Lack of mobility is a key part of the experiment here. It's an economic growth strategy - attract families that value education, get them to set up roots, and the local economy will benefit.
If this were to roll out on a national level then it would be much similar to public school, but rather than K-12, it'd be K-BA. Maybe there'd be vouchers, maybe not.
The point is that this is an experimental model for economic growth and social benefit for the town, not the model for the entire nation.
There's also a kind of inevitability here - that schemes with intended pay-off periods measured in decades are not going to interest politicians who's main (some say "only") job is to be re-elected on 3 or 4 year cycles…
Call me cynical, but if this had been my idea - I would have taken it to potential local wealthy benefactors, and probably would not have bothered pitching it to "the government"…
This is totally interesting point. The experiment has to be seen as the 18 year time-frame. How many Parents can rationally expect 18 years in Job? That type of career is getting further away from the norm, it seems
There are a number of small town jobs where this can be true, even what some might consider 'temp' work like waitstaff or gardener. There are of course the 'professional' careers, like lawyer, doctor, or accountant, and of course civil jobs like police officer, firefighter, clerk.
The interesting bit comes when you're thinking about investing, say to build a gas station or a wallmart, knowing that the population will be relatively stable is an incentive.
They don't constrain where the kids go, they can go to any school that they are accepted to AFAICT from the article. So some schools might recruit them knowing they won't need financial aid.
There's one key limit on the students: they will only pay for tuition at any of Michigan's state colleges or universities.
So no free rides to Harvard... or Ohio State.
Edit: I didn't mean to imply that Michigan has bad schools. Simply noting that this offer requires families to set up roots in the town and it also requires that the students go to college in state. Not saying it's a positive or negative, just a two-fold geographic limitation designed to stimulate the local and state economies.
Not to be too biased (I grew up and attended school in Michigan) but I fail to see this as a significant limitation. Interested in technology? Attend Michigan's top-ten engineering school. Decent student at a less than stellar highschool? Michigan State probably has something you're interested in. Want to be a teacher? Western has you covered.
I never felt needy for options while looking at universities in the state of Michigan.
Hey, one my daughters is going to school in Michigan (Hope College) :-)
More seriously though, since daughter #3 is college shopping, we've been talking about various colleges. Michigan has a lot of great schools, for a variety of students and for a variety of majors. So it's not a 'limit' in any sense of the word.
This explains well why it might be of interest in an area where some seemingly basic jobs are all that is left from the scale-back of traditional industries. Right or wrong as the experiment will tell us, this seems to have some explanatory power. About why it might be a good idea for an increasingly large segment of folks that would otherwise be dis-advantaged by skyrocketing costs of higher ed.
I am curious, would it not mean that paychecks will be slightly lower in the town given that expenditures are lower? Also meaning that families and individuals who choose to be without kids will have a poorer deal hence?
If this were to roll out on a national level then it would be much similar to public school, but rather than K-12, it'd be K-BA. Maybe there'd be vouchers, maybe not.
The point is that this is an experimental model for economic growth and social benefit for the town, not the model for the entire nation.