Why do well-intended people so often propose counterproductive policy solutions, the outcomes of which thwart their stated goals? What’s wrong? Let’s employ an ecological perspective to help understand this paradox.

Human systems, like ecological ones, are inherently complex. When intervening it’s nearly impossible to do only one thing. The distinguished ecologist Garrett Hardin offered the following advice. When someone offers a policy prescription based on good intentions rather than likely consequences, ask this: “And then what? What are the logical, predictable outcomes?” Has she considered the likely, but unintended consequences? If not, remind her that good intentions, however earnest, never guarantee good results.

Let’s apply this admonition to Bozeman’s Parent Advisory Councils (PACs). Some PACs raise more money for their elementary schools than others. Hawthorne, Emily Dickinson, and Morning Star lead the way. Longfellow, Irving, and Whittier lag. Such disparities are a national concern. They raise questions of “fairness” even when no legal issues arise.

In response to this “unfairness,” some suggest either eliminating PAC fundraising or requiring the money be pooled and then distributed equally among the district’s elementary schools. Now ask the ecologist’s question: And then what? What consequences flow from the proposed reform? Might the result exacerbate the inequality of opportunities, alienate parents, reduce the incentives for involvement in their school community, and encourage many to seek independent educational opportunities? I believe the most likely answer is, at least to some degree, yes.

It’s natural for parents to focus first on their own children. It’s naïve to ask parents to raise funds that will benefit relatively remote others and expect their fundraising to remain constant. Rather than working with a PAC to secure funds that benefit all school children (e.g., artists in residence and trips to Washington, DC), they instead will likely purchase private education and enrichment activities (e.g., reading and piano lessons) for their own children. Policies that make parents feel guilty about helping their children reach their full potential are counterproductive and antagonistic to a sense of community.

If we mandate “equal funding,” should we forbid parents from hiring math tutors for their children? Or require that only sports and soaps, not literature and current events, be the permissible dinner table conversations?

Educational research clearly establishes that the single best predictor of educational achievement is the student’s family background -- as measured by household income and parental educational achievement. It’s not money or student-to-teacher ratios.

What are the implications of the government trying to address achievement differences that are rooted in the family? Kurt Vonnegut offered this dystopian view in his 1961 short story “Harrison Bergeron.”

“The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal.... Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General....

“Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.”

To mandate educational equality requires a concentration of political power. As the history of the 20th century shows repeatedly and tragically, once concentrated power is put into the hands of political leaders, they often abuse it -- regardless of what others had in mind when they granted power.

Political intervention to achieve equality of outcomes is a chimera. If the state makes equality of education a “right,” then it must enforce it by depriving others of the right to spend whatever they like on their children’s education. This would require a level of government intrusion antithetical to American culture. And parents, rightly, will rebel.