Stephen Dubner of Freakonomics Blog notes that “there aren’t many goods and services in this country that you can’t significantly upgrade if you have the money.”

Of course. That’s part of the American Way — the wealthy are able to afford better goods and services than are the poor. This is the type of thing that people lament when they are relatively poor, but then relish in when they have some money. In fact, it’s the whole point of dragging oneself out of poverty — to live a more comfortable life. The wealthy can have better cars, better clothes, better communities, and better schools.

Yes, better schools. Higher income areas generally have better school facilities, in an effort to provide a better educational experience to the children of the well-to-do.

Interestingly, Greg Mankiw recently discussed how this may not be acceptable to some people, including Massachusetts State Treasurer Tim Cahill:

One community should not be able to provide better opportunities for kids versus another community just because they have the money.

In my opinion, the quote is even more offensive as a part of the Boston Globe story Mankiw linked than it is standing alone. As Mankiw notes, the town is planning to pay for all of the “bells and whistles” that would make their school better than those in other communities. By saying that the town should not be able to do this, Cahill is supporting the mindset that it is wrong for one person to have something better than another. Keep in mind that this is not a matter of a wealthy town trying to take anything away from a poorer town, or to exploit them. It is a matter of a wealthy town saying that if the state is willing to help fund the construction of a mediocre school for the town, they should be willing to spend the same amount to help build an even better school.

Put it this way: If it costs the state the same amount of money to build a fantastic school as it does to build a mediocre school, then which should be built? It seems like a no-brainer, doesn’t it?

However, Mankiw’s position is predicated on the notion that the wealthy town is entitled to state assistance in building their schools in the first place. While I would not make the socialistic argument that poor towns deserve that money more than rich towns, I will note that Cahill and others at the state level don’t really care about the poor rich kids when they are tasked with doling out funds. If the state had only one thousand dollars to spend on education, would it be best to divide it evenly among all of the school districts? What is the rationale behind public schools in the first place? If it is a proper function of government at all, then what level of government would best address that function? That is hardly a new question, but I think I would be hard pressed to come up with an argument that the state has a vested interest in funding education to the wealthy as much as to the poor. The whole notion of public education is that it is the safety net, the bare minimum.

Consider the following from the Boston Globe article:

If communities still want to pursue additional features on their own, Cahill said, they can build separate buildings and fund them through endowments, like universities or private schools do. Otherwise, he recommends cutting back programs, particularly in areas that don’t have to do with core academics, or placing more emphasis on areas that get the most usage, like classrooms. 

“No one is saying I want more square footage in my classrooms. No, they want more common space, a larger gym, balconies for their auditoriums, large administrative areas. They’re not talking about a larger library,” Cahill said. “It’s paramount. We’re building schools for education, not for phys ed, not for the arts, not for community events.”

 

Now that sounds like the party line for conservatives and any libertarians who support public education. Assuming the state has a proper role to play in public education, that role must be to provide an acceptable level of educational opportunities for all students in the state. If the money would make a bigger difference in the inner city or out in podunk, then it is the responsibility of the state officials to see to it that the money goes there, and not to helping the wealthiest town put in extravagant extracurricular amenities.

I think Professor Mankiw and the residents of his town should consider the points made in Dubner’s blog post, especially this one:

Don’t like sending your kids to the public school? Pay for private school.

That’s the American Way.

Tweet  Print This Post

Tags: education, politics & government // Add Comment »