That's the pledge I want the government schools to make to parents of school-aged children: "Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back". And that's the platform for education that I'd like to see the Republican Party adopt, both nationally and at the state level.
The social contract is that we all pay taxes for government schools with the expectation that the government will educate our kids. But for various reasons, many parents are not satisfied with the government schools and choose other means for educating their kids. Those who reject government schools should be able to get their money back.
This is a simple matter of fairness. Nobody should have to pay for a contracted-for service that is rejected for being unsatisfactory. It's also a powerful incentive for schools to improve.
In practice it wouldn't be a simple refund of taxes, but a flat (or progressively calculated) rebate per child per year. And satisfaction is forward-looking based on registering the child, not backward-looking. You don't get a refund if, say, you're not happy with your kid's grades.
This issue has traditionally been framed as "school choice". But I think "money-back guarantee" is more familar, more powerful and easier to understand. It's also a positive way to put the ball in the court of all those union officials, bureaucrats and politicians who champion "public education". If they have confidence in their ability to deliver a satisfactory service they should be proud to offer a money-back guarantee, and vice-versa.
I intend to ask elected officials with responsibility for education to go on the record with their position on the money-back guarantee. Their responses will be enlightening.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 21, 2006 01:06 PM | Email ThisThoughts?
Posted by: Paul o' The East on November 21, 2006 02:12 PMWhy do you get a refund or rebate if you register your children at a different school while I get nothing at all for all my tax dollars? If your child doesn't get educated to your satisfaction, well, at least you're getting 8 hours of babysitting, right? You may not be getting your money's worth, but at least you're getting something back for the money you've spent.
How do you think I feel? I'm throwing my money away at taxes so that OTHER people's children can be poorly educated.
When do I get my rebate? I'm all for making public schools perform better, but this is a patently unfair idea. If you want my tax dollars to pay for your school vouchers, I'm okay with that. If you want my tax dollars to go back into your pocket - you'll get a different answer. Either we ALL pay in equally and get what we can get (or not), or we should ALL get refunds.
Posted by: Larry on November 21, 2006 02:29 PMStefan, I have any idea. Why don't you ask politicans if they're in favor of giving a money-back guarantee to taxpayers who aren't satisfied with the national defense that the federal government provides? You know, let people who think they don't get any benefit from the protection of our armed services opt out of the system. These clever people can load up on AKs and build bomb shelters and simply send the feds the bill.
Same thing, dude. Don't go there.
Posted by: DJ on November 21, 2006 02:30 PMSince I (as a parent) have to educate my child, the rebate would have to be used for the child's education. What do you get? You get the same social benefit for which you are paying taxes in the first place -- educated children who you need. I wouldn't necessarily agree with every educational choice made by every single parent. But in the aggregate I would trust the collective wisdom of parents to make choices for their children more than I would trust the collective "wisdom" of politicians and effectively unaccountable civil servants.
Here's an analogous situation -- tax deductions (= public subsidies) for charitable contributions. I don't have to agree with every donation that every individual makes to charity in order to accept the overall good that this does.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on November 21, 2006 02:57 PMI'll go along with your idea, as soon as I get some of my taxes back to pay for my GMC Jimmy.
I'm paying taxes for public transit for the social benefit of excellent transportation infrastructure and easy movement of goods and services between cities and regions.
But this system has not been serving me at the local level. I deserve to 'opt out' of these local transportation boondoggles and only pay the portion of my transportation tax allocation that pays for local roads. I deserve a refund for any money spent on buses and trains!
And, of course, I have to spend this rebate on new tires and oil changes for my private vehicle. It'll be spent on my transportation needs, as your refund will be spent on your child's education needs.
It's a bad solution to a bad situation. Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter how logical it sounds to a parent in a worthless school district.
Posted by: Larry on November 21, 2006 03:10 PMAnother point of contention -
"Since I (as a parent) have to educate my child, the rebate would have to be used for the child's education. What do you get? You get the same social benefit for which you are paying taxes in the first place -- educated children who you need."
If the system is failing YOU - as a parent - then why isn't the system also failing ME? I'm paying for the social benefit of educated children. But you're telling me the system is broken and the children aren't being educated!!
So I also deserve a refund. I'm not getting the social benefit that I've been promised. Why do you get money back when promises to you aren't being kept, while I must keep paying even though my benefits aren't being delivered?
A public school system is supposed to be a benefit to EVERYONE that EVERYONE pays for. If the benefits aren't being realized, why do some people get a refund while others do not?
Don't worry - I'll spend my refund on public education. I'll send it to my alma mater - the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - and earmark it for their Engineering and Business schools.
Posted by: Larry on November 21, 2006 03:24 PMI'm going to side with DJ at comment #5.
Posted by: Cato on November 21, 2006 03:35 PMAgain, Larry, when a parent uses the refund for the child's education you do benefit. It is wrong to assume that only the government school can deliver the benefit when parents decide that other schools do a better job. This is no different from the public financing of higher education. Students are eligible for various forms of assistance whether they attend a state university or a private university. Why not provide the same benefits to K-12 students?
Your transportation analogy is silly. I would also prefer that transportation be financed more through user fees and less through taxes. But it's nearly impossible to meter someone's transporation usage and apportion any refund. (I work at home and don't commute. Under some logic I should be eligible for a refund. But that's unworkable). Every child must attend some form of schooling, which requires some amount tuition. It's relatively straightforward.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on November 21, 2006 03:42 PMHowever, with Washington's ncestous labor union/state relationship, it ain't gonna happen until there is a sea change in Olympia.
