Bill, I have wondered why Public Schools still exist when alternatives have been thoroughly vetted. (If there were no government schools we would surly see a drastic rise in those choices) I once thought that perhaps it was because the community has a fiscal incentive to ensure their citizens ‘grow up smart’. Ergo, smarter people would equal higher taxes. So perhaps they believe other institutions couldn’t be “trusted” with such an important, albeit economic, responsibility. But that to me sounds more like an incentive to demand better performance in our schools.

All I hear is how underfunded they are, not how poor they perform.

I wonder if responsibility arises somewhat from the fact that our schools are not funded completely by local cities. The Department of Education at the federal and state levels have a lot to do with how much funding individual school districts receive as well as the curriculum used. If local governments were responsible for funding 100% would we see far more efficiency? Wouldn’t we see more attention paid to the quality of the education? It seems parents could actually make a difference in their child’s education that way.

Another idea I have contemplated… Could cities or school districts simply get vouchers? In other words, a school district receive funds from the state/fed but is not told how to spend that money, except to pay for educating their citizens. When the federal government was trying to encourage the building of highways, they offered a 92% federal match. All the cities responded by ceasing to fund streetcars, buses, etc. and instead built highways at the cost of only $.08 on the dollar, all cities except for one that is – Portland. They convinced the highway administration to allow them to use the funds for alternative kinds of transportation. It is pretty fair to say that it has paid off for them.

In the same way, would providing school districts with funding but with the ability to fund “alternatives” but still conduct business within the parameters of federally approved projects (just like Portland had to get approval for theirs) create an atmosphere of competition without disrupting the whole tax system?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not an advocate for government schools. My experience as a city councilman taught me the valuable lesson of eating an elephant one bite at a time. I do believe we can solve our education “crisis” in America but it will take us being willing to make small gradual changes, and for us to become willing to try new ideas. Subsequently, like in the case of Portland, we must also allow some cities to make good decisions and others poorer ones, even if most cities make the poor choice at first. Making the system more free in the long run will always improve it.

Bill, I have wondered why Public Schools still exist when alternatives have been thoroughly vetted. (If there were no government schools we would surly see a drastic rise in those choices) I once thought that perhaps it was because the community has a fiscal incentive to ensure their citizens ‘grow up smart’. Ergo, smarter people would equal higher taxes. So perhaps they believe other institutions couldn’t be “trusted” with such an important, albeit economic, responsibility. But that to me sounds more like an incentive to demand better performance in our schools.

All I hear is how underfunded they are, not how poor they perform.

I wonder if responsibility arises somewhat from the fact that our schools are not funded completely by local cities. The Department of Education at the federal and state levels have a lot to do with how much funding individual school districts receive as well as the curriculum used. If local governments were responsible for funding 100% would we see far more efficiency? Wouldn’t we see more attention paid to the quality of the education? It seems parents could actually make a difference in their child’s education that way.

Another idea I have contemplated… Could cities or school districts simply get vouchers? In other words, a school district receive funds from the state/fed but is not told how to spend that money, except to pay for educating their citizens. When the federal government was trying to encourage the building of highways, they offered a 92% federal match. All the cities responded by ceasing to fund streetcars, buses, etc. and instead built highways at the cost of only $.08 on the dollar, all cities except for one that is – Portland. They convinced the highway administration to allow them to use the funds for alternative kinds of transportation. It is pretty fair to say that it has paid off for them.

In the same way, would providing school districts with funding but with the ability to fund “alternatives” but still conduct business within the parameters of federally approved projects (just like Portland had to get approval for theirs) create an atmosphere of competition without disrupting the whole tax system?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not an advocate for government schools. My experience as a city councilman taught me the valuable lesson of eating an elephant one bite at a time. I do believe we can solve our education “crisis” in America but it will take us being willing to make small gradual changes, and for us to become willing to try new ideas. Subsequently, like in the case of Portland, we must also allow some cities to make good decisions and others poorer ones, even if most cities make the poor choice at first. Making the system more free in the long run will always improve it.