I’ve made a bunch of assertions on this substack thus far, and I’d like to imagine that in those is a response to possible counterarguments, but perhaps it would be best to respond more directly to the most convincing positions I’ve heard in my line of work. What follows will be a few posts featuring counter arguments to an inclusive, equitable and accountable public school system, and why I believe they’re mistaken.
The argument I’ll talk about today calls into question the entire concept of taxation and public services. Put simply: as tax dollars belong to the people, why not just give every person their share of public funding and let parents choose what’s best for their child? If someone wants to take their child out of the public school and go to a private school, they should get their taxes to go with them. “Fund students, not systems” is the new tag line.
This argument is, frankly, so powerful. It gets to the heart of America in more ways than one. Opposing taxes is a huge part our nation’s founding, as is the primacy of freedom. Individualism, maybe our strongest American ideal, supports the entire rationale. School choice folks have done a great job borrowing from long- and deeply-held values to present a view of education that is frankly a radical departure from traditional policy. The main problem I have with this line of thinking is that this type of individualism, at least in school policy, is a dangerous lie that actively discourages loving our neighbors.
“Your share” of taxes isn’t enough
The idea of “your share of school funding” is insanely complex no matter how approachable the wording sounds. Your share of what? Your property taxes? I know that’s how many people interact with education funding because homeowners see it on our mortgage statements. Last I checked that makes up less than half of the school’s budget (~40 percent on average). Do you want a portion of all the income, sales, etc. taxes too? Let me break this to you: even if we gave that all to you, you’re not paying enough in taxes for your child’s education.
I’m going to use myself as an example. My kids go to Atlanta Public Schools (APS), a school system that is primarily funded via local property taxes. APS averages $16,169 in local dollars per student. I live in a house valued at around $400,000—you know how much I’ll pay in property taxes this year? $2,555. I’ve got two kids in school, so that’s $1,277 per child, which puts me $14,892 short.
If you give me “my share” of local taxes, I can’t afford anything. Taken further, the average home price in Atlanta is $366,000, so that means the average Atlantan is paying less in property taxes than me. None of us is paying enough, it requires ALL of us to pay collectively.
Public goods are borne by the public, so my kids’ schooling is being paid by my childless neighbors, the businesses of our state, and our wealthy peers. One reason we all bear this responsibility is because of the economic concept of positive externalities. Since there are benefits that extend beyond the child (I would personally benefit if all folks are educated, not just my kids) then the public should finance it.
If we take this “everyone should get their money” argument out to its logical end it would mean that the average person has a fraction of what they would need to provide an adequate private education for their child. And if that would be the effect on middle class families, imagine what it would mean for poor folks. Let’s be clear: advocates for private school choice NEED the gains made by public schools towards the state investment into schools. Without it, any talk of choosing the school best for all children would be useless because the state could just say to poor people “ok good luck with the $150 of taxes you gave us this year.” Individualism like that touted in our argument is a cruel, isolated ideal.
“Your share” is relative to the child
Complicating things beyond the varied tax burden, even if every person paid the same amount into the school system, children receive different services based on their abilities in the building. When people are making the argument that they should get their share it comes with the assumption that everyone should get the total amount of public school funding divided by the number of students. Let’s say that’s $15,000. However, in Georgia, a general education high school student is given significantly fewer services (and, therefore, funding) than, say, a high-needs kindergarten student.
Whenever someone says that each child in public school commands $15,000 that’s like saying that each member of the Lakers is making $9.6 million. No, no, no… LeBron’s $47 million salary heavily weighs the averages while four of the eighteen players are making less than a million. As I’ve talked about in previous posts, the significant funding provided certain students like those with disabilities is an example of equity written into policy. To use this sum to argue that all children get an inflated dollar amount for school is intellectually dishonest.
Emphasizing “your share” encourages disinvestment
Let’s put all of those pesky issues aside and assume that we can come to an agreement where everyone continues to pay for the education of the population even as the state abdicates its responsibility to manage said education, and that we can decide on an appropriate dollar amount for every child that resembles what they’re provided now. I refuse to believe that in this world the state would continue to invest an adequate dollar amount that keeps pace with student needs. Here again we can look to higher education as a guide. States have spent the last 50 years keeping post-secondary education funding stagnant or lowering the investment, so that now the responsibility for payment is on the individual versus the 1970s when the state covered the vast majority of costs. When we create a system where the state is less responsible, the state will act accordingly.
Further, this every-parent-for-themselves system completely ignores rural children. For the same reason that broadband is not available to thousands of Georgians outside of metro Atlanta, the finances just don’t make sense to open up competitive private schools where so few children might attend. Is it more likely that great schools will pop up in rural areas that adapt to the needs of the community or that instead a few bigger private operators would buy up markets and provide a service for the cheapest option available? This policy position has always been a suburban and urban one.
“Your share” mentality disregards your neighbors
In their book Divided by Faith, Michael Emerson and Christian Smith suggest that white evangelical’s emphasis on individualism keeps the average churchgoer from recognizing deep societal problems. School choice is individualism run amok, and financially rewards some of our worst impulses by hiding our reliance on one another. “Fund students not systems,” the latest marketing for the policy of taking public dollars to private schooling, is a great example. What if we employed this concept elsewhere? Fund cars, not roads. Fund soldiers, not militaries. Fund drinking water, not pipes. Do you hear it? Asking the state to fund students and not systems supports the lie that our children’s education doesn’t rely on teachers, materials, facilities, timelines, curriculum, pedagogy, expectations and a host of other factors working together in an organized manner—in other words, a system.
Disregarding the need for any type of system reads tough, but is not a good or right view of the world. When our first priority is to demand “what’s ours” from public schooling we inflate our sense of self worth, devalue all those who are investing in our child, ignore all the people whose rights are being held up by that system, and give cover to policymakers who would happily lower state investment in schooling further. This harsh individualism should have no place in a community that should be known by “love for one another.”
I have made the "your share isn't enough" argument often. The response I often get is "Well, my taxes paid over my lifetime would cover it." Thanks for writing this.