Property Tax Exchange Voucher: Part I & Part II
For the past year or so I've been sketching out a plan that would promote school choice while avoiding the argument that government funds are being distributed to religious schools, yet still providing for those who need it the most. I say I believe in the free market, so I knew I needed to find a free market solution.
What I've developed I call the Property Tax Exchange Voucher (PTEV). There are two parts to the program...
PTEV Part I
The Property Tax Exchange Voucher may be claimed by citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania paying property taxes with at least one dependent in K-12 education. These individuals may have up to $2,900 in their yearly property taxes waived to fund the education of their dependent(s) outside of the public school district they reside in.
PTEV Part II
Citizens of the Commonwealth who are paying property taxes without a dependent in K-12 education may sponsor a Commonwealth student whose legal guardian does not pay property taxes.
Justification
Parents and guardians of students in K-12 education should have a greater say in how their property tax is spent. Parents and guardians of students trapped in failing schools have long searched for a way out. But is it fair for the government to remove funds from one group of Commonwealth citizens to give to another?
The answer is no. The government should not engage in wealth distribution. But the charitable nature of the Commonwealth's citizens should be encouraged. This program offers students an opportunity, while avoiding the controversial measure of taking state funds and redirecting them to religious and other private institutions.
The foremost argument against voucher programs is the loss of funds to a district, likely an already failing district. According to NEA, for the 2012-2013 school year Pennsylvania spent $14,467 per pupil (p. 67 of the document, p. 85 of the .pdf)
Under PTEV Part I, a loss of $1,000 per pupil would be negligible. While funding comes from sources outside of property taxes (state funding and federal funding), the majority of school funding in Pennsylvania is still local property taxes. If the loss of one student from the district means the loss of $1,000 in property taxes, in theory, they retain the additional $13,467 which can now be spread amongst the remaining students. In addition, this lowers the class size of the district, which is a common request among school district and public school advocates. Following this line of thought, a potential loss of $2,900 dollars that would sent three students from one family elsewhere would result in $37,501 of funds opened up for that district. That is potentially, or at least close to, an additional staff member for the district.
Meanwhile, the $1,000-$2,900 results in noticeable aid to a family looking for alternative education for their student, whether it go towards private schooling costs or materials/curriculum for homeschool. More and more young people are in need of nontraditional educational environments, this would potentially give parents and guardians the opportunity to seek those alternative methods. In addition, it is simply morally right for a parent or guardian to retain funds meant to fund a school in order to fund his or her own child's education.
Under PTEV Part II, we see an opportunity to free our students most at risk: those in rural or urban school districts. The potential risk is the loss of funds to a district without the direct and guaranteed offset of a reduction in student attendance. Two points to counter.
First, this neglects the potential of this program to take one student out of the district from outside funds through this program. For example, tax payer Susie Jackson may not have any dependents in school, but wants to help a student through PTEV Part II. Ms. Jackson lives in the Pinchot School District, and her funds find its way to student Johnny Smith, who lives in the Morris School District. PSD is out $1,000 without a reduction in attendance. Aside from the minimal impact of $1,000, it remains possible for Hank Rogers, who does not have any dependents in K-12 education and lives in Ridge School District, to have his funds matched with another student from the PSD to attend a private school.
Second, the moral obligation of the people to take care of each other and choose how to fund the education of its young citizens must be decided by the people themselves. This moral obligation is taken on freely without a mandate of the government. The people must weigh the risk-benefit scenario of how their tax money funds education in the Commonwealth.
A question may arise as to why the Department of Public Welfare would oversee the facilitation of the program versus the Department of Education. Simply, the views of the Department of Education are compromised. Understandably, their concern is the survival of the public school system. The historical political pressure against school choice runs deep in public education. This program is not about public education; it is about the best education for the Commonwealth's young people. The mission Department of Public Welfare is:
"to improve the quality of life for Pennsylvania's individuals and families. We promote opportunities for independence through services and supports while demonstrating accountability for taxpayer resources."
Meanwhile, the Department of Education's mission reads:
"to academically prepare children and adults to succeed as productive citizens. The department seeks to ensure that the technical support, resources and opportunities are in place for all students, whether children or adults, to receive a high quality education."
There is nothing wrong with this second mission, however the DOPW is about "improving life," promoting "independence," and "demonstrating accountability for taxpayer resources." Those three points alone make it the better fit for oversight of PTEV. In addition, there is the potential conflict of interest that would exist in DOE, given this program assists parents and guardians in affording alternative education while DOE exists to strengthen the public school system.
I have no doubt this proposal is imperfect. Adjustments may need to be made; I am sure I have overlooked something. But what is outlined above is an excellent starting place to improving the education quality our young people receive, and promoting choice and empowerment to parents and guardians.
What I've developed I call the Property Tax Exchange Voucher (PTEV). There are two parts to the program...
PTEV Part I
The Property Tax Exchange Voucher may be claimed by citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania paying property taxes with at least one dependent in K-12 education. These individuals may have up to $2,900 in their yearly property taxes waived to fund the education of their dependent(s) outside of the public school district they reside in.
- Citizens may have $1,000 waived from their property taxes for the first dependent student.
- Citizens may have an additional $500 waived from their property taxes for the second dependent student.
- Citizens may have an additional $400 waived from their property taxes for the third dependent student.
