Your scathing critique is requested.
Here are some issues I can think of:
-Not everyone is capable of teaching their children(for various reasons).
-It incentivizes the having of(many) children. (ie.10 children = $200,000)
-You'd still need some sort higher-level/skills learning (preparation for various vocations).
That's just what comes to mind at the top of my head. There may be more issues.
The parents can spend all or part of that money to hire a tutor, or a neighbor who is teaching children of their own. Neighborhood based education could have the added benefit of strengthening social bonds.
One of the key factors of this proposal (Fix-US) is that it changes nothing economically.
We currently have no prohibition against people having children. There is no test for fitness, no financial prerequisites, no license application.
People can have as many children as they want, and each of those kids will go to public school and the state will spend $20,000.00 per year per-child.
This is the reality of the situation.
The question is, will the children themselves, the parents, and society as a whole be BETTER SERVED, if the parents had the option to get that same money directly?
People already pay out-of-pocket for college. My Fix-US proposal is strictly for k-12.
Thank you for your critique!
The parents can spend all or part of that money to hire a tutor, or a neighbor who is teaching children of their own.Sure the parents can, but the question is: Will they?
One of the key factors of this proposal (Fix-US) is that it changes nothing economically.Sure, it may not change things economically, but it still does incentivize people to have (more) children.
We currently have no prohibition against people having children.Sure, we may not have prohibitions in terms of rules or laws, but that does not mean that financial constraints don't influence many people to not have more children. $20,000 a pop, might influence some people to have more children. $20,000 is certainly more than some people make in a year(and that's only for 1 child!)
The question is, will the children themselves, the parents, and society as a whole be BETTER SERVED, if the parents had the option to get that same money directly?Well, I don't know how things are done in the USA, but this can already be done in Canada via homeschooling. (I homeschooled my children, btw) You are given the choice to follow the curriculum of the province you are in, or engage in what is termed "traditional" homeschooling. (I chose traditional) Your educational "expenses" are reimbursed. There is a small fee to facilitate homeschooling.
I personally think this is a good model. You can choose to pay for a school or you can choose to do it yourself. Only the money that is used should be reimbursed to prevent abuse (in either case).
The school system needs some revamping. If we use your math: A class of 30 kids would be raking in $600,000 a year. And, teachers are paid how much(little)? None of those kids are receiving an education "worth" that much(outdated, inadequate, etcetera). I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that to be the case.
I think it should cost what it actually costs, either way.
That would seem fair to me.
That might be a little high, but it's not out of the ballpark.
$22,366.00 New York per year per-child
$18,958.00 Connecticut per year per-child
$18,402.00 New Jersey per year per-child
$17,873.00 Vermont per year per-child
$17,510.00 Alaska per year per-child
$16,442.00 Wyoming per year per-child
$15,593.00 Massachusetts per year per-child
$15,532.00 Rhode Island per year per-child
LINK
I meant it is not the case that they are receiving "their" money's worth of education.