Should the Government Be Funding Private Schools? — Part II

This is the second in a two part series addressing the funding of private schools. , I addressed the funding of post secondary institutions and in this part I am addressing primary and secondary schools.

Primary and secondary education is funded by the local communities and states with supplemental funding coming from the federal government. With the sluggish U.S. economy, available tax revenues are stretched beyond the breaking point and tough choices are now being made about rationing education dollars. This includes cutting curriculum, increasing the student to teacher ratios, closing schools, etc.

Since shortly after the American Civil War there has been a commitment and subsequent legislation on the federal and state levels to provide public education. It wasn’t until 1897 that all the states finally came into full compliance. For over 150 years the United States has consistently moved away from a private education system model to offering a full publically funded universal primary and secondary education. In the past, the primary and secondary private education was the purview of those who wanted to assure a non-secular curriculum would be taught to their children. Religious orders and institutions were the primary providers of this type of education. Also, there have always been a number of private secular educational institutions made available to the members of society who could afford it. Whether parochial or secular, these types of institutions were privately funded receiving no public financing. However, this has begun to change in the last two decades.

Going back to the late 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, a number of southern white parents moved their children from public schools to private schools and academies to avoid racial desegregation. This was only a small minority and public school systems slowly adjusted and over time incorporated the mandated desegregation. Controversy swirled around the forced desegregation because of busing and the loss of importance of the neighborhood school. Something that has plagued larger inner city school systems has been the white flight to the suburbs. Many of the areas vacated by fleeing white families have fallen into impoverishment and a resultant falling tax base. The quality of the public schools is a clear barometer of the general conditions of the overall health of the areas they serve. Largely white suburban schools have remained strong and healthy, providing a traditional quality education; whereas urban schools have been, for the most part, in a steady decline. 

For some time it was thought that the primary difference in performance was due to better funding of the white suburban schools. It would only make sense that the greater resources would explain the difference. However, when money was reallocated making funding equal, it didn’t make a significant difference in the outcomes in the urbane schools. However, studies have revealed that when funding was reduced in either setting it had a strong adverse effect. So if money isn’t the key independent variable, what is? I postulate that it is the difference in social systems, including expectations of outcomes.

For the education process to work there must be a reasonable expectation of positive purpose and a return on the investment of energy. Quite simply, if the participant is in an environment of support and there is some positive tangible at the end of the experience, then the likelihood of success is much higher. To reverse the education declines it requires a community commitment to provide an environment of support and tangible rewards. Impoverishment and the culture of poverty is the independent variable impacting education success.

As I addressed in Part I, secondary schools used to offer various tracts other than just college bound programs. Currently the vast majority of secondary schools don’t offer the depth and variety of curriculum for those without the intention, need or capability of going on to college. Time and again businesses complain about not having qualified candidates to hire. Most jobs that are available do not require a two or four year degree. However, for lack of curriculum opportunity in high schools, many have to go to a post secondary technical institution to receive the basic skills for employment.

I think, it is high time to reexamine the purposes of our secondary schools and make the necessary changes to better prepare our youth for the changed employment environment. There is no reason why technical, building and industrial arts programs shouldn’t be reintroduced into the secondary schools. Many of the service training could be done in the secondary schools such as medical assistance, pre-nursing, early child-care, etc. I maintain this would make the secondary schools relevant to others and not just for the college bound. This would have a profound impact on how the public schools would function and their stated mission.

With the needs of the student population changing and education dollars in short supply, should we be shifting any money away from funding public schools to private schools? I think not; as a society we are not gaining anything from the diversion of funds. The Wisconsin DPI tests results of 2010 indicated that government funded private schools did not perform any better than the public schools in the same geographic location. Given this outcome, why should the private schools receive further government funding?

Before answering, let’s look at a questionable supposition and the two common unstated reasons for public funding of private schools.

The proponents of public funding for private education makes the supposition that private school provide a better learning environment for the student. Further, that with the lack of discipline found in many public schools, that only private schools can provide the discipline necessary for learning to occur.

If the supposition and qualifier is correct then one would expect the private school’s students to outperform the public school students in standardized testing, which they do not. So what is the real agenda?

The first reason is fiscal. Providing funding to private schools reduces the financial exposure to the government. Savings are made by eliminating public employees with relatively high salaries and benefits. The employees are not protected by civil service or other regulations. The public doesn’t have to support a large infrastructure or provide special curriculum. Estimated cost savings is somewhere half the expense than if they attended a comparable public school.  This is  particularly attractive to fiscal conservatives and libertarians. However, this is begging the question and look at if it is money well spent.

Most private schools do not offer the depth and breadth of curriculum to their students. Often they don’t offer programs to teach to children with special needs. Depending on the jurisdiction, often time the teachers don’t have teaching certificates or are not certified for the age groups or classes they are teaching. More often than not the infrastructure is limited in the private schools limiting curriculum offerings. To answer the fiscal conservatives, the students are receiving less and it is not providing for enough for a full educational experience.

The second reason is tied to social values. There is a large group of parents who chose private schools over public schools because of the secular instruction within the public schools. This ideologically conservative group wants to keep their children’s educational experience free of humanistic secularism. This is fine and they are within their rights to do so, but they shouldn’t expect public monies to help fund their non-secular schools when clearly the majority supports secular education. For over a century parochial schools have provided this service at no cost to the taxpayer. Since the parents and/or religious institutions are responsible for 100 percent funding, then they are able to teach what they want. Many who have taken advantage of this have complained that the tax dollars they are paying doesn’t support their children’s education. Therefore, they should receive a portion of the funds to pay for their children’s private education. However, there are a number of services paid for with tax dollars that are never used by the individual taxpayer but they are still expected to pay. The nation has defined public education to exclude private schools and therefore private schools shouldn’t expect to receive any public monies.

The State of Wisconsin has begun a journey of providing public money for private schools and it is time to reverse this practice. Taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be supporting private institutions in lieu of more fully supported public institutions.