Education

Key Points:

All schools would be privatized and have to compete for students in an open market
All children would be issued a voucher that would cover most of the cost of enrolment, with the balance being taken out of the child's UBI
Schools would have complete control over their curriculum, teaching methods, student discipline, employee remuneration, facilities, and more
The only requirement for a school to be eligible to redeem vouchers is maintaining a minimum level of students passing tests in core subjects
Government involvement in tertiary education limited to providing student loans, but they are only available to top students for useful courses

Details:

The current education system is centrally controlled by the government, with a bloated and costly bureaucracy, no incentive to be efficient or effective, very little flexibility in the curriculum or in how schools are managed, and very little parental control over their children's education. Education is not a natural monopoly, is not historically a function of government (despite modern expectations), and there is no reason it can't be opened up to market forces. The fact that some parents incur substantial costs to send their children to private schools indicates that privately run schools are superior, and there is no reason why all schools couldn't be of a similar standard.

Early Childhood Education:

Children are currently eligible for 20 hours of free early childhood education (ECE) per week, which can only be used at registered providers. A pre-school child's UBI would more than cover the cost of paying for these ECE hours if the parent wishes to continue with this service, but it also gives parents much more flexibility to pay family or friends to look after their children or stay home themselves to look after them and keep the money. Freeing ECE providers from government requirements would also encourage a greater variety of services being offered, giving parents more choice.

Fiscal Impact: ECE support currently costs $2.8 billion (savings already included in the UBI section)

Primary & Secondary Education:

Every child from ages 5 to 17 would be issued a voucher that would be redeemed by the school that the parents choose to send their child to. To incentivize parents to choose schools that are cost-efficient, these vouchers would not cover the full cost of the education, and schools would charge fees make up the shortfall, which would be deducted from the child's UBI. The vouchers would have a fixed value that would vary by the child's age, and this value would be adjusted each year to be equal to half the median total cost of education for children of that age.

Private schools would be able to redeem the vouchers, and public schools would have to compete with private schools for students. To enable them to compete, public schools would be given complete freedom over the curriculum and how the school is operated, and bonuses would be offered to the management for producing a profit. All public schools would gradually be sold; successful ones as going concerns and unsuccessful ones as facilities or for land value.

With all schools privatized and given control over how they operate, it is likely that the variety of schools available would explode. Schools could range from single teacher owned and operated boutique schools to giant corporate schools with thousands of students that take advantage of economies of scale. They could offer a general education similar to current schools or become specialized at nurturing children with specific interests from music to sports. Some schools could offer premium education with higher fees, and others could offer a basic education for no more than the voucher value. Distance learning schools would also be eligible for the vouchers and could offer a range of services that allow students to learn from home. Schools would not be restricted to only employing certified teachers, they could employ teachers that have learnt via experience rather than at university. Schools could vary their operating hours, student discipline regimes, extracurricular activities, subjects offered, and more. A variety of options could be offered within the same school, limited only by the school's imagination and the parent's desires. This flexibility will lead to an education that is more closely personalized to each child.

To prevent fraud and ensure that every child has the opportunity for a good education, the only requirement that would be imposed on schools would be that at least two thirds of their students pass an annual proctored test in core subjects. These core subjects would be literacy, mathematics, science, history, and financial literacy. Teaching material would be provided by the government in each of these subjects, but schools could choose whether to use it or not. Any school that repeatedly fails to meet the minimum test results would no longer be eligible to redeem vouchers.

Schools could reject the enrolment of any student or expel any student at any time for any reason. To ensure that children with special needs (learning disabilities, behavioural issues, etc.) can find a school to accept them, parents could apply for increased voucher values and/or decreased testing requirements that would make them more attractive as students. It is likely that specialized schools would develop that cater to children with special needs, making the best possible education available to them.

Fiscal Impact: I estimate that the voucher values would average $9,000 per primary student and $12,000 per secondary student, with parents contributing an average $6,000 from each child's UBI. I estimate overall savings for the government from education of $7.2 billion.

Tertiary Education:

Government funding of tertiary education will always benefit the wealthiest section of the population, because even students from low-income households will likely become wealthy as a result of their education (and if they don't, then there wasn't much point funding the education). This the opposite of redistribution and doesn't seem fair. Generous government funding of tertiary education had also resulted in a sizeable portion of the population treating university as a social event that allows them to delay adulthood, choosing low-effort degrees that have no benefit to themselves or the country.

This doesn't mean there should be no government support for tertiary education, as it seems right that a good student should not be prevented from receiving higher education due to financial constraints. This means student loans would remain available, but to make them zero cost to the government interest would be charged on the balance, including during enrolment (although payments wouldn't become due until after graduation). This way the student pays back the cost of the education they benefit from, rather than lower-earning taxpayers paying for someone else's degree. To make it easier to pay back, and incentivize repayments, student loan repayments would be a tax-deductible expense. Students who pay directly for tertiary education rather than using loans could also deduct this cost from future earnings.

To make sure that student loans are only given to deserving student who will make the most of the opportunity, and to increase the chance they will be repaid, only the top performing 25% of students would be eligible for government student loans, based on their results in the core secondary school subjects. Students who do not meet this threshold could pay their own tuition or seek private loans. To maximize the chance that the education will result in higher earnings, student loans will only be available for degrees that result in a significant increase in lifetime earnings for the student (based on historical data).

Student allowances would end, as all students would continue to receive the UBI, which would fund their living costs during tertiary education, and could even partially fund the cost of the education itself, reducing the amount of debt they had to take on.

It is likely that many secondary schools will offer tertiary level education in the later years, including vocational training, to take advantage of the government funded vouchers. This will give students an earlier start on their adult life at no cost to themselves.

Fiscal Impact: Current government spending of $3.9 billion on tertiary education would end.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse