School choice remains on the roll, and opponents are grasping at any implement to try and arrest its progress.

This past school year, America passed the million student milestone, with more than 1 million students participating in a program that provides funding for them to attend private school. More than one third of all students in the country are now eligible for such programs, so that number looks only to increase.

Opponents’ new argument is that too many of the students in private school choice programs already attended private schools. They don’t “need” the program. They’re already exercising choice. And, when the state allows these students to participate in a private school choice program, it increases its cost because these students don’t generate any savings to offset program costs, as happens when students switch from public schools to private schools.

This is a bad argument for many reasons.

First, it is dangerous ground to stand on when we tell families what they do and do not “need.” Many families make heroic sacrifices for their children so that they can attend private schools. They take on extra work, go into debt, forgo vacations, drive ramshackle cars and sit around the kitchen table at night worried that an unexpected bill might force them to withdraw their children from a school they love.

Second, even families that are not struggling to pay for private school are still entitled to a state-funded education. There is no means testing of public schooling. If a child of a billionaire walks through the doors of their local public school, they are not charged tuition even though they don’t “need” a government subsidy to attend that school. It is part of our social contract that every child is entitled to a taxpayer supported education.

Third (and I am by no means the first person to make this argument), programs for the poor tend to be poor programs. By including middle- and upper-income families in choice programs, it will make them more politically viable and will minimize the likelihood of states pulling an Illinois and ripping the program away from low-income families. It is better to include low-income people in programs that also serve middle- and upper-income families than to leave them to fend for themselves. There are reasonable conversations to be had about putting more money into the vouchers or ESAs of lower income students, or structuring programs to incentivize schools to serve low-income students, but universal participation is key to program strength.

All that said, there are budget implications for programs funding students who already attend private school, and opponents are certainly playing them up.

Historically, when the majority of children participating in private school choice programs were switching from public schools into private school choice programs, it was a financial boon to states. Because choice programs spend less per pupil, every student who chose to participate saved the state money, essentially moving them off of the public sector’s books. When a voucher or Education Savings Account goes to a child who is already in private school, they are, as it were, coming on the state’s books.

This deserves three responses.

First, the fiscal benefits to choice programs were great, but saving money has never been school choice’s primary goal. School choice programs were not enacted to save the state money. The fact that they did was a happy byproduct, and I don’t doubt that the potential to save the state money was influential to some supporters. But the core mission of choice has always been child- and family-focused.

It has been to empower all families with the ability to choose the school that is best for their children. It empowers educators to create schools that can meet the needs of the children of their communities, and to create a vibrant marketplace of educational options. It rewards schools that perform, allow for a lot of different kinds of schools to operate serving different ends with different means, and put pressure on schools that are not meeting children’s needs.

Second, parsing the fiscal impact of private school choice programs is much more complicated than the simplistic analyses that have frequently been published to criticize choice programs. Some students who are in private schools, for example, participate in other choice programs. The state is paying for their education right now, so moving them from one choice program to another is not a new expense. We’ll never know for certain how many students would have otherwise attended public school and are still saving the state money (because the cost of the voucher or ESA is less than would have otherwise been spent to educate them).

Third, public schools are not hurting for money. We continue to hear claims about underfunded public schools or arguments that we have “never” financially supported public schools. This is ahistorical nonsense.

In the past 30 years, in inflation-adjusted terms, total K-12 spending per pupil is up 53%. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 2021 to 2022 alone, the United States saw the single largest increase in education funding ever at 8.9%. The average public school in the United States spends $15,633 per child per year, and that is just current spending. There is still more for capital expenses and debt servicing.

The state of New York spends $29,873 per child per year, Washington, D.C., spends $27,425, New Jersey spends $25,099, Vermont spends $24,608, and Connecticut spends $24,453. There is plenty of money to support both the traditional public schooling system as well as school choice programs.

No one is forced to participate in a private school choice program, so the fact that more than 1 million children do is a ringing endorsement of the opportunity these programs provide to families. They might not be able to expand opportunity and save money, but that is not a reason to oppose them.

____

Michael McShane is director of national research at EdChoice, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working to advance educational freedom and choice for all students.

___

©2024 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.