Are private high schools better than public high schools?

The private school versus public school issue is a conundrum for many parents. In a study released today by the Center on Education Policy, substantial doubt was cast upon decades of research on the advantages of private schools. “Contrary to popular belief, we can find no evidence that private schools actually increase student performance,” said Jack Jennings, the center’s president and a former House staffer, in a press release. “Instead, it appears that private schools simply have higher percentages of students who would perform well in any environment based on their previous performance and background.”

To view the full report and other materials pertaining to it, click here.

This study, based on an analysis of the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988-2000, finds that students attending independent private high schools, most types of parochial high schools, and public high schools of choice performed no better on achievement tests in math, reading, science, and history than students attending traditional public high schools. In addition, students attending any type of private high school were no more likely to attend college than those attending traditional public high schools. The report also finds that young adults who had attended any type of private high school were no more likely to enjoy job satisfaction or to be engaged in civic activities at age 26 than those who had attended traditional public high schools.

“Parents assume that private schools will improve the academic preparation of their children,” said Harold Wenglinsky, author of the study. “But the higher performance at private schools is more likely a reflection of the collective resources and support that these parents bring to the school than to factors intrinsic to the school setting.”

This report does note two exceptions to its main findings. First, it finds that students who attended independent private high schools had higher SAT scores than public school students, gaining an advantage in efforts to enroll at elite colleges. Second, the report indicates that students attending some private Catholic schools run by holy orders (such as Jesuit schools) instead of a diocese did see some positive academic effects. However, there are very few of these schools nationwide, as most Catholic schools are operated by their diocese.

The Center on Education Policy is a national, independent advocate for public education and for more effective public schools. The Center helps Americans better understand the role of public education in a democracy and the need to improve the academic quality of public schools. The Center does not represent any special interests. Instead, it tries to help citizens make sense of the conflicting opinions and perceptions about public education and create the conditions that will lead to better public schools.

High cost of special education

Throughout Massachusetts public schools are cutting classes and staff, and raising athletic and transportation fees. Team Five Investigates’ Rhondella Richardson reported on September 27, 2007 that some school officials believe cuts will keep coming because of the skyrocketing