Educational Alternatives

In our society today you have multiple choices.  We can buy many types of televisions, cars and any product or service, with the exception of education. Over the past 30 years we have seen consistent, continual improvement in the quality and pricing of products and services where competition exists for the benefit of all.  This cannot be denied. Education however is a clear exception, especially for the poor and for minorities, as we are told (see achievement gap).

When we discuss parental choice, the parties that benefit from the current system attack with vengeance. I ask why can’t parents have a choice?  The system will immediately attempt to scare the reader with what they will say is a ‘disastrous idea’. It will take funds from the system, it will hurt students, it will hurt the community, it will hurt teachers and administrators, and so forth.  So to make sure we’re clear, a parent having a choice hurts everyone?  Consider a choice in the car you buy, who does that hurt?

Yes it could ‘hurt’ those that benefit from the current education system, and those people are NOT the students!   My proposal is not perfect, but a start, and because it is a start, it will be fought as being somehow unfair.  My proposal is very simple:  

If you have a child that is not going to the public schools or receiving a public school funded education, then you may receive a property tax credit for 75% of your property tax bills up to a maximum of $5,000 per child.  The 75% is representative of the approximate total amount of town expenditures that is allocated towards education. This applies only to residences and autos. It can only be claimed by one parent/homeowner. Could we offer this to renters? Possibly, however, we would have to consider the difficulties of administration.  It is easier to administer a single-family home or dwelling even in a rental scenario. It would not be available for nonresidential properties.

So if you owed in property taxes $4,000; you would pay $1,000.  If you owed $3,000 you would have to pay $750. If you owed $8,000 you have to pay $3,000, however if you had two children, you would have to pay $2,000. The school system loses very little in respect to funds ($24,000 avg cost minus say $5,000).  Since this is a credit, there can be no argument about separation of church and state, if funds go to a parochial school since there is no direct payment.

Is this a perfect proposal? No, it is not, however, it is the best proposal I have at this moment. A fairer proposal would be a parental choice that provides a parent funds they could be used wherever they chose up to a maximum of say $5,500, the approximate cost of an elementary school education in Windsor’s private schools this year.  This is still a far cry from the $24,000 cost that the current system supports.  Consider the current system is not concerned about taxpayers or necessarily students. It is concerned about keeping its budgets flush with cash and stakeholders employed.

The secondary benefit is there would be more funds available to assist those students that need the additional help ($24K – say $5K = $19K) and provide them with the highest quality education that they can receive. That benefits the students, parents, and the community.

We also know the status quo is overwhelmingly opposed to anything that could possibly hurt their ability to eat from the education trough. This is not about them. It is about kids, the students, our future citizens. The parents and taxpayers potentially benefit, the community benefits, and only those who benefit from the current status quo might be at risk.

I am interested as always in respectful counter arguments.