3 ms·
Disagree. Moving funding to a federal level might be more efficient but gives me, as a resident of one particular state, less control over how much is spent on
by rndmize 9y ago
Disagree. Moving funding to a federal level might be more efficient but gives me, as a resident of one particular state, less control over how much is spent on education. I have zero interest in seeing a nationally funded education system gutted because a party I don't support is elected from states I don't live in that have outsize influence.
Further, the "laboratories of democracy" model means that if I don't like how my state is doing education, I'm free to move to another one.
> People move all the time, focusing at the state level concentrates costs while defusing benefits.
Not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. You don't think states are big enough to get economies of scale?
- Retric 9y ago> Not sure... scale? If some state say Iowa sees most young people move out of state then they don't get direct economic benefits from educating well. Alternatively, Virginia may benefit from importing an educated population and have less economic incentive to educate it's own population well. Yes, their are incentives to educate your own children well, but a Florida retiree may not have any kids or grand kids in state and thus not care about educating people without a direct connection to them. Those connections and thus incentives become more direct at the national level.