Posted by: BornRight on November 21, 2006 03:50 PMI disagree. You could set up a system in which your millage is recorded once a year on the car(s) registered in your name. You could get it done on an annual basis when you go to get your tabs renewed. The govt. would set a certain mileage target for the year (it can vary from county to county). You exceed that limit you become intelligible for a refund of X amount. For those who don't have a car or commute to work they become eligible for a refund from highway funds based on the percentage under the target you have driven.
This might encourage more people to ride the bus as well as benefit people who telecommute or work from home such as yourself. You refund the money that you would otherwise pay to roads and upkeep and put it back in the pockets of those who don't drive or use a public transportation alternative.
Posted by: Cato on November 21, 2006 03:58 PMIt's a great idea, but it will probably never fly simply due to the amount of paperwork and oversight required to a)set up ANOTHER government agency to facilitate and approve the refunds b) the difficulty for parents trying to PROVE why they are unhappy 3) the intrusiveness of someone coming in to approve of the way that I am spending the money refunded.
The simple answer to the education mess we are facing in this country can be summed up in one word-COMPETITION! As I stand in line at the Post Office or the Department of Licensing or I see the results of the WASL, it becomes ever more obvious that the schools, like most governmental services, are drowning in a sea of politically correct mediocrity, tightly wrapped in government mandates and finished with the bow of union protectionism wound snugly around their collective necks! There are great teachers and there are wonderful schools but there are too many failing schools and there are far too many incompetent, lazy people who know they can get away with doing almost anything...or absolutely nothing! Any person who will champion the total overhaul of the public school system, starting with accountability, transparency and a return to the basics of phonics based reading, rote mathematics, and grammar based writing, IN ENGLISH, will have my vote, and I suspect, the votes of a large majority of the population!
And request them at the door to even the public schools.
The theory was that education creates a public good, which is why it is required. Nowhere did it say GOVERNMENT education. The taxes are collected to educate children - no adjective or modifier in front of children. So why are the unions so against allowing parents (remember them?) the choice of which accreditied institution educates their children? Other than to save union jobs/monopoly to require government schools, despite the poor performance some have. Remeber it is for the children (not the union bosses)
Posted by: Fred on November 21, 2006 05:12 PMAnd DJ, if you're not satisfied with national defense and want your money back, can I say I'm not satisfied with Social Security and Medicare and want my money back? I'd glady exchange getting to keep all my money that gets sucked into those two black holes for the responsibility of taking care of myself when I retire, thank you very much.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on November 21, 2006 07:47 PMBut if the US Army went away, there's no way the market could efficiently allocate resources to adequately defend all of the American people. Sure, some rich people with a lot to lose would band together to buy small private armies to protect their own interests. But they would have no incentive to defend everybody, and that's why the state needs to do it.
While education may not be a non-excludable pure public good like defense, it's pretty close. The social cost of having millions of uneducated citizens is too high, and market would not adequately or efficiently allocate resources to account for the demand. That's why governments decided 150 years ago that providing an education was a paramount duty of the state.
(For a contrary, libertarian argument, see here: http://www.mises.org/story/2216#4.)
At any rate, the more I think about Stefan's proposal, the less I understand how it differs from traditional voucher proposals. And, if it doesn't, I think it's a fine idea and, politically speaking, unremarkable. What sounds crazy to me is (and this is a common problem with Stefan) is the RHETORIC. Marketing a run-of-the-mill voucher policy as a "money-back guarantee" sounds an awful lot as an opt-out. And that, in turn, implicates all of the public good issues I discussed about. I don't think rhetoric that sounds like a wholesale assault on the American system of free and compulsory education will sell on the Eastside.
Posted by: DJ on November 22, 2006 09:35 AMWho do you think is going to pay for your social security, medicare, and AARP membership when you get to be old enough to collect? The tax breaks people with children receive are a small percentage of the actual cost to raise a child. Without people having children the socialist system our government provides older people would collapse. I would be happy to give back all tax breaks if the government stops taxing me for people currently on (welfare) oops!! I mean social security and medicare. Get a clue!!
Brad
Posted by: Brad Strecker on November 22, 2006 11:03 AMAt any rate, the more I think about Stefan's proposal, the less I understand how it differs from traditional voucher proposals. And, if it doesn't, I think it's a fine idea and, politically speaking, unremarkable. What sounds crazy to me is (and this is a common problem with Stefan) is the RHETORIC. Marketing a run-of-the-mill voucher policy as a "money-back guarantee" sounds an awful lot as an opt-out. And that, in turn, implicates all of the public good issues I discussed about. I don't think rhetoric that sounds like a wholesale assault on the American system of free and compulsory education will sell on the Eastside.I'm open to the possibility that you're a better rhetorician than I am. If you prefer a different choice of rhetoric to explain vouchers, what do you propose? Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on November 22, 2006 12:31 PM
School choice is such a frustrating topic because it's clearly the right policy prescription for our schools, but its proponents haven't figured out a way to sell it to voters. If I can figure this one out, I'll run for Congress. Maybe Stefan can manage my campaign.
DJ in '08.
Posted by: DJ on November 22, 2006 09:34 PM