- Redeemed amount may not exceed total property taxes owed (e.g., a tax payer with three dependents who only pays $2,000 may be waived the full $2,000, but would not receive an additional payment of $900).
- Redeemed money may be used to fund K-12 education of dependents outside the public school district they live. It may include, but is not limited to: Private schools, boarding schools, cyber school, and homeschooling/homeschool co-ops.
- Money is only redeemable to dependents currently in K-12 education (e.g., if the first dependent is in first grade, and the second dependent is only three years old, the tax payer may only redeem the first $1,000 of his or her property tax).
PTEV Part II
Citizens of the Commonwealth who are paying property taxes without a dependent in K-12 education may sponsor a Commonwealth student whose legal guardian does not pay property taxes.
- The citizen may have up to $1,000 from his or her property tax turned into a voucher for a Part II enrollee.
- The Commonwealth will reserve oversight of this program in order to 1) Verify the student's legal guardian as not paying any property taxes, and 2) Verify the citizen paying for the voucher does not have a dependent in K-12 education. (This oversight will be done by the Department of Public Welfare, who may hire up to five additional employees to oversee the various regions. Offices would be created by region, and may be set up in the following cities: Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Scranton, and Erie).
- There will be no list of dependent students or sponsors wishing to enroll. It will be up to private citizens, religious organizations, civic organizations, etc. to locate potential matches of dependent students and sponsors. The match will then be approved or disqualified by the Department of Public Welfare based on previously stated requirements.
Justification
Parents and guardians of students in K-12 education should have a greater say in how their property tax is spent. Parents and guardians of students trapped in failing schools have long searched for a way out. But is it fair for the government to remove funds from one group of Commonwealth citizens to give to another?
The answer is no. The government should not engage in wealth distribution. But the charitable nature of the Commonwealth's citizens should be encouraged. This program offers students an opportunity, while avoiding the controversial measure of taking state funds and redirecting them to religious and other private institutions.
The foremost argument against voucher programs is the loss of funds to a district, likely an already failing district. According to NEA, for the 2012-2013 school year Pennsylvania spent $14,467 per pupil (p. 67 of the document, p. 85 of the .pdf)
Under PTEV Part I, a loss of $1,000 per pupil would be negligible. While funding comes from sources outside of property taxes (state funding and federal funding), the majority of school funding in Pennsylvania is still local property taxes. If the loss of one student from the district means the loss of $1,000 in property taxes, in theory, they retain the additional $13,467 which can now be spread amongst the remaining students. In addition, this lowers the class size of the district, which is a common request among school district and public school advocates. Following this line of thought, a potential loss of $2,900 dollars that would sent three students from one family elsewhere would result in $37,501 of funds opened up for that district. That is potentially, or at least close to, an additional staff member for the district.
Meanwhile, the $1,000-$2,900 results in noticeable aid to a family looking for alternative education for their student, whether it go towards private schooling costs or materials/curriculum for homeschool. More and more young people are in need of nontraditional educational environments, this would potentially give parents and guardians the opportunity to seek those alternative methods. In addition, it is simply morally right for a parent or guardian to retain funds meant to fund a school in order to fund his or her own child's education.
Under PTEV Part II, we see an opportunity to free our students most at risk: those in rural or urban school districts. The potential risk is the loss of funds to a district without the direct and guaranteed offset of a reduction in student attendance. Two points to counter.
First, this neglects the potential of this program to take one student out of the district from outside funds through this program. For example, tax payer Susie Jackson may not have any dependents in school, but wants to help a student through PTEV Part II. Ms. Jackson lives in the Pinchot School District, and her funds find its way to student Johnny Smith, who lives in the Morris School District. PSD is out $1,000 without a reduction in attendance. Aside from the minimal impact of $1,000, it remains possible for Hank Rogers, who does not have any dependents in K-12 education and lives in Ridge School District, to have his funds matched with another student from the PSD to attend a private school.
Second, the moral obligation of the people to take care of each other and choose how to fund the education of its young citizens must be decided by the people themselves. This moral obligation is taken on freely without a mandate of the government. The people must weigh the risk-benefit scenario of how their tax money funds education in the Commonwealth.
A question may arise as to why the Department of Public Welfare would oversee the facilitation of the program versus the Department of Education. Simply, the views of the Department of Education are compromised. Understandably, their concern is the survival of the public school system. The historical political pressure against school choice runs deep in public education. This program is not about public education; it is about the best education for the Commonwealth's young people. The mission Department of Public Welfare is:
"to improve the quality of life for Pennsylvania's individuals and families. We promote opportunities for independence through services and supports while demonstrating accountability for taxpayer resources."
Meanwhile, the Department of Education's mission reads:
"to academically prepare children and adults to succeed as productive citizens. The department seeks to ensure that the technical support, resources and opportunities are in place for all students, whether children or adults, to receive a high quality education."
There is nothing wrong with this second mission, however the DOPW is about "improving life," promoting "independence," and "demonstrating accountability for taxpayer resources." Those three points alone make it the better fit for oversight of PTEV. In addition, there is the potential conflict of interest that would exist in DOE, given this program assists parents and guardians in affording alternative education while DOE exists to strengthen the public school system.
I have no doubt this proposal is imperfect. Adjustments may need to be made; I am sure I have overlooked something. But what is outlined above is an excellent starting place to improving the education quality our young people receive, and promoting choice and empowerment to parents and guardians.
Comments
Post a Comment