Capitalism Cures Education
My Sweetie has been spending a lot of time lately fuming about the state of education in America today, and plotting a revolution to fix it. Don't believe me? Just look here or here. (Although it could be worse, he could be blathering on about beaming technology.)
Last night I came up with the solution, and here it is:
1) All education funds need to be collected and dispersed at the state level. This will help provide resources to the poorer areas that need the funds. It will also help communities with people who are unwilling to support school levies because they don't have school children. (Not sure if this still applies, but at one point my father refused to vote for any ballot measure that necessitated an increase in taxes. His kids were well out of school, he didn't care what it did for education.)
It will still behoove those who care about a good school in their neighborhood to vote in increased funding, as some of the funds will make it to their neighborhood.
2) One person will be ultimately in charge of dispersing these funds to the schools around the state. Outside of their standard wage they will have two items that can earn them bonuses: If all students within the state are performing equally on the standardized test du jour (I'm not in favor of standardized tests, but we can only do so much change at once, so we'll try to use them for good instead of evil right now) they will get big bonuses. The bigger the disparity between the highest and lowest scores, the smaller the bonus. Now they are incentivized to get all students on an equal level. Also, they will be bonused based on the highest scores of students in the states - the higher the scores, the bigger the bonus. This will incentivize them to have all students to extraordinarily well, rather than just bring the top students down to the lowest common denominator.
3) You won't be able to switch schools without moving to that schools neighborhood. There may be small (like 2-3 high schools) areas that are consolidated and allow movement, but not large districts. Also, under no scenario shall vouchers be provided for private/charter/whatever you want to call them non-public schools. You can send your kid to a private school, but you're still paying into the public school fund.
Here's how I imagine this working:
Let's use two different high schools for our scenario: Yuppie High, the well-funded, well-performing suburban high school full of whites that everyone wants their kid to attend, and Slum High, the under-funded, under-performing inner-city high school full of minorities that no one wants to set foot near.
initially, a disproportionately large amount of resources will need to be funded to Slum High to bring those students up to speed. They'll bribe the best teachers there, get good equipment, current textbooks, let's bring those kids up to speed. Now, some of those parents of Yuppie High students may want their kids to attend Slum High, so their kid can get in on all the action. Now we're starting to force some economic diversity on the place. The Yuppie high families that are moving into the area to get in on that good education, and the Slum high families that don't have the ability to move out.
Now Slum High starts moving up in the rankings, so the funds have to get sent off to Smith High, then Jones High, then whatever else high. Most parents aren't going to be able to move every year to get in on the local best-available school, so they'll accept what they have locally and get on with their lives.
Sweetie posed the following scenario to me after I told him my plan: All the parents at Yuppie High band together and, instead of moving to Slum High start their own private school to buy the best education money can buy. I say more power to them! The amount of money available for education won't change, but now we've got fewer students to deal with, which means we've got more money per student. Now the public schools can have smaller class sizes, and afford to pay teachers more, which means that the private school is going to have to pay EVEN MORE, and now it's becoming AWFULLY expensive for these students to attend their private school. The more students that withdraw from the system, the better off it leaves those students left in the system.
So it won't solve all our problems, and it will take a while to see the big changes, but I think it just might work.
Last night I came up with the solution, and here it is:
1) All education funds need to be collected and dispersed at the state level. This will help provide resources to the poorer areas that need the funds. It will also help communities with people who are unwilling to support school levies because they don't have school children. (Not sure if this still applies, but at one point my father refused to vote for any ballot measure that necessitated an increase in taxes. His kids were well out of school, he didn't care what it did for education.)
It will still behoove those who care about a good school in their neighborhood to vote in increased funding, as some of the funds will make it to their neighborhood.
2) One person will be ultimately in charge of dispersing these funds to the schools around the state. Outside of their standard wage they will have two items that can earn them bonuses: If all students within the state are performing equally on the standardized test du jour (I'm not in favor of standardized tests, but we can only do so much change at once, so we'll try to use them for good instead of evil right now) they will get big bonuses. The bigger the disparity between the highest and lowest scores, the smaller the bonus. Now they are incentivized to get all students on an equal level. Also, they will be bonused based on the highest scores of students in the states - the higher the scores, the bigger the bonus. This will incentivize them to have all students to extraordinarily well, rather than just bring the top students down to the lowest common denominator.
3) You won't be able to switch schools without moving to that schools neighborhood. There may be small (like 2-3 high schools) areas that are consolidated and allow movement, but not large districts. Also, under no scenario shall vouchers be provided for private/charter/whatever you want to call them non-public schools. You can send your kid to a private school, but you're still paying into the public school fund.
Here's how I imagine this working:
Let's use two different high schools for our scenario: Yuppie High, the well-funded, well-performing suburban high school full of whites that everyone wants their kid to attend, and Slum High, the under-funded, under-performing inner-city high school full of minorities that no one wants to set foot near.
initially, a disproportionately large amount of resources will need to be funded to Slum High to bring those students up to speed. They'll bribe the best teachers there, get good equipment, current textbooks, let's bring those kids up to speed. Now, some of those parents of Yuppie High students may want their kids to attend Slum High, so their kid can get in on all the action. Now we're starting to force some economic diversity on the place. The Yuppie high families that are moving into the area to get in on that good education, and the Slum high families that don't have the ability to move out.
Now Slum High starts moving up in the rankings, so the funds have to get sent off to Smith High, then Jones High, then whatever else high. Most parents aren't going to be able to move every year to get in on the local best-available school, so they'll accept what they have locally and get on with their lives.
Sweetie posed the following scenario to me after I told him my plan: All the parents at Yuppie High band together and, instead of moving to Slum High start their own private school to buy the best education money can buy. I say more power to them! The amount of money available for education won't change, but now we've got fewer students to deal with, which means we've got more money per student. Now the public schools can have smaller class sizes, and afford to pay teachers more, which means that the private school is going to have to pay EVEN MORE, and now it's becoming AWFULLY expensive for these students to attend their private school. The more students that withdraw from the system, the better off it leaves those students left in the system.
So it won't solve all our problems, and it will take a while to see the big changes, but I think it just might work.
posted by Swankette at 3:01 PM
4 Comments:
I think the "one person" idea is interesting. It reminds me of Dave Barry's Department Of Marge: a budget department made up entirely of a 40-year-old single mother named Marge. If you can't convince her to spend tax dollars, it's a no-go.
Realistically, though, that one person is going to need a lot of administrative help. Should her staff get the performance bonuses too?
To the extent that the staff has impacts on the changes in the program, yes.
I think the step in your plan that I find most unlikely to happen is the step where people move into Slum High School's attendance area from the outside. Even if the school is great, I would assume that other issues that make the ghetto an undesirable place to live (lack of doctors/poor hospitals, safety, aesthetics, etc.) will remain.
Then it takes a little longer for the plan to come to fruition, but I still think the eventaul goal could be achieved.
Post a Comment
<< Home