Well, Jay Eshelman and I have finally found something we can agree on, so it’s probably worth reproducing here instead of leaving it buried in the comments section of his recent post. Here it is, in response to someone claiming that if we could just get 25% of kids to leave public schools, the system would collapse.
Actually, in NH over the last twenty years, attendance is down 15 percent, while spending (adjusted for inflation) is up 40 percent. Historically, removing kids from the schools leads to growth, which is the opposite of collapse.
There is a way out, though, which is to take the state supreme court at its word: Taxes should pay for the OPPORTUNITY to get an education.
Right now, that requirement is satisfied by giving a kid a Chromebook (about $150 at Walmart) and a subscription to Starlink (about $90 a month). With those two things, you’ve led the horse to water, and if he doesn’t want to drink, that’s his problem. Imagine dropping the per-student cost for a district from around $25,000 to around $1000. Any school board with the stones to do this could do it, right now, without any change in the law.
But that doesn’t solve the daycare problem, does it? If you still want to have subsidized babysitting, you can (again) take the state supreme court at its word: Taxes should pay for the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and learning NECESSARY to participate intelligently in the American political, economic, and social systems of a free government.
If something isn’t important enough to be mandatory, then it clearly isn’t necessary. And if it’s being provided at some school districts but not all of them, then it clearly isn’t necessary. It follows that no school should be using tax money to teach anything that isn’t (1) mandatory and (2) taught at all schools.
If parents want to pay extra money for more than that, that would be up to them. But they’d probably be silly to get those things through the schools, which are always more expensive (and nearly always of lower quality) than private options.
Note that the court is talking about knowledge and learning, and not ‘course credit’. So you can’t just say every kid should ‘take a course in technology’, or ‘take a course in science’. You need to say, specifically, what is to be learned and why it is necessary.
This would cut the curriculum (and associated cost) to about 10% of what it is now, which would actually be a good thing. As the Chinese say, if you chase a bunch of rabbits, you won’t catch any of them. It would be a lot better, and a lot cheaper, to have schools that succeed at producing students who can read and do math than schools that try to teach too much and consequently fail to teach much of anything.
If you can read and do math, you can decide later to learn any damn thing you want, with the help of thousands of people who are lined up to assist you with that, often for free. Which is what it means to be ‘educated.’
So, we’d still have to heat and light the buildings and run the buses, but the cost of the schooling part of the enterprise (including the cost of extra-curricular activities, like sports) would drop pretty quickly. Kids could spend a couple of hours a day, a few days a week, learning necessary material and then spend the rest of their time hanging out with their friends — or studying if they’re serious about learning and not being distracted by shuffling from room to room to listen to lectures about things that don’t interest them and that aren’t necessary for them to know.
But just thinking you accomplish any kind of significant change just by reducing attendance — without changing the fundamental nature of schools — is contradicted by history, as well as by reasoning.
