RALEIGH – For me, debates about parental choice and school reform come down to productivity. I don’t doubt the good intentions and efforts of most public-school leaders and educators (growing up as the child of two public-school employees may well explain my predilections here). And I have long favored a governmental role in ensuring that all children have access to educational opportunities (though this does not mean that governments must operate schools, only that taxpayers will fund many of them).
But monopolies cost too much and deliver too little. Education is no exception to the rule. Despite America’s overall devotion to free enterprise and individual choice, we have one of the most privileged government education monopolies in the developed world. The result is mediocre performance on international tests of student achievement from U.S. public schools that cost more in real terms than those of virtually every other country on the planet.
As longtime Daily Journal readers know, I have two kids: the Little Conqueror (Charles Alexander, age 10) and the Little General (Andrew Jackson, age 7). The boys have been in both public and private schools in Wake County. Currently, they are enrolled at Wake Christian Academy, where last week they began fifth and second grades, respectively.
I’ll be spending just shy of $5,000 per boy this year for tuition. The average per-pupil expenditure in North Carolina public schools was $8,210 for the 2004-05 academic year – the most recent year for which the state has reported all the relevant data, including local capital expenditure averages. Based on recent trends, a reasonable projection would be that the 2007-08 cost for the average public school student in North Carolina will be well over $9,000 (the national average is projected to exceed $10,000).
Apologists for the government-school monopoly often attack such comparisons on several grounds. First, they argue that the average cost of private education is understated. Sometimes, they simply dismiss the average for all private schools and point to the five-figure tuitions typical of prep schools such as Raleigh’s Ravenscroft or Charlotte Country Day, as if these were typical of private education (they represent a small fraction of private-school enrollment) or are the only private schools that outperform public ones (which is simply false – even after properly adjusting for student background, private schools generate better outcomes).
At other times, the argument is that tuition alone doesn’t capture revenues derived from churches, charitable giving, and parental expenditure for food, transportation, supplies, and after-school care. That’s a fairer point, though when I had the boys in public school, I still spent many hundreds of dollars a year for each of my boys on food, transportation, supplies, and after-school care. Private schools are overwhelmingly funded by tuition and fees (92 percent in Wake Christian’s case). Adjusting for additional revenues and expenses would not eradicate or even significantly reduce the cost differential.
Finally, while talking up the private-school cost average, the apologists try to talk down the public-school cost average. They point out that per-pupil expenditures on the average don’t necessarily reflect the classroom experience of the average student, because of the high instructional cost associated with disabled students. That’s also a fair point, but I have looked at the numbers on special education frequently over the years and they don’t explain that much of the expenditure gap, either.
The explanation isn’t complicated. Private schools such as Wake Christian have lower staff salaries and less-ornate facilities. They reuse books and supplies extensively. They scrimp and save. And even at Wake Christian, where the average family is far from wealthy, the school attracts plenty of parental involvement and support to fill in the gaps.
It is unfair that these families are compelled to pay twice – once for the school they believe will best educate their children, then again in taxes for a public school they don’t use. Of course, non-parents pay taxes for public schools they don’t “use,” too, but the difference is that parents choosing private education (or home schooling) are saving the public system the expense of educating their children. They are, in a sense, satisfying their financial responsibility to the state with a payment in lieu of tax. Indeed, if North Carolina ever adopts a tuition tax credit, I’d favor allowing non-parents to take the credit for any dollars they spend helping children – related or not – attend the school of their choice. That would be an excellent way to help finance scholarship programs for poor families.
School choice won’t destroy public education. Based on domestic and international experience to date, aggressive choice programs involving charter, private, and home schools would likely reduce the government’s market share only modestly – from about 90 percent, to say, 60 percent to 70 percent. That would have dramatic and salutary effects, however, not just for the individual families making the choice but also for those who remain in a public system facing competition for dollars and status.
Education is critically important, and well worth spending big money on. But the current level of expenditure yields paltry returns on investment. Time to rebalance the portfolio.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.