One temporary tax to lapse; how many left?
Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman said "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."

He might have been talking of temporary tax increases, as well.

If you look at your telephone bill, you'll find that 25 to 33 percent of it is taken up with various government taxes and fees. One of those taxes is the federal excise tax. The U.S. Treasury Department has announced that the tax on long-distance calls will be dropped. Plans for giving out refunds for money collected in the last 3 years are in the works.

As the Detroit News story on the subject notes, "The excise tax was started in 1898 when Congress approved it as a temporary fix to fund the Spanish-American War. It was a one-cent tax on all calls that cost more than 15 cents."

There are several features of the tax that are worth pointing out. The Washington Post's version of the story tells us that the tax "was originally considered a luxury tax because only wealthy people had telephones at the time."

The ever-expanding wealth-generating machine called the American economy put more and more people into the "luxury" status. That's the good news. The rising tide of economic growth lifts all boats. The bad news is that measures meant to punish the wealthy do their own version of trickle-down economics, hitting more and more people over time.

A second thing worth mentioning is temporary problems, such as a particular war or economic downturn, bring about changes that last a long, long time.

Third, the plans of government get overtaken by changes in technology, business methods, and other aspects of life. The Post quotes one advocate: “With advances in telephone technology, cellphones and the Internet … it has become increasingly difficult to determine which party in a call the tax should be assigned to.”

Naturally, the more long-distance calls you made, the higher your tax bill. This means that big businesses rather than average consumers will get the biggest refunds. Expect the soak-the-rich advocates to complain.

(Reprinted from my Detroit News column.) (permalink)

Sometimes breaking one law is the least of your troubles.
"There ought to be a law!" is a sentiment that drives the creation of many counterproductive laws and regulations. Laws, of course, can't prevent every undesirable event.

After reading a newspaper text that reads "Driving without a license," Jay Leno adds that "I think that was the least of their problems."



Click here to see the photo in context. (permalink)

Force People into Mass Transit.
I've thought that people who accuse mass transit advocates of favoring automobile congestion were off the mark.

But I came across that thought just today, from a newspaper editorial writer.

Here's an excerpt from the editorial blog ["Plato's Cave"] of the Salt Lake City Tribune:

Speaking of beasts (see below), I had long had my own version of how the starvation theory of politics should be applied in Utah.

Stop building highways.

Instead of widening I-15 -- again -- or building Legacy Parkway or the Mountain View Corridor, at a financial cost of billions and an environmental and social cost impossible to calculate, the Utah Department of Transportation should stop being such an enabler and just stop building or widening highways.

When people figure out that they ought to work where they live, live where they work and demand expanded public transit -- because the commute has just become unbearable -- they'll make much wise use of our limited land and budget.

Labels: Transportation

(permalink)

Doing School Choice Right.
charter schools are as different from each as regular public schools are--and by design, even more so.

They are still a relatively small element of the nation's school landscape, which means that we are still learning what works and what doesn't. One resource I've come across lately is the Center for Reinventing Public Education.

At the end of the month, CRPE will come out with a new white paper that analyzes previous studies on whether charter schools help students learn. Should be interesting.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Stadium Nonsense.
Even a skeptic can be disappointed, it turns out. Minnesota is set to add to the spending burden of taxpayers, with new sports stadiums.

One is for a state university (the University of Minnesota), and it's a bit more difficult to get worked up over that. The camel has been in the tent for a long time.

But stadiums for major league sports teams? Depressing. Hey, I'm sure that my little business is a valued community resource, too (hey, I pay taxes): how about a taxpayer-provided office complex complete with exercise room, free wi-fi, and a spacious library?

It's amazing that in two years we can go from dealing with a $4 billion shortfall in the state budget without raising taxes to the working stiff being taxed to pay for a private workplace. With the state's extensive social service and welfare programs, public policy is all about "giving a boost" to "the little guy" -- even if he's a centimillionaire owner of an NFL or MLB team, or a mere multimillionaire player in those leagues.

