Universal policies can sometimes be said to produce bizarre outcomes. As Anatole France observed: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." Thus leveling down has little appeal.
Universal policies that level up, however, generally produce good results. They are often simple and usually fair. Since by definition they lack means-testing, they reduce the cheating, error, and perverse incentives that unavoidably occur when government policies pick particular "deserving" sub-groups to get a benefit or service things while cutting out other groups that are "undeserving," "less deserving," or "without need." Such leveling-up, beneficial, and popular universal policies include government's (1) requiring workers be paid a minimum wage, (2) paying for children to get a K12 education, and (in most developed nations...maybe someday in the US) providing all persons with excellent health insurance--
A final comment on why the US K12 education system, notwithstanding its universal eligibility and nominally equal benefits, does what you say: "fails many people." My abiding conviction is that a universal "policy package" that ensures employment for all who want to work, raises adults (thus parents') earnings and incomes, and dramatically reduces families' (thus children's) poverty will do far more to improve education outcomes for low-income children than any K12 education policy...whether it's spending more on K12 education for them or in general..."moving around resources from one group to another" as you mention ...or modifying any other aspect of the K12 education system.
This is, by the way, something that can be tested, and either proved or disproved through a random assignment experiment akin to the New Hope Project.
Excellent theme and points. Thank you.
Universal policies can sometimes be said to produce bizarre outcomes. As Anatole France observed: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." Thus leveling down has little appeal.
Universal policies that level up, however, generally produce good results. They are often simple and usually fair. Since by definition they lack means-testing, they reduce the cheating, error, and perverse incentives that unavoidably occur when government policies pick particular "deserving" sub-groups to get a benefit or service things while cutting out other groups that are "undeserving," "less deserving," or "without need." Such leveling-up, beneficial, and popular universal policies include government's (1) requiring workers be paid a minimum wage, (2) paying for children to get a K12 education, and (in most developed nations...maybe someday in the US) providing all persons with excellent health insurance--
A final comment on why the US K12 education system, notwithstanding its universal eligibility and nominally equal benefits, does what you say: "fails many people." My abiding conviction is that a universal "policy package" that ensures employment for all who want to work, raises adults (thus parents') earnings and incomes, and dramatically reduces families' (thus children's) poverty will do far more to improve education outcomes for low-income children than any K12 education policy...whether it's spending more on K12 education for them or in general..."moving around resources from one group to another" as you mention ...or modifying any other aspect of the K12 education system.
This is, by the way, something that can be tested, and either proved or disproved through a random assignment experiment akin to the New Hope Project.