Right now various school districts and cooperatives of districts fund part-time programs for some homeschool and private-school students. The Colorado Board of Education heard a presentation about that on January 16. Although only a relatively small number of students participate in the programs in question, the discussion raises matters of broad concern regarding tax-funded education.
Juggling hats
First I want to acknowledge my peculiar role in all of this. I am a political columnist and journalist, and that is the main hat I wear while writing this piece. But I am also a homeschool dad whose child uses one of the tax-funded programs under review, and I just started the group Secular Homeschoolers of Colorado. So I’m trying to balance my roles as writer, parent, and “community organizer.”
One thing I want to do here is try to model what it’s like not to be a partisan. Lots of people twist the arguments and even distort the facts to fit their personal agendas. I don’t want to do that. Rather, I want to tell the truth as best I can, even when that’s uncomfortable for me or makes people mad at me.
My general attitude is that we have a moral obligation to recognize the facts for what they are and to avoid bias as much as we can.
At the same time, precisely because I am a homeschool dad who interacts with other homeschoolers, I am well-positioned to discuss the political topic at hand. Because of my personal experience, I know more about homeschooling than almost every policy wonk and journalist in the state. So I do think there’s a lot of value in people writing about issues they’re familiar with, even if balancing different roles is hard.
Eyebrow-raising examples
The Board’s staff raises some concerning issues. Here’s a quick gut-check: How do you respond to the following items?
1) If a part-time program covers only a fourth as many hours as a regular full-time school program, what fraction of the funding do you think the part-time program should receive per student? I think offhand most people would consider a fourth to be a reasonable out-of-the-gate answer. The real answer is half. Now, maybe there are good reasons why the amount should be half rather than a fourth, but I think most people would want to hear those reasons.
2) Do you think it’s reasonable if a part-time, tax-funded school program consists mostly of playing lacrosse and ice hockey? Or consists mostly of classes in jujitsu, field trips, and “team building”? I think most people would question that. Those are real examples presented to the Board of Education.
3) Do you think there might be any incentives problems if the state provides funding to a district, which then keeps a portion of the funds and spends the rest on a private contractor to provide a part-time program? I think it’s reasonable to worry about that. That’s another issue considered by the board.
So I don’t think the Board is just out to harass homeschoolers here. I think it’s considering some real issues.
My family’s experiences
My son absolutely loves his “enrichment” day. Right now he’s taking classes in technical theater (building props, setting the stage); coding with Scratch (a coding language), Lego Spike, and Minecraft; robotics, and video production.
Maybe you’re thinking to yourself, that doesn’t look like a core-academic schedule. I agree! I don’t send my kid to an enrichment program for core academics, because we already do a great job covering math, literacy, science, and history at home. Right now we’re working through Dimensions Math, Fix It Grammar, and Spectrum Spelling, among other materials. My child is doing very well academically and is ahead of the average public-school student.
At the same time, my child is learning real skills in his program. I don’t think anyone would argue that a coding-heavy day isn’t real academics.
At this point it’s unclear whether the Board or the legislature might take any action that would jeopardize my child’s enrichment program. It does seem, based on the staff report, that the Board may consider putting in tighter rules that could exclude things like PE-dominant programs.
The conflicts of funding
The Board of Education and its staff look at the available funding as public and see it as their responsibility to spend those funds prudently. I get that.
But often lost in the conversation are the people ultimately paying the bills: the taxpayers. My family still has to pay the same amount toward education, whether we get any benefit from those dollars or not. So sending my child to a tax-funded enrichment program is a way to get at least some value for my family’s tax dollars.
Maybe you would answer, “Look, if you decline to send your child to the available public schools, that’s your choice, and you don’t deserve anything.” That strikes me as a spiteful response, especially considering that Colorado’s public schools are doing a pretty mediocre job at educating students.
My wife and I work very hard for our money, and having funds stripped away from us for educational programs that do not well-suit our needs just is not fair. I would very happily decline any tax-funded educational program if I could instead keep all of my family’s education-directed tax dollars.
Some people find it easy and convenient to imagine “public” funds as the property of the state, with no further thought about the individuals and families forced to provide that money.
I am here to remind policy makers that the people who earn the wealth have at least some moral claim to its use.
Ari Armstrong writes regularly for Complete Colorado and is the author of books about Ayn Rand, Harry Potter, and classical liberalism. He can be reached at ari at ariarmstrong dot com.