For more, see the comments from two econoblogs based in the state: Marketpower (and here, too) and SCSU Scholars. See also the comments from the City Page's "favorite villain" of a few years ago. (permalink)

Great Moments in Public School Marketing.
Some students in Wiscsonsin attend GET High. Seriously.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

This is Raj. How May I Help You?
U.S. Children learning calculus from a Ph.D. in ... India!

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

That may depend on whether you view schooling as something that delivers an education to students, or jobs for union members.

The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation explains. (permalink)

Does Johnny Look for the Union Label?
Do teacher unions like charter schools? Not the one in Chicago, at least.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

New Education Blog Launched.
The Alliance for School Choice has launched a new blog, Edspresso. The debates feature of the site have featured the desirability of universal pre-school, the 65 percent solution, and national standards.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Are Schools for Teaching Students, or Providing Janitorial Jobs?
The old "schools as a means or an end" debate comes up again in Michigan, where the Detroit schools--a system that needs reform if there ever was one--is under fire for saving money by outsourcing janitorial work.

Detroit News web colleague Jeffrey Hadden reports, and links to an editorial titled "School districts are not jobs machines."

Well, they are. They just shouldn't be.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

No Child Left Behind not being implemented.
One provision of No Child Left Behind is that local school districts notify families when they are entitled to remedial measures, including the right to transfer to other schools.

Not surprisingly, some schools that are shirking their obligations.

Here's a short note from the Alliance for School Choice:

--------
SPELLINGS ASKS CALIFORNIA OFFICIALS TO TAKE ACTION ON SCHOOL TRANSFER COMPLAINTS


PHOENIX— Responding to complaints against the Los Angeles and Compton school districts’ failure to provide public school transfer options to children in failing schools, U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings last week asked top California school officials to take action.

While “it is usually best to allow matters such as these to be resolved at the local and state level,” the U.S. Department of Education is “mindful of our own compliance responsibilities and remedies,” Spellings said in a May 1 letter to California State Board of Education President Glee Johnson and Superintendent of Public instruction Jack O’Connell.

The Alliance for School Choice and the Los Angeles-based Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education filed the complaints in March, charging that the two districts failed to provide meaningful notice or transfer options for thousands of eligible students. Federal law requires the school districts to make findings within 60 days, and authorizes the Secretary of Education to cut off federal Title I funds for failure to provide transfer options.

In her letter, Spellings also notes concerns about compliance by the Oakland and Stockton school districts. She noted that department officials will “gather further information on the implementation of public school choice and SES (supplemental education services) in your state.”

“We are encouraged that the secretary is taking seriously the rampant noncompliance of school districts with their public school transfer obligations,” declared Clint Bolick, president and general counsel of the Alliance for School Choice. “Millions of children are languishing in failing schools around the nation. That is neither morally nor legally tolerable.”

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Should Teachers Get a Raise?
Some do, but some don't. But across-the-board pay raises--the only tool available in a system that avoids merit pay--is expensive, wasteful and even counterproductive. (permalink)

New Policy Voice in Maine.
If you're a Mainer, you might wish to check out the new blog from the Maine Heritage Policy Center. If you're not, you may find it of interest anyway. It's that "50 laboratories of democracy" thing, you know.

Maine's governor is pushing a state-sponsored health plan called Dirigo. the Center has been an early and frequent critic of Dirigo. The success or failure of the plan may prove instructive for other states. (permalink)

School choice key to urban vitality.
If you want to retain and attract highly-educated and mobile people to your city, enact school choice.

Cities and states across the country have worried about how to attract the "creative class," college graduates, and the like. Some cities do a better job than others, but cities, especially the "non-glamour" cities such many of those in the Midwest, could do worse than to promote a vigorous program of school choice. While recently minted college graduates can be a key part of a city's economic life, how many of them will stick around once junior comes on the scene?

