest to see that they are well
educated, for a number of reasons, but it is still the parent's responsibility to see that
that happens. Society's role is simply to assist where reasonably possible.
3. Competition is good. Let the best survive and the weak die off. This is the way things
work regardless of what people want to believe, the only thing that changes is what the
competition is over: if you change the rules to eliminate overt competition for something
that is a scarce resource, then the competition becomes who can best game the system. So
let's bring it back out in the open where we can make sure it's a fair playing field.
4. People's incomes tend to rise over time.
The Proposal Itself:
My proposal is a simple one: extend student loans down to cover the entirety of education.
All the way to birth. Eliminate state funding of education entirely, and limit the state's
role to setting minimum standards which accredited schools must meet. Society's financial
contribution, though taxes, is to cover the interest on the loans and the ones which eventually
are determined to be uncollectable.
The loans would be prorated according to need, stopping entirely at the point where a family's
income can afford, without hardship, to pay for the average educational cost of 1 child. This
allows people to pay for their child's education early in life, when people tend to have children,
and pay for that education later when they are generally better able to afford it. Those who
are most successful at raising their children may even have those children voluntarily pay off
their own educational debt.
The first two years are critical in parenting, so I would start with what would amount to a
negative income tax, but as a loan: enough for room, board, necessities and some incidentals.
This is the portion I believe most susceptible to abuse, both monetarily and of the child, and
would require the most oversight.
From two years until first grade, the loans would cover the cost of day care, so that the
parents can work to support their family.
From kindergarten through junior high, the loans would cover the cost of education at the
school of the parent's choice where the child is admitted. Schools could never use economic
criteria for acceptance, and could not use academic criteria for acceptance through the 6th
grade, but could give preference to those residing closer to the school. Other criteria would
have to be fair and non-discriminatory.
From high school through the first PhD, the school would be the choice of the child.
Yes, this is basically an extended form of school vouchers. The biggest complaint people
usually have over vouchers is over religious schools, but that is really a bogus argument,
and actually argues for the vouchers: the separation of church and state is there to prevent
the state from imposing a religion on people. It is *not* there to prevent the state from
having any involvement at all with religious institutions: as long as all are treated equally,
and there is no requirement for *or against* a religion, the goal is met.
The corollary argument is that people are subsidizing for a religion they don't believe in.
Although in standard school vounchers that is partially true, the fact is that everyone will
have a problem with *something* their taxes are used for. That's the price of living communally.
And because these are loans, it isn't really true here. Virtually all student loans are in the
form of loans from private institutions, where they are guaranteed by the state and the insterest
is paid by the state. So there is only the most tenuous connection, and it upholds the highest
ideal upon which this country was founded: personal freedom.
How to get there? Obviously this could not be done instantaneously. Public schools need to be
given the opportunity and resources to compete. To that end, I would restrict the school choice
aspect until the 3rd year of the program. The loans could only be applied to your local public
school for the first two years. This would give them two years and the resources they need to
get turned around (if need be) and acclimated to the new environment. Perhaps as much as 5 years,
but no more.
The biggest risk I see with this program is that people may end up not being able to pay off the
loans and the cost to the taxpayer even higher than it is now. But if that's the case, that
would mean that education itself is not a success, and if *that's* the case, we would have to
ask ourselves "why bother?" I do not believe that however, and I think our kids are worth taking
a chance on to solve this problem once and for all.