Rethinking Education: Fairness, Funding, Fun

Here’s the gist of Ian Underwood’s talk and slide deck, boiled down for a quick read.

Scroll down for a copy of the presentation deck and a link to video.

The argument in one breath

New Hampshire keeps spending more and getting the same results. That’s not a money problem; it’s a design problem. Fix three things: make fairness about learning, not dollars; stop paying schools up-front for promises and start paying after results; narrow schools to what’s mandatory and move everything else out.

What Ian says we’re doing wrong

• Chasing “fairness” with cash. Decades of higher per-pupil spending haven’t moved achievement—state comparisons and post-Claremont NH data show spending variation with flat proficiency. Money is the lamppost we argue under because the light’s good; the keys aren’t there. Shift the fairness debate to what students actually learn.
• Funding by “pay-and-pray.” The current model: pay first, hope for learning, try again when it doesn’t appear. In normal commerce, you specify the deliverable, receive it, then pay—refunds if it fails. Accountability isn’t a slogan; it’s a payment schedule. Tie public dollars to demonstrated learning, not seat time.
• Stuffing everything under the “school” umbrella. Meals, transport, therapy, childcare, clubs—useful, maybe essential for some, but not the core duty. When schools try to be a community center plus social service hub, literacy and numeracy get buried. Keep schools for what everyone must learn; route the rest to the right institutions.

What that looks like in practice

• Fairness redefined. Students start when ready, leave when they hit an agreed “adequate” bar. Taxes fund public goods (what everyone needs), not private enrichment (what some want). The time and money freed from early finishers help lagging students cross the line.
• A cleaner question. Stop asking “How should government educate children?” Ask “How do we avoid leaving people uneducated?” That reframing distinguishes the roles of government (coercive, limited) and society (persuasive, plural), and it includes adults who also need remediation.
• A field test. Croydon’s “budget vs. ransom” fight showed voters will back a capped budget with priorities, and also how quickly status-quo politics can claw it back—evidence that design beats slogans.

The takeaway

Build public education on a three-legged stool: outcomes-based funding, a mandatory core defined as what’s necessary for citizenship, and strict scope discipline so schools teach the core while other institutions handle the rest. Anything less is just rearranging deck chairs—expensively.