Education Finance Reform: Tip the Teachers

We are going about reforming the education system in entirely the wrong manner. Our focus on teacher accountability through standardized testing has clearly failed. The tenure system protects good teachers and bad. There must be a better way. All we need do is look to other forms of compensation for public servants to give us the clear solution to the problem.

What if teachers were paid a minimum wage and received most of their compensation through voluntary contributions from individuals and families? This would motivate teachers to be more responsive to specific students and their parents. In this manner, we could reduce property taxes so they only pay for the buildings themselves with a very modest base wage for the teachers.

Consider the benefits: Instead of teachers doing what was good for themselves, they would focus on keeping the contributing students and their parents engaged and happy. Families would voluntarily thank the teacher through monetary gifts. Poor teachers would not stay in the profession because they would not be able to make enough money.

Of course teachers are ethical people and all students would be treated equally. Some students would simply be more equal if their parents pay more. That should not be an issue in a free market system like America. If your child needs more attention in class, pay more. If your child wants to be a starter on the team or the star of the show, pay more. If your child wants better grades, less homework, a little help on the ACT, or a chance to go to the bathroom, it is only appropriate that you help the teacher since the teacher is helping your child.

A wonderful side effect would be that teachers would have to compete for parental dollars. Rather than the same dull curriculum in all classes, teachers would be forced to innovate and be creative! They would find new and interesting ways to get their students (and their parents) attention. Think of the motivation that money would provide! Instead of lectures and tests, we could have field trips, movies, and other fun educational experiences. If parents have resources that could help, I’ll bet they’d be quick to assist! Perhaps parents who own fast food franchises, publishing houses, educational services, and media sources would contribute to teachers so that teachers would use their products and services. What a fresh and new educational landscape would be born!

Think of how the dynamic among the faculty would change, too. Instead of just any teacher assuming leadership, the teachers who get the most contributions from family would have the resources to affect the building and district at large. Clearly, these will be the teachers who have most pleased parents and members of the community. These teachers’ success could breed a new and more fiscally responsive approach to learning.

If this model succeeds in education, perhaps we could use it in other areas. Tipping police and firefighters would motivate them to take better care of our communities. Tipping our public works departments would mean that the streets that really need plowing or repairing would get attention, as long as the residents make sure that those who are doing the repairing are well repaired!

This system has proven such a success with our elected officials that we should make voluntary contributions our primary way to fund everything! The success of Congress stands as shining lighthouse to the nation. It is time for us to set our country’s course directly to that beacon!

Schnorrer Syndrome

The Yiddish term schnorrer has come to mean many things. Urban dictionary lists synonyms as freeloader, beggar, sponger, moocher, and my favorite, “Someone that always shows up just in time for a free meal.”

We have all dealt with schnorrers. They are the people who want the benefits but are unwilling to pay for them. They are the folks who are pleased with getting away with something, going around the system, or paying less than their fair share.

My neighborhood has a voluntary homeowners association whose primary task is to maintain the common landscaping. I am always upset by the schnorrers who get good prices when they sell their homes, but won’t pay the $75 a year to help make the neighborhood look good, even though that good looking landscaping certainly assisted in the sale of their homes.  

And while these small schnorring annoyances may bother me, I wish I could see them as the exception rather than the rule. Of the 152 homes in our neighborhood, only about a dozen don’t pay. They are the unfortunate exception, not the rule.

Or are they?

I am worried that the schnorrers’ numbers are increasing. There are more and more people who want the good stuff, but don’t want to pay for it.

Politicians are now pandering to the schnorrer voters. Why should states like Illinois, which is deep in debt, increase income tax? We can do more with less! Except that we can’t. I want good schools, but I don’t want to pay teachers. I want police, fire, and public works services, but I don’t want to pay the taxes. I want healthcare at a reasonable cost, but only if others can’t access it. I want, I want, I want. And he debt mounts up!

We should be able to provide more, with less, they tell us. Under the guise of financial responsibility and efficiency, they find reasons why they shouldn’t have to pay, but they should still receive their free meals. My grandmother used to say, “You get what you pay for.” Yet, more and more people want to get what others pay for. Their version might be that a free lunch is worth is what someone else pays for it.

The schnorrer rejects the concepts of duty and obligation. The idea of social responsibility is a critical part of our social fabric. Schnorrers justify their miserliness by pointing out their own traits in others; if some entitlement programs have some schnorrers, does that mean no one should get assistance? Should each of us have to build our own roads, sewer systems, and schools?

I want my children to be generous. I want them to understand that their taxes take care of them by taking care of all of us. We are all better off when we are all better off! We have an obligation to pay for what we take or use. We have a duty to take care of those who take care of us. We have a responsibility to take care of our communities! Rather than being stingy schnorrers, I want them to the people who will help, give, and look out for those who struggle.

Does that make them suckers? Does that make me a sucker? I would prefer to be a sucker than be a schnorrer. I’ll be the nice guy, even if I finish last.

Fight the schnorrer syndrome. The Yiddish word that is the opposite of schnorrer is mensch. A mensch is a good person, the kind you’d like your children to find as partners and friends.

If some people are taking advantage of welfare, we should not cut welfare. If some bad teachers are protected by tenure, we should still protect the good ones. The system should not be focused on foiling the cheaters, whiners, and schnorrers.

There will always be schnorrers. Let’s make sure they remain the irritating exception rather than ruling the rest of us!