From an AP story printed in the Arizona Republic:

cities need good schools to keep people from fleeing to the suburbs once they become parents, said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Frey pointed to Washington, a city with lagging public schools but impressive education levels among adults.

"D.C. is like a revolving door," Frey said. "These young people move in and then they move out when they want to have kids."

True enough, a few urban areas do have state-enacted school choice programs. Cleveland and Milwaukee come to mind, and neither one is a national standout in economic terms. Then again, the programs in both cities have severe income tests, limiting their participation, and usefulness as an economic development tool.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Quebec Says Non to State-Run Ski Area.
Americans can take some inspiration from the Canadian province of Quebec, where the government has decided to sell off some state-owned land.

The property in question is Mont Orford, a ski and golf complex within Orford Park. As if often the case with such places, the profit is to be made in real estate rather than ski and golf operations. A private company will build condos on the site, and Quebec will take the money to add more land to the park.

Why is the government taking this step?

"Environment Minister Claude Bechard justified the land sale on the grounds the government should not be in the business of running a ski hill and golf club."

Imagine that. It sounds similar to something I've heard before.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Blogging Resources.
Here are two resources that might be of use to some bloggers:

A Legal Guide for Bloggers, published by the Electronic Freedom Foundation.

The Rules of the Blog by Don Surber, who is, as his home page states, a "proud member of the MSM." (permalink)

Net neutrality rules have negative net effect.
Should politicians in Washington DC forbid a la carte pricing in Internet service?

(Cross-posted from my perch at the Detroit News.)

“Net neutrality” is one of those very nerdy-sounding topics that has an effect on everyday life. And the call for it in some quarters is yet another attempt to use the power of government to enforce personal choices in a way that will backfire.

Do you remember the cry for a la carte pricing? That’s something that self-styled consumer advocates promote when it comes to cable TV. They object to bundling (as in, if you want HGTV you must also purchase ESPN.) “Pay for what you use, and nothing else,” seems to be the mantra.

Conveniently, many of the same people who favor a la carte pricing in cable TV oppose its use in Internet service. They carry their argument under the banner of “Internet Neutrality.”

From today’s Wall Street Journal:

The very notion that traditional Internet providers, cable and phone companies, might restrict how consumers or content providers use the Internet or charge them more for higher-capacity activities has prompted consumer groups to ask Congress to pass what they call "network neutrality" laws, which would require all Internet traffic to be treated equally. Some consumer groups spoke out against proposals by BellSouth and other digital subscriber line, or DSL, providers to start charging based on usage.

But like nearly all high-minded calls for increased government control of our lives, the demands for a “net neutrality” mandate has its own troubles.

Consider first the issue of fairness: Why should somebody who downloads a large file only once a month pay the same as someone who downloads 100 a day? If a company would want to charge some customers more than others based on bandwidth, “net neutrality” would forbid it from doing so. Instead, the decision should be sorted out by the customers of Internet companies—customers that include not only retail folks like me and you, but companies that provide us with content.

DON’T FREEZE THE NET IN TIME

If ESPN wants to pay Comcast another 20 percent to make sure that SportsCenter can travel to customers homes at the highest possible speed, that’s a matter between them and their shareholders, and ultimately, the buying public. If ESPN (or whomever) does not receive extra value for paying extra, in time they’re stop paying the extra fee.

Another problem with a “net neutrality” law is that it would likely slow the further deployment and development of high-speed Internet and the services that high-speed connections would offer. If Internet companies charge some customers more money for more service, they would follow the pattern of practically every consumer good known to mankind: the ones who make the first purchases (autos, DVD players, personal computers) pay through the nose. But over time, the benefits of innovation are spread around the economy, as affordability increases. (Again, think of DVD players.)

Government mandates are, by their nature, hard to enact, and even harder to change. Do we really want to clog up the future of Internet connections with the molasses of government bureaucracy?

National Review offers another commentary on the faults of an “Internet Neutrality” policy.

They note there is in fact robust competition in the market for broadband connection—competition in which consumer preferences will sort out a number of questions. These questions cannot be adequately addressed, ahead of time, by the dictates of 537 people in Washington, DC, many of whom won’t even read the legislation if it comes up for a vote.

Our own Libby Spencer has some out against a la carte pricing and in favor of government second-guessing. Her concern is that it is just a few steps away from the fascism of “6 wealthy white guys” who will “control the last forum for the free exchange of information.”

But as the editors of National Review point out, “net-neutrality legislation could actually entrench the bigger players” of today. If economic history teaches us anything, it’s that the big boys of today won’t necessarily be strong players tomorrow—unless they are propped up by government rules. (permalink)

How do you rate?
If you're curious about where your state compares with others when it comes to tax burdens, check out the Census Bureau. The differences can be substantial. California leads the way with $3,600 per capita, which is is 2.5 times the amount levied in South Dakota ($1,430).

The Tax Foundation, on the other hand, offers a different method. (permalink)

Go Along to Get Along, and Grow Government.
George F. Will restates an axiom on the lure of political power:

Any political group or institution that is not ideologically conservative will become, over time, liberal. That is so because, in the absence of a principled adherence to limited government, careerism -- the political idea of the unthoughtful -- will cause incumbents to use public spending to purchase job security. (permalink)

The Captain and the Professor on Gas Tax Holidays.
Some lawmakers think that government ought to suspend gasoline taxes.

While a former colleague of mine once said that he would support "any tax cut, any time," suspending the tax on gasoline is a political ploy worthy of "I feel your pain."

Thanks. Now can we actually do something to increase the supply of gas? Make sure that the money we are being taxed actually goes into proven technologies (roads) rather than gimmicks (light rail and other forms of public transit)?

Rather than go any further on the topic of why a "gas tax holiday" is a silly idea, I'll leave it up to The Captain and The Professor.

Labels: Transportation

(permalink)

Public Choice and Public Pensions.
The management of public employee pension plans is a topic that may induce a few naps, but it's vital to the public purse.

Various government pension funds are in trouble, with insufficient means of paying out promised benefits over the long run. You may have heard of Orange County, California, or the trouble in San Diego. But some of the most serious problems lie in that land of "good government," Minnesota.

The place is awash in public sector pension plans--about 700, many of them small--and some of the bigger ones are in trouble. The six largest plans, for example, have nearly $10 billion in unfunded liabilities. That's the difference between what is promised over the long run and what the funds are expected to take in and generate in investment income. The topic is large enough that I have started a separate web page to deal with it.

The shortfalls are entirely consistent with the public choice theory of political economy:

There is no direct reward for fighting powerful interest groups [public sector unions] in order to confer benefits on a public that is not even aware of the benefits or of who conferred them. Thus, the incentives for good management in the public interest are weak. In contrast, interest groups are organized by people with very strong gains [richer pension schemes] to be made from governmental action.

Here, in brief, is how it works: politicians are eager to please constituents and donors, and more importantly, to gain re-election. What do members of the public and of various interest groups want? One, tax cuts, or at least tax increases on somebody else. Two, spending for themselves.

So when it comes to public employees, we have a desire to increase the payouts of public employee pension plans, and a desire to avoid tax increases to pay for those increases. And of course public sector employees, like anyone, recognize and will take a "free lunch" when they can take it. But since no lunch is ever free, it's taxpayers who, having paid the salaries for official cadres, will have to pay again for pensions that in some cases pay their recipients more in a year than they ever received in a paycheck.

If you're interested in the details, click to the link above, and make your way through the various items. While it is still available on the web, the links to KARA-11 (a local TV station) are worth taking in.

Labels: Public employee pensions

(permalink)

I Want Some Stock in GM and GE: Lessons from Bob Seeger.
Can a 30-year old rock song teach us something about economics and public policy?

The other day I was listening to a cut from Seven, an old album from southeast Michigan’s own Bob Seeger. It’s a bit startling to compare the world of 1974 with today.

The song was UMC (Upper Middle Class). Consider a few lyrics from the song.

"I want an air conditioner." Part of the UMC? Today you can find one for under $100 at Wal-Mart. Goods that are initially considered luxuries often find their way to the mass market, both through innovation and rising incomes.

Likewise, The aspiration to "Spend my evenings drinking / The very best burgandy" is also something that many people can easily achieve, though archaic state laws, such as those in Michigan, severely limit the ability to purchase it through online sellers who might offer a discount.

Perhaps Bob was thinking of the OPEC-induced fuel crisis when he wrote: "Don't want to have to ration /A thing with anyone but me." If you're of a certain age, you'll remember those lines for gasoline. Now we complain about $3 a gallon gas, but if you're willing to pay the price, you can get as much as you want--no waiting in line necessary.

The most ironic part of the song, however, was "I want ... Some stock in GM and GE."Residents of Michigan are well aware of the troubled times of GM. Still, it's instructive to look at an historical chart of the company's stock performance as compared with GE (a diversified conglomate) and the S&P 500 (an even more diversified mix of America's top publicly traded companies).

Making an "eyeball analysis" of the chart, since 1975 (the year after "Seven" came out), the S&P 500 has gone up roughly 2,000 percent. GE has gone up twice that amount--nearly 4,000 percent.

And how about GM? While it might have funded your children's college education if you sold at the right time, its long-term performance is less than stellar: worth the same today (roughly) as 30 years ago. Bob might wish to rewrite the lyrics to the song that appeared in Chevy truck commercials: "30 years now, where'd they go? Thirty years; I don't know." Collecting dividends along the may have been nice, but there are a lot of lessons that might be drawn from the rocky history of GM. I've already touched on some, which include the dangers of management arrogance and unsustainable labor contracts.

The late John Kenneth Galbraith, an economist whose influence on government policy was exceeded perhaps only by John Maynard Keynes, once wrote that GM's invulnerable position in the marketplace was a reason why we needed big government. So much for the wisdom of government planners, as well as the permanence of economic power.

The economic world is not stagnant. The goods and services available only to yesterday's UMC will spread to tomorrow's working class. In the meantime, citizens and policy makers alike should refrain from thinking that the world can be frozen in time. (permalink)

The Union that Killed Opportunity for Children.

In an e-mail from Americans for Tax Reform, Ron Nehring writes:

------------

Will unions kill Florida's highly succcessful school choice program?

Lobbying campaign against choice successfully flipped four Republican state senators.

To the casual observer, last year’s decision by the Florida Supreme Court striking down the state’s school choice program might appear easily fixed: a Republican legislature, a conservative Republican governor, and a clear record of success for the “A+ School Accountability and Choice Program” should produce a political solution.

Not so fast.

Enter: the Florida Education Association union, the state affiliate of the National Education Association teachers union and ardent foe of anything threatening the public school monopoly in education.

Florida’s school choice program provides students attending consistently failing schools in the Sunshine State the option of attending another school, public or private, with the state picking up the tab. A total of 733 students, 90% of whom are minorities, are taking advantage of the program.

Last year in a bizarre ruling the Florida Supreme Court struck down the program, finding it violates the “uniformity” clause in the state constitution because, remarkably, students exercising their choice option are receiving a better quality education than those trapped in the underperforming public schools. As the Wall Street Journal opined this week, “As they used to say in the Soviet Union, everyone gets to share their poverty equally.”

The same ruling also jeopardizes Florida’s school choice program for 18,000 learning disabled students.

