I read what Ian Underwood writes on these pages about education Freedom Accounts (EFAs), education, funding, and learning goals. I have to say I agree, and like Ian, I like the idea of EFAs, so I hope you will tune in tomorrow for my interview with Ian and Jody. We talk about education. From money to priorities to perceptions and paradigms. EFA’s get some attention just in time for another legislative session and what should be a feisty debate.
And like magic, content has sort of just appeared in my mailbox in preparation for that.
Gambling on Education asks some great questions, including why we pay for something with such lackluster results from which there is no refund. We talk about this in the interview.
We also shared Amanda Weeden’s op-ed (Amanda always gets folks fired up) Universal EFA’s Will Lead To Less Education Freedom, Higher Taxes. That got a few folks mad enough to say things like,
Mike Belcher, who has a great mind, legislative experience, and has long been a reader and supporter of our efforts, wrote,
Then there’s this – I have no idea who this is – I didn’t look.
That’s probably true even if you agree with the article they refer to, but, for the record, it wasn’t technically a work of ‘Grok. It’s an Op-ed with the default disclaimer that “authors’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.“
We are okay with owning it, though, because it makes excellent points from which any debate must emanate, and we need more discussion, especially on the topic of Universal EFAs as currently imagined.
Yes, Mike, the government will always try to regulate education and does not need to chase tax money to do that, but universal EFAs aren’t the solution. They will result in higher property taxes because schools that lose 1, 5, or 10 kids aren’t going to decrease spending by that many times the per-student average for the district. Depending on the district, they could lose 1000 kids, and nothing would change.
We know this is true.
Enrollment has declined everywhere for years, but what has happened to spending? Massive increases. The two things are not connected – a problem the current effort does not attempt to address. Ergo, property taxes will rise. Yes, those EFA kids got free from the ideological prison system, but taxpayers are paying the same for crappy local schools, plus the cost of EFAs and next year’s SAU budget hike with even fewer kids enrolled.
The problem isn’t EFAs; it’s real education freedom, and that starts with how we think about schools compared to everything else.
Ian made a great comment about this under Amanad’s op-ed – which he expanded on in his post, publishing tomorrow.
Suppose we ask a very basic question: Under what conditions should we give tax money to, or spend tax money on, people who don’t need it?
We don’t give LIHEAP subsidies to people who can already afford to heat their homes. We don’t give Section 8 subsidies to people who can already afford to own or rent their homes. We don’t give food stamps to people who can already afford to feed their families. And so on.
So the proper answer seems to be: Under no conditions. And there is a good reason for this. It’s hard to think of something more evil than taking money from people who are worse off, to hand it over to people who are better off.
Why, then, would we give education subsidies, in the form of EFAs, to parents who can already afford to educate their own children?
We shouldn’t do that.
But while we’re considering that initial question, we should go a step further, applying the principle not just to EFAs, but to public schools as well.
That is, if a parent can afford to pay some or all of the per-student cost of sending his child to a public school, why would we let him do that at the expense of other people, many of whom are worse off than him?
Ideally, there are two results, not just one, that should come out of the current debate over universal funding of EFAs.The first is that universal funding should be voted down, just as it would for any other kind of welfare.
The second is that means testing for public schools should be instituted, just as it would for any other kind of welfare.
The property tax problem is a school spending problem. That isn’t resolved in any way other than cutting local school budgets, and EFA’s don’t do that. We free a mind from a Matrix that continues to grow and might, at some point, make demands of everyone receiving taxpayer-backed EFA dollars. And most likely will. And you can’t argue that this is fearmongering. The fact that government money poisons everything touches is conservatarian economic gospel – but not state money to homeschoolers, religious schools, or charter school kids? C’mon, man!
The attacks on religious schools are well documented as are the court cases. It’ll happen.
So, if you want to lower local property taxes and have more education freedom, and almost everyone who supports the latter wants the former, we have to find a path to cutting local school spending, which leaves more money in the hands of parents and taxpayers. Savings they might spend on a “learning” vacation, homeschool supplies, or at a local charter school. That’s the only true education freedom.
I’m going to stop because this post is already too long, so let me invite you to watch GrokTALK tomorrow at 8 pm. Ian and Jody Underwood help us rethink not just education funding but education period.
Here’s a clip to tease you.
