The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Slippery Slope June: Cost-Lowering Slippery Slopes, the Costs of Uncertainty, and Learning Curves
[This month, I'm serializing my 2003 Harvard Law Review article, The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope; in last week's posts, I laid out some examples, definitions, and general observations, and turned to a specific kind of slippery slope mechanism—cost-lowering slippery slopes. This week, I'll elaborate on that, and shift to some other mechanisms.]
The example in Friday's post involves the cost of tangible items: cameras. But another cost of any new project is the cost of learning how to implement it properly, and the related risk that it will be implemented badly.
People are often skeptical of new proposals (from Social Security privatization to education reform) on these very grounds. Broad change B—for instance, an across-the-board school choice program—might thus be opposed by a coalition of (1) people who oppose it in principle (for instance, because they don't want tax money going to religious education or because they want to maintain the primacy of government-run schools), and (2) those who might support it in theory but suspect that it would be badly implemented in practice. This lineup is similar to what we saw in the camera example. {As before, I express no view here on the merits of this particular B. My question isn't whether particular policies make sense in the abstract; rather, it's how people who do oppose B should act to better implement their preferences.}
But say that someone proposes a relatively modest school choice program A, for instance one that is limited to nonreligious schools or to children who would otherwise go to the worst of the government-run schools. Some people might support this project on its own terms. But as a side effect of A, the government and the public will learn how school choice programs can be effectively implemented, for instance what sorts of private schools should be eligible, how (if at all) they should be supervised, and so on.
If A is a total failure, then voters may become even more skeptical about the broader proposal B. But if after some years of difficulty, the government eventually creates an A that works fairly well, some voters might become more confident that the government—armed with this new knowledge derived from the A experiment—can implement B effectively.
A will thus have led to a B that might have been avoided had A not been implemented. In the path dependence literature, this is described as a form of "increasing returns path dependence" that focuses on "learning effects": "In processes that exhibit … characteristics [such as learning effects], a step in one direction decreases the cost (or increases the benefit) of an additional step in the same direction, creating a powerful cycle of self-reinforcing activity or positive feedback." And because of this path dependence, "decisions may have large, unanticipated, and unintended effects."
For those who support broad school choice (B) in principle, this is good: the experiment with A will have led some voters to have more confidence that B would be properly implemented, and thus made enacting B more politically feasible.
But, as in the cameras example, those who support A but oppose B in principle might find that their voting for A has backfired. Some of A's supporters might therefore decide to vote strategically against A, given the risk that A would lead to B. The government, they might reason, ought not learn how to efficiently do bad things like B (bad in the strategic voter's opinion), precisely because the knowledge can make it more likely that the government will indeed do these bad things.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Public schools suck. When do we start the experiment?
If the money from employee and employer were invested in Index Funds with no decision making allowed, the monthly payment of Social Security would be triple. So, yes, the fear about Social Security is well founded. Also, it would not be at risk to fail to make full payments in the next few years. Expect a drop of 20% in the payments after the Boomers, history’s Most Annoying Generation.
The idea of habituation needs to be addressed. Same sex marriage becomes old hat, and fails to pump up the Family Law divorce racket. Next comes polygamy, then marriage to pets. Pets are the best clients of all.
Follow the money. The teachers union supplies cash and ground troops to the Dem party. Dems won’t bite the hands that feed them.
According to townhall.com they spent a bit more than $30K per student.
“The public elementary and secondary schools in the District of Columbia spent $30,115 per pupil during the 2016-2017 school year, according to Table 236.75 in the Department of Education’s “Digest of Education Statistics.”
But only 23% of the eighth graders in the district’s public schools were proficient or better in reading in 2019, according to the department’s National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, tests.”
That provides a lot of check off.
That each state established mandatory k-12 education was an agreement by the states when the constitution was signed,
BUT, how that is administered is not prescribed so certainly a choice program would be constitutional.
“That each state established mandatory k-12 education was an agreement by the states when the constitution was signed, ”
I’d be curious to see your basis for saying that, since mandatory k-12 education is nowhere mentioned.
It’s not written in the US constitution. Yet every state constitution has a k-12 public education requirement which seems way more uniform than random adoption would have created. PA established common schools in 1809.
But other than a historical footnote does any state prohibit k-12 school choice/vouchers? I’m not looking up all 50 states so maybe there are some exceptions. I know PA does not.
Most universities/colleges (I think there are only a few exceptions) are subsidized by FAFSA. In PA, Grove City College is one of those exceptions. Duquesne which is where one of my kids went Catholic and subsidized. Same with Notre Dame which was also one of the possibilities.
So there is no religious prohibition.
and this:
“In June 2002 the Supreme Court held in the case Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that the use of public funds to pay for religious school tuition is constitutional.”
“Yet every state constitution has a k-12 public education requirement which seems way more uniform than random adoption would have created. PA established common schools in 1809.”
Um, No. Every state has a public education requirement. I doubt any actually specify grade levels in the state constitution. Certainly the Wisconsin state constitution does not.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/wiscon/_20
Here is the only mention of a specific grade.
“School districts are not constitutionally compelled to admit gifted four-year old children into kindergarten.”
So a 10 year old in WI is not compelled to go to school?
yes, but it’s by statutory law, it’s not written into the state constitution.
So it’s law. So moving forward all states by law have compulsory school attendance and compulsory taxation to support these schools correct?
It didn’t happen in all states at the same time and you are the one who brought the state constitutions into it without having the slightest clue what they actually say about public education.
More important are folks compelled to pay taxes for said schools which have no specified grades or ages? If the answer is no I may be moving there
The answer is you have to look at state statutory law not the state constitution to answer those questions.
