An interesting clash in philosophies is evolving on Capitol Hill.
The debate on school fees appears to be separating legislators into two camps - those who believe parents should be willing to pay fees as part of their contribution to their children's education and those who think education is a public responsibility that should be underwritten by taxes across the population.Count me on the latter side.
As I think through the concept of "user fees" it doesn't seem to fit in this case. The rationale for fees is that those who use government-sponsored services and reap the benefits should pay.
It works with such things as hunting and fishing. The sportsman plunks down his fee, enjoys the chase of some species that belongs to the state and then owns the trophy to eat, display or simply discard.
That's fair. Those who like to hunt or fish and are willing and able to pay the price do it. Those who choose not to hunt or fish keep their cash.
But education doesn't work that way.
To begin with, Utah law requires children to be in school until they are 16. They don't have a choice. If there is a fee appended to their education (and in most Utah districts, fees are there and rising) they must pay it whether they want to or not - or if they can afford it or not.
Those who can't pay are safeguarded by laws requiring waivers. A 3rd District Court order demanding that school districts honor that responsibility was what set off the current furor about fees. And a king-size can of worms it is.
Obviously, Utah lawmakers who provided the waivers and the district court that re-emphasized the obligation to honor the laws are of the opinion that the ability to pay shouldn't be a question in public education.
Take it a step further and another principle of "user fees" fails to meet the test.
The parents who pay the fees for their children to attend school are not the only beneficiaries. Unlike the fisherman who takes his trout home and does what he wants with it, the parent who pays for his child's education may (hopefully WILL) find that the end result benefits many people who didn't ante up.
An educated child is an asset to the society in which he lives. Society has a very direct interest, in fact, because it certainly will pay for the problems caused by the child who is not educated. Better for society to pay at the beginning of the pipeline and not at the end.
The fees currently being charged in some school district are no small beans. Some families come away from registration financially battered and bruised. And these aren't only the families that are defined as "poor" under the formulas. If general taxes had risen as fast as school fees - a form of head tax - the public would be in an uproar.
Covering the costs of fees for textbooks and other items directly related to the academic mission of the schools is the logical first step. The picture becomes more murky when extracurricular activities are at stake and that issue needs a lot more discussion.
It was gratifying to see a line item for $3.6 million in Gov. Mike Leavitt's proposed budget. That would allow school districts to eliminate textbook fees. Giving students the raw materials with which to build their education makes sense, since we all have to live with the finished product.