School Funding Matters

We need to look for a better way organize schools. This notion of community schools is the center of the problem. It has enabled the re-segregation of our metro areas, on both racial and economic dimensions. It has also segregated commercial funding sources from residential suburban school districts. A great read on this subject is "Getting Around Brown" by Gregory Jacobs, available in full text online at the Ohio State University Press.

I am an advocate of a pure voucher-based system much like that described by Milton Friedman in his book "Freedom to Choose."  Let us determine state-wide what a reasonable per-student funding level is (with adjustments for special needs kids), and simply give each kid a voucher for that much money. The mechanism for raising taxes is less important than how it gets redistributed. I say give the same amount to every kid.

That voucher can be submitted to the State for reimbursement only by an accredited school. To be accredited, a school would have to follow state-mandated curriculae and employee appropriate licensed teachers. The school would have to be not-for-profit, with no investors expecting a return. And here's the key - an accredited school would have to accept the State voucher as 100% of the tuition, and any living anywhere in Ohio could attend any accredited school. Transportation would be provided within reasonable distances, including the use of the public transportation network.

Beyond that, let's let competition and innovation decide what our schools look like. Some might have a STEM emphasis, like Metro High School in Columbus. Another might be performing arts. Another athletics. The performing arts schools wouldn't bother building a football stadium, but might have a comprehensive set of musical instruments to loan to its students. The athletics school might have great sports facilities, but no performing arts.

Some school buildings might band together into a 'system,' allowing them to benefit from the economies of scale. Other schools might only have a couple hundred students, like Metro. If we find the local equivalent of Metro is turning away too many students, it creates the opportunity for another group to start a competitive school.

All this stuff works at the collegiate level, why not primary and secondary as well?

And as is the case with the collegiate level, if folks want to donate money above and beyond the voucher income to a school - that's great. But you still have to accept the state voucher as 100% tuition, and be non-discriminatory in your admission policy.

Professional educators hate this idea because it threatens their job security. A school that doesn't deliver will lose students, and therefore funding. The teachers, administrators and staff of that school will lose their jobs.

But those teachers who help make their school successful will be in demand, and will be able to demand salaries commensurate with their individual constributions, not just seniority or credentials.

If we want to prepare our kids for the 21st century, it's less important that we equip them with Algebra II than it is we instill a drive to compete and an understanding of basic economics. The kids with the motivation and brainpower will still take AP classes and go to prestigious universities. We crank out all the engineers and scientists we need. Our country needs more middle-class jobs, not more engineers (and certainly not more lawyers).

Isn't it interesting that the teachers who we entrust to prepare our kids for the 21st century are: a) in a non-competitive profession; and, b) don't know how to manage their own investments (e.g. the STRS).

All this noise about school funding comes from those who simply want the rest of us to keep supporting the same old system. It's time for a radical change. Let's quit talking about raising taxes to prop up the old system and start talking about a new system altogether.

PL