What kind of idiot are you that you think the entirety of state law is written into the state constitution?
Oh dude FO
This is apparently incorrect in regards to WI?
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab5_1.asp
What I quoted is the actual text of the Wisconsin state constitution. So if either is wrong, it’s your NECS link.
Seems like you’re wrong. School is compulsory over an age span.
What kind of idiot can’t read?
The NCES site is wrong when it says it the column for “Minimum age limit to which free education must be offered” is 4 for Wisconsin. The state constitution explicitly says public school districts don’t have to admit 4 year olds.
I had thought that’s the issue you provided the link over since you didn’t say anything about what was wrong in what I provided and the WI state constitution, which I had quoted, says nothing about compulsory (for the student) education either way.
OK, first off, mandatory education laws were basically unheard of in the US at the time the Constitution was adopted. The first state level mandatory education law wasn’t enacted until 1852, they weren’t universal until the 1900’s.
So you think the Constitution included an agreement by the states to do something none of them did for most of a century afterwards?
So you think its relevant to the school choice slippery slope?
No, I think it’s relevant to assessing the claim, “That each state established mandatory k-12 education was an agreement by the states when the constitution was signed, ”
Which is, to be clear, wildly ahistoric.
Ok so really not relevant thanks
Relevant to what I was responding to, certainly.
Which is really not relevant to the overall discussion.
Yea but good job!
So, you’re saying you derailed the thread?
No you did, good job! Reading comprehension problems?
The starting point is that all states have compulsory k-12 education.
So your point it wasn’t 1790 it was 1850 or maybe1900
Congratulations genius that is absolutely irrelevant in 2022 when the discussion is school choice going forward.
But brilliant trivia
Public education is not a “right” granted to individuals by the U. S. Constitution. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 35 (1973).
It’s not but every state grants it so moot point.
But education k-12 is the actual right. And can that be by choice that is money follows the student.
Well, at least this clarifies that the objection to school choice isn’t that the schools would be bad. It’s to the choice.
“for instance one that is limited to nonreligious schools”
Would that be constitutional?
It’s not a straight forward issue.
There are states with state constitutional clauses prohibiting even incidental funding of religious organizations.
Do these violate the incorporation of the first amendment of the federal constitution against the states? I’m not sure if there is direct precedent on this point.
Also:
Can the federal courts void a provision of a state constitution?
Or would a federal court decision that excluding religion violates the federal constitution leave a state with such a provision in it’s state constitution in a catch 22 that would bar ANY funding of private schools.
The Blaine amendments. Existing Supreme court precedent upholds them, the Court flatly refused to address the claim that they were motivated by religious animus. OTOH, there have been at least some indications that the Court’s own animus towards religion in general (That motivated and then spiked the RFRA.) is starting to fade.
The religion thing is a red herring. State aid to private religious schools already happens. I filled out numerous FAFSA application over the years and it’s the same whether its a state school or a private religious school.
My kids attended both. So grades 13-16 and beyond not a issue.
It is a k-12 teacher’s union issue, Not a constitutional issue, Their schools mostly suck and are employee focused not student focused. But they have a monopoly. Everyone must pay for k-12 public schools. The only way to maintain that monopoly is by force.
You seriously think that?
Yes they’ll say funding Catholic schools is unconstitutional but Zellman vs Simmons-Harris refutes that.
I believe PA will be a battleground for this if GOP Doug Mastriano win governor in November
“But, as in the cameras example, those who support A but oppose B in principle might find that their voting for A has backfired.”
But voters switch positions and those who oppose B might find that their reasons for opposition are no longer:
-some will observe that A worked better than thought and somehow government implementation did not screw it up, so that option B is more acceptable.
-But conversely some opposed to B but politically inactive previously might become more engaged in quashing B after seeing A work well.
-Once option B begins to look like a political possibility, the strawman option C will be created by some opponents of A and B.
“Once option B begins to look like a political possibility, the strawman option C will be created by some opponents of A and B.”
Conversely, once option B begins to look like a political possibility, some proponents of B may decide to push things and ask for C.
Lots of “This may happen,” “That may happen,” etc.
I don’t find any of it particularly convincing. Remember, you have to show, not conjecture, that A increases the chance of B. Just describing one mechanism whereby this might happen is insufficient.
IMO, slippery slope arguments are greatly overrated.
In general, it’s absurdly difficult to predict the future, so the validity of slippery slope arguments can usually only be assessed retrospectively. Which isn’t terribly useful.
Not always,
Was it that hard to see the LGBT slippery slope?
I would say that you can easily see slippery slopes, but proving them to anybody who doesn’t see them is basically impossible.
Well a lot of folks think men identifying as woman is completely logical.
They claim trans woman are actually woman. They’re not so yea crazy people can’t see the slope.
One sign is the need to make laws outlawing crazy behavior that we’re never necessary before
You know you’re down the slope when that’s necessary
“so the validity of slippery slope arguments can usually only be assessed retrospectively. Which isn’t terribly useful.”
You can see a lot of the slopes way in advance. The transexual mania is one example. The racial craziness is another. Next up gun control.
Have to keep your eyes open
I would point out that since 2006 New Orleans Public Education has existed as a predominately Charter School system with relative freedom of choice for any student to attend any school. There exists significant opposition to that system largely from people who don’t like the Charter School Concept and from Unionists.
Is it actual school competition or is it competition between public schools and pseudo public schools ?
Lots of discussion but there is precedent:
ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS was a landmark Supreme Court case upholding, in a 5-4 decision announced on June 27, 2002, the constitutionality of an Ohio law providing vouchers to Cleveland students to attend the public or private, including parochial, schools of their choice.
Are all law review articles this blindingly obvious?