Looking for a solution, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Republican leaders in the legislature are working to place on November’s ballot a constitutional amendment that would exempt the voucher program from the constitution’s uniformity clause. All that’s needed is for 60% of the legislators in chamber to agree to place the measure on the ballot.

This is where the Florida Education Association (FEA) union, with its deep pockets and sophisticated lobbying campaign, comes in.

Over the last twenty years, Florida has reflected the trend in other southern states in a transformation from total Democrat to total Republican control of the executive and legislative branches of government – despite the best efforts of the FEA and other politically active labor unions to the contrary.

In adapting to the new environment in Tallahassee, the FEA recognized that simply because a legislature is majority Republican, the opportunity to block reforms such as charter schools and school choice still exists – if the union can successfully woo just enough members of the majority party to deny reformers a majority on any key vote.

To succeed, the strategy need not be successful in both houses – just one. In this case, it’s the Florida Senate, whose Republican majority has proven consistently less reliable in advancing education and other reforms than the more conservative House of Representatives.

With its headquarters filled with lobbyists and operatives just one block from the capitol, the FEA’s intensive pressure campaign directed at the Senate succeeded this week in blocking the proposed constitutional amendment to save the school choice program. The amendment fell one vote short of the 60% supermajority to proceed to the November ballot for voter approval. Needing 24 of 40 senators to vote in support, it garnered only 23.

What’s remarkable is the FEA’s success in turning four Republican Senators, including Republican Majority Leader Alex Villalobos, against the amendment, which was strongly supported by Senate President Tom Lee and Governor Jeb Bush.

(One encouraging sign: Lee immediately stripped Villalobos of his Majority Leader position, replacing him with the more supportive Sen. Dan Webster of Winter Garden).

The FEA’s successful lobbying campaign, and victory despite a significant Republican majority in the Senate, highlights the influence that comes as a result of the union’s power to funnel union dues directly into massive spending on behalf of anti-reform candidates in general elections.

A bill to end the practice by giving Florida teachers the right to choose for themselves whether to fund union political action died this year when Senate Republican leaders used a parliamentary maneuver to keep the bill bottled up in multiple committees while the session drew to a close.

Sen. Webster, along with up and coming Senators like Mike Haridopoulos of Osceola, show the Senate’s Republican majority continues to slowly drift away from union influence, but apparently not fast enough to save the choice program this year. Yet, Republican legislators not compromised by FEA pressure and Governor Jeb Bush continue to work on solutions to save the school choice program and prevent the 733 students in the program from being forced back into public schools which consistently fail to perform.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Health Care and Lasik
The theory that giving more weight to individuals in the management of health care spending is a good idea has some support in the history of laser surgery.

In its March 10 editorial, the Wall Street Journal notes what has happened to the price of LASIK, a surgery that helps many people eliminate the need for corrective eyeglasses.

"In early 1999, shortly after LASIK was approved by the FDA, the average price for the procedure was about $2,100 per eye. By the end of last year, it had fallen about 20 percent to $1,687."

The editorial notes that today's "wavefront-guided" LASIK is an advancement over the technology of 1999, which means that the drop in price-for-value is even greater than 20 percent.

By contrast, the Journal notes, per-person spending on health increased from $4,400 to almost $6,300 during the same time.

Unfortunately, the editorial does not specify what percentage of LASIK surgery is paid for out of pocket or through similar arrangements such as HSAs or HRAs. To the extent that traditional insurance covers LASIK, the argument that markets work to contain costs is weaker.

Then again, one company with a national presence has sent me a trifold brochure for LASIK, which promises $0 down and 0 percent interest for 18 months. They also tout "competitive pricing, promotional LASIK financing, as well as the recognition of your HSAs and FSAs."

Labels: Health care

(permalink)

For this we need government?
Cleaning out some recent mail, I found a catalog for the city's parks and recreation department.

The department offers a water park (slides and all that) and this year they are adding a mini-golf course.

OK, so I like hitting a golf ball through the windmill as much as the next guy.

But why should government be the one to own the course?

On the plus side, they are charging a greens fee, and admission to the water park requires putting down some funds as well. But even if the operations make money--and at this point I haven't read enough to know if that is the case or not--their operation in the public sector is questionable at best.

Granted, such operations may be started on the grounds that "We need something for the kids to do, and there's nobody offering this service." But the building of a service economy in a still-developing region takes time, and government operations are sure to dampen the enthusiasm for any entrepreneurs who might come along in the future. In addition, governments are usually not very good at innovating or having the funds for capital expansion, so the "let's get it done now" model can lead to stagnation in a few years, as government facilities get locked in to old facilities and service models.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Health Care Policy Makes Me Sick.
Tax and regulatory policy have produced an unsatisfactory health care system. So the way to fix it is to ... get government and quasi-private sector bureaucracies even more involved?

I went to a forum on health care policy this morning. While the speaker made some good points, he seems to be selling more of the same. It took me back, again, to what's wrong with health care, and what about it needs to change.

Further thoughts later. (permalink)

Happy National Charter Schools Week!
In honor of National Chater Schools Week (there's a week for everything, isn't there?), officers of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute offer a review of the authorities that grant charters to charter schools.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Why Do We Have Education Taxes?
What's our goal: the preservation of "public schools," or the education of children?

(Reprinted from the Detroit News)

Good for the voters in St. Clair Shores, Michigan, as Jeffrey Hadden notes in the Detroit News politics blog. Contracting out janitorial work, landscaping, cafeteria work, and so forth, is a smart thing for schools to do. When done properly, it can save money.

The controversy illustrates a larger problem that afflicts education today. We tax ourselves to pay for the education of minor children because we think that there is (to use a term from economics) a "public good" at stake.

But what is this "public good?" It's seeing to that the next generation receives an education in reading, math, science, and so forth. It isn't that individuals X, Y, and Z can have a job (unionized or not) in a school.

Right now, most money collected for education is distributed through local school districts, which with minor exceptions aside (charter schools, mostly), have a government-granted monopoly on where a student living in a particular house will receive his education.

Is this the only way to delivering education? Certainly not. We could, for example, give families vouchers so they can select from privately operated providers of schooling. We already use a similar arrangement in housing (section 8 vouchers), groceries (food stamps) and even higher education (state and federal scholarships and loans).

Yet anytime vouchers or even contracting out of non-instructional jobs is considered, their advocates are attacked by the school establishment as being "against public education," or even "anti-education." Now, vouchers can be criticized on several grounds, none insurmountable. But it's just silly so say that voucher advocates are against the education of the public.

Many "public schools" do a fine job for some students. But when we insist tying education money to government-run organizations, our first priority is, in effect, to preserve an institution that rather than recognize that other arrangements might better serve the ultimate goal.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Uniform, Efficient, Safe, High Quality--and None of the Above.
Florida schools are none of the things that the state's constitution calls for. Yet the Supreme Court forbids legislators from considering serious alternatives.

Andrew J. Coulson reports:

- Uniform? Not when some districts spend nearly double what others spend--and achieve much less academically.

- Efficient? Not when public schools spend 50 percent more than the average tuition for private schools.

- Safe? Not when 1 in 12 students reports being assaulted or threatened with a weapon.

- High quality? Not when the state ranks near the bottom of the country in graduation rates and SAT scores.

It's time for Florida to introduce some school choice. But for now, the state's highest court has barred that move on "uniformity" grounds. It's time for the legislature to make changes, constitutional ones if required, to bring the promise of education into reality.
-

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

New Blogging at the Detroit News.
My blogging efforts of late have been focused at the Detroit News. Recent commentaries have been about language and immigration, life as an American in Europe, the call for increased government regulation in the name of Internet neutrality, the passing of a critic of urban planning, and the ways in which our energy policy is buffeted by conflicting demands. (permalink)