Project idea to reduce student fees and increase teacher's income
2 comments
Why not just raise taxes and provide free college education and job training programs?
Do trust fund students never need to pay because they never take a job?
If a student dies (suppose 20 people in the class of 2024 die in a bus accident), do the teachers make nothing extra?
This gives a strong monetary inventive to only teach children with a high chance of making money. Who will want to teach poor students?
What about the teachers of special needs children? Some of the more severely disabled are unlikely to ever have a job which pays much money, if at all? Doesn't this scheme punish those teachers?
"will make better income in the long-term for their lifetime"
That's not how the funding works. Teachers decide based on overall compensation, and the system can re-balance to compensate. Staff and schools will get money from this system, so the school board will reduce other funding.
Here's some related examples:
When I was young, Florida introduced the state lottery and justified it by saying the profits would go to education. And some voted for it because of that.
So if the lottery regularly brings in $50 million to state education, the state reduces the state funding by $50 million.
Or, a company which says "we offer free food for lunch, so you don't need as high a salary because you don't need to buy or bring your own lunch."
Do trust fund students never need to pay because they never take a job?
If a student dies (suppose 20 people in the class of 2024 die in a bus accident), do the teachers make nothing extra?
This gives a strong monetary inventive to only teach children with a high chance of making money. Who will want to teach poor students?
What about the teachers of special needs children? Some of the more severely disabled are unlikely to ever have a job which pays much money, if at all? Doesn't this scheme punish those teachers?
"will make better income in the long-term for their lifetime"
That's not how the funding works. Teachers decide based on overall compensation, and the system can re-balance to compensate. Staff and schools will get money from this system, so the school board will reduce other funding.
Here's some related examples:
When I was young, Florida introduced the state lottery and justified it by saying the profits would go to education. And some voted for it because of that.
So if the lottery regularly brings in $50 million to state education, the state reduces the state funding by $50 million.
Or, a company which says "we offer free food for lunch, so you don't need as high a salary because you don't need to buy or bring your own lunch."
> Why not just raise taxes and provide free college education and job training programs?
With the present system there is no correlation or synchronisation between funding, teaching, outcome and requirement of the society. Raising taxes will not help for this reason. The platform I am proposing removes this disconnect.
> Do trust fund students never need to pay because they never take a job?
The proposed platform diminishes the need for trust funds or any form of funding for students. The whole point of the platform is to make education accessible to students from monetary perspective.
> If a student dies (suppose 20 people in the class of 2024 die in a bus accident), do the teachers make nothing extra?
In the present system too, if a student dies then that stops future "income" from that student to the school. It may not immediately affect the staff, but it does have impact due to loss of income to the school. In the proposed platform, the teachers will not get income from the student who has died but still get income from other students. That normalises things, infact the teacher is better off with the proposed I am proposing.
> This gives a strong monetary inventive to only teach children with a high chance of making money. Who will want to teach poor students?
How can one say with certainty that students who are not good academically will not do better in life. There are many examples where "poor" students have done better than "outstanding" students.
> What about the teachers of special needs children? Some of the more severely disabled are unlikely to ever have a job which pays much money, if at all? Doesn't this scheme punish those teachers?
Yes, that is one area that needs to look into. With the burden of funding reduced from the government and institutions such as trust funds, these entities can then divert their funds to special needs teachers. But I agree that more will need to be done from the proposed platform as well.
> That's not how the funding works. Teachers decide based on overall compensation, and the system can re-balance to compensate.
In the proposed platform there won't be a need to re-balance anything. In fact teachers(infact everyone in the education sector) get cummulatively increasing pay every year.
> Staff and schools will get money from this system, so the school board will reduce other funding.
Again, in the proposed platform the school board does not have to reduce anything. Actually, the whole point of the platform is to tie real outcome to compensation. This will help increase the quality of education as well.
With the present system there is no correlation or synchronisation between funding, teaching, outcome and requirement of the society. Raising taxes will not help for this reason. The platform I am proposing removes this disconnect.
> Do trust fund students never need to pay because they never take a job?
The proposed platform diminishes the need for trust funds or any form of funding for students. The whole point of the platform is to make education accessible to students from monetary perspective.
> If a student dies (suppose 20 people in the class of 2024 die in a bus accident), do the teachers make nothing extra?
In the present system too, if a student dies then that stops future "income" from that student to the school. It may not immediately affect the staff, but it does have impact due to loss of income to the school. In the proposed platform, the teachers will not get income from the student who has died but still get income from other students. That normalises things, infact the teacher is better off with the proposed I am proposing.
> This gives a strong monetary inventive to only teach children with a high chance of making money. Who will want to teach poor students?
How can one say with certainty that students who are not good academically will not do better in life. There are many examples where "poor" students have done better than "outstanding" students.
> What about the teachers of special needs children? Some of the more severely disabled are unlikely to ever have a job which pays much money, if at all? Doesn't this scheme punish those teachers?
Yes, that is one area that needs to look into. With the burden of funding reduced from the government and institutions such as trust funds, these entities can then divert their funds to special needs teachers. But I agree that more will need to be done from the proposed platform as well.
> That's not how the funding works. Teachers decide based on overall compensation, and the system can re-balance to compensate.
In the proposed platform there won't be a need to re-balance anything. In fact teachers(infact everyone in the education sector) get cummulatively increasing pay every year.
> Staff and schools will get money from this system, so the school board will reduce other funding.
Again, in the proposed platform the school board does not have to reduce anything. Actually, the whole point of the platform is to tie real outcome to compensation. This will help increase the quality of education as well.
> With the present system there is no correlation or synchronisation between funding, teaching, outcome and requirement of the society.
Yes, there is. Local school boards and democratic control are one. The voter decide on a school administration system which fits their requirements.
The charter school movement (which has been a net failure, IMO) is another. Let the parents decide which schools are most effective, and funding follows the parents' wishes.
I don't see how this proposed system handles the "requirement of the society". If I have no children, I still want some say on how people are educated. These are the people who will be my co-citizens. But nothing in this proposal gives them any power.
> Raising taxes will not help for this reason.
Since there is currently a coupling, raising taxes may help.
Again, see any number of countries where university and career training are included as part of taxes. Explain how that happens if there is no coupling.
> diminishes the need for trust funds
I see I used a term with multiple interpretations. I mean people whose parents are rich and set up a trust fund so the kids can live off that wealth for their entire lives without working.
What's the incentive to educate children who don't need to work to make a living?
> it does have impact due to loss of income to the school.
Please quantify. In the current system there's an immediate loss of income for school reimbursement based on headcount. This last for at most a few years - new students will come in. There is also no loss of income due to tax.
In your system, there is a long-term impact, and it's localized to those teachers and schools involved. The burden, by construction, cannot be shared.
> How can one say with certainty
LOL! Your entire proposal is based on uncertain and overall statistical effects, and you want me to be certain?
There's a huge amount of evidence that socioeconomic status "is a consistent and reliable predictor of a vast array of outcomes across the life span, including physical and psychological health. Thus, SES is relevant to all realms of behavioral and social science, including research, practice, education, and advocacy." (quoting https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-... ).
You cannot simply wave it away by saying there are always exceptions!
And teachers aren't dumb. If a significant amount of their income derives from the future income of their students, then do you think they are going to prefer working at a school where the parents are financially well-off, or where the parents are poor?
> these entities can then divert their funds to special needs teachers .. there won't be a need to re-balance anything ... does not have to reduce anything
I told you, that's not how the system works - I gave examples!
Why wouldn't they simply cut funding? What's the pressure for them to divert to special needs teachers, or to keep the existing funding going so that your proposal acts only a supplement?
If the school's bake sale raises $50,000 every year to supplement the school's funding, then there's less pressure on the school board to fund the extra $50,000 ... and they won't. Raise more money from bake sales, and the school board has even less pressure to fund the school.
If you proposal provides a revenue source, then the school board is going to lower the tax rate and lower the normal school funding. Because voters are going to point out that the teachers have another revenue source, so why are they paying such high taxes?
Yes, there is. Local school boards and democratic control are one. The voter decide on a school administration system which fits their requirements.
The charter school movement (which has been a net failure, IMO) is another. Let the parents decide which schools are most effective, and funding follows the parents' wishes.
I don't see how this proposed system handles the "requirement of the society". If I have no children, I still want some say on how people are educated. These are the people who will be my co-citizens. But nothing in this proposal gives them any power.
> Raising taxes will not help for this reason.
Since there is currently a coupling, raising taxes may help.
Again, see any number of countries where university and career training are included as part of taxes. Explain how that happens if there is no coupling.
> diminishes the need for trust funds
I see I used a term with multiple interpretations. I mean people whose parents are rich and set up a trust fund so the kids can live off that wealth for their entire lives without working.
What's the incentive to educate children who don't need to work to make a living?
> it does have impact due to loss of income to the school.
Please quantify. In the current system there's an immediate loss of income for school reimbursement based on headcount. This last for at most a few years - new students will come in. There is also no loss of income due to tax.
In your system, there is a long-term impact, and it's localized to those teachers and schools involved. The burden, by construction, cannot be shared.
> How can one say with certainty
LOL! Your entire proposal is based on uncertain and overall statistical effects, and you want me to be certain?
There's a huge amount of evidence that socioeconomic status "is a consistent and reliable predictor of a vast array of outcomes across the life span, including physical and psychological health. Thus, SES is relevant to all realms of behavioral and social science, including research, practice, education, and advocacy." (quoting https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-... ).
You cannot simply wave it away by saying there are always exceptions!
And teachers aren't dumb. If a significant amount of their income derives from the future income of their students, then do you think they are going to prefer working at a school where the parents are financially well-off, or where the parents are poor?
> these entities can then divert their funds to special needs teachers .. there won't be a need to re-balance anything ... does not have to reduce anything
I told you, that's not how the system works - I gave examples!
Why wouldn't they simply cut funding? What's the pressure for them to divert to special needs teachers, or to keep the existing funding going so that your proposal acts only a supplement?
If the school's bake sale raises $50,000 every year to supplement the school's funding, then there's less pressure on the school board to fund the extra $50,000 ... and they won't. Raise more money from bake sales, and the school board has even less pressure to fund the school.
If you proposal provides a revenue source, then the school board is going to lower the tax rate and lower the normal school funding. Because voters are going to point out that the teachers have another revenue source, so why are they paying such high taxes?
I am at present ideating on a platform to help reduce student fees and increase teaching and non-teaching staff income. The details are on GitLab here: https://gitlab.com/bsldld/s/blob/master/README.md
Any comments, suggestions, critic, guidance, help and participation is most welcome.
Thank you!