Government's Role: Protecting Us From Helping Our Children

The operative wording of the 1997 Vermont Supreme Court's Brigham decision, which set up the basis for Act 60, is

Children who live in property-poor districts and children who live in property-rich districts should be afforded a substantially equal opportunity to have access to similar educational revenues.   Thus....we hold only that to fulfill its constitutional obligation the state must ensure substantial equality of educational opportunity throughout Vermont.

Although many thought that Act 60, and Brigham, meant that the state would and should provide the funding to increase spending among low spending districts, others were concerned that some districts were spending too much and ought to be prevented from doing this, even though the higher-than-average education spending was paid for entirely by local taxpayers. 

It now appears that a similar situation is occurring in Massachusetts, where the citizens of Wellesley want to build a new $159 million high school, with most of that coming from their own tax base.   Massachusetts State Treasurer Timothy Cahill is opposed, saying

Just because you have the money doesn't mean you should be allowed to do it. One community should not be able to provide better opportunities for kids versus another community just because they have the money.

As Greg Mankiw notes

In essence, Mr Cahill does not want the residents of Wellesley--a group with higher-than-average income--to spend their own money on their children. I suppose it is better for them to buy fancier cars or spend more on dinners out at tony restaurants. But better school facilities? Absolutely not!

Mr Cahill's one-size-fits-all principle has many implications. For example, why should wealthier parents be allowed to hire tutors for their kids? Or give them private music lessons? Or send them to pricey summer camps? If Mr Cahill thinks that people should not be able to spend their own money to improve the lives of their children, the Wellesley High School is only the first step of a much larger project.

Comments

[GreggB]

We wouldn't have these problems, if everyone would just stop working hard and building wealth for their families. Everyone needs to move to VT and be poor organic dirt farmers. Problem solved. The audacity of people to go out and create wealth while lazy people get nothing.

[G. Cross]

Whether one likes the idea or not, basically the Brigham decision ruled that public education in Vermont is a state function and not a local one. It seems that posters on this site tend to lose sight of that fact. The statewide education property tax is a state tax. There is no local education property tax in Vermont even though the state education property tax varies by the equalized per pupil expenditure. Unfortunately, when Act 60 went into place the legislators did not have the courage to have the state collect the tax. That, in itself, adds to the continuing confusion about local vs. state.

[Tim Diette]

There is a significant difference between all of the other examples listed by Mankiw and a public school...the word "public"...which is distinct from private dollars. I'm not suggesting this wins the argument, but we have to admit there is some tension over public dollars and issues of equity. Vermont was from a leader in this, just look at issues in California and other states with the legitimate debate over what do we mean by equity.

Would this even be a point of discussion if there were state level vouchers for schools? Statewide funding and then local control over how to best spend those dollars...
(and yes, there are many decisions that have to made when implementing a voucher system, but I will save that for a story on vouchers...)