Public Education

Before talking about publicly funded education, it is worthwhile to review the thinking of the founders on the subject. They all recognized the importance of effective education. 

“There are two educations. One should teach us how to make a living and the other how to live.” - John Adams

"I consider knowledge to be the soul of a republic, and as the weak and the wicked are generally in alliance, as much care should be taken to diminish the number of the former as of the latter. Education is the way to do this, and nothing should be left undone to afford all ranks of people the means of obtaining a proper degree of it at a cheap and easy rate.”  - John Jay

“The best mans of forming a manly, virtuous, and happy people will be found in the right education of youth. Without this foundation, every other means, in my opinion, must fail.” - George Washington

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, (A)nd if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." -Thomas Jefferson

"If Virtue & Knowledge are diffused among the People, they will never be enslav'd. This will be their great Security." -Samuel Adams

This is the sort of thinking that argues in favor of public education and I agree with it. That said, I don't think that the founders of this country envisioned the public school system in its current form.

The object of publicly funded education was and still should be to create and maintain an informed electorate with so-called grammar schools. These schools taught (English) grammar and bookkeeping (arithmetic) since these are the skills necessary to make a living and participate in social interactions like government. I would add science since we a technological society. I would also add history since those don't study it are doomed to repeat it.

The publicly funded schools of today energetically attempt to exceed these essential requirements and, as a result, fail to meet them. We were 23rd in science, 26th in math and 15th in reading in 2009. These rankings dropped to 23rd, 31st and 17th respectively in 2012.

http://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/oecd-education-rankings/

Do we give kudos for science instruction to have remained mediocre? Do we double-down on reading and math instruction? No, we simply pay more and expect a different result. I believe that this is akin to the textbook definition of insanity. Check out this graph:

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/inflation-adjusted-cost-k-12-public-education-and-percent-change-achievement-17-year-olds-1970

The graph shows a cost growth of 200% with flat achievement. Meanwhile, teacher's pay growth was 11% (see Table 1.1 in the URL below).

http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/7319_odden_ch_1.pdf

There is no non-absurd way to explain this except to say that the increased cost is not going to the teachers or the students. We need to reinvent publicly funded education.

Connecticut alone has over 568,000 students in K-12 consuming an average statewide expenditure of more than $14,000 per year, per student. That is nearly $8 billion/year on the table in Connecticut yearly. About $600 billion/year nationally. And it doesn't include the fact that 10% of all K-12 students attend privately funded schools.

I have a classroom-centered school model for which $5,000/student/year is sufficient.

My model requires a teacher, students, teaching tools (books, computers, etc.), classroom space and utilities (heat/air, electricity, transportation, janitorial, internet, etc.).

My model does not provide food since that sort of program exists elsewhere (food stamps) and should not be duplicated with educational dollars. I am not a fan of the "general fund" model of government finance. 

Assume that an average class size of 25 is chosen: one more than the federal recommendation to make the arithmetic easy. This would provide $125,000 in funding per year per classroom: my budget.

Pay the teachers well at $85,000 per year (average): much more than the current average of $60,000 since they will become entrepreneurs running their own “businesses”.

Let’s look at teaching tools (books) first. The range is from $40 for high school English to $120 for high school chemistry. Let’s go for a conservative $100 per text with 5 texts needed per student per academic year. This costs us $6,250 for 25 students with new books for all every other year. I chose high school texts as a benchmark because they cost more than elementary texts. We can also buy 25 new computers for each class for $10,000 every other year ($5,000 per year cost to classroom).

Now let’s look at rent. A classroom for 25 students needs about 16 square feet per student or 400 square feet. At $28.5 per square foot per year (utilities included), this would cost only $11,400 per year and since it is leased, the landlord is responsible for maintenance & upkeep. Leased space avoids the costs of city-owned schools. Of course, the property listed below is in Westport, CT, one of the most expensive markets in the country.

http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/17155033/1-Morningside-Drive-North-Westport-CT/

A monthly bus pass costs $47 in Connecticut. One for each student for 9 months each will cost $10,575 although I'd be shocked if a lower price could not be negotiated. Lets call it $7,000.

We can conservatively have teacher, classroom, utilities, computers and books for $115,000 per year out of $125,000 available.

You might ask: what about guidance counselors, nurses, substitutes, etc.?

Well, if these are spread out cost-wise over say, 100 classrooms, we have $1 million left in our budget for them. These folks' services are not used by all students every day.

The model needs someone to manage the shared resources (substitutes, nurse, etc.) and also manage enrollment for 100 classrooms of various subject matter: I suggest mandatory English, history, math and science for four days each week. The fifth day would comprise "electives" with the caveat that at least 25 student want the elective each year or the teacher will accept lower compensation. The elective category also includes special needs classes.

This "superintendent" visits each class a couple times per year and can meet with each teacher online as required. We could similarly provide for shared nurses, counselors, computer technicians and a few truant officers to take care of the students who misbehave.

Superintendents would be super-teachers, not bureaucrats. They would be paid at the high end of the scale because they will have earned the respect of their peers by having done what they do at an exceptional level of skill.

As for the teachers, and this is crucial: their word in the classroom is law. No disrespect. No nonsense. All backed up by the parents. Publicly funded school is not day care.


No pensions: publicly funded school employees will use the same social security, medicare, etc. as everyone else. They can get health benefits through a large, nationwide pool of over 3 million or, better yet, self insure to avoid the 30% profit that insurance companies will charge.

Communities can use the (HUGE) savings afforded by my model to get out from under their pension and retirement health care liabilities before returning the difference to taxpayers.


The curriculum shall meet world standards so our kids learn the same stuff as their international counterparts. The results can be easily measured by a standardized exams. 

This approach also resolves the theoretical tenure issue since if a teacher does not produce results, the parents who care (and let’s assume that this is a majority) will enroll their children with a different teacher. 

This approach should also be agreeable to free market thinkers since this is how a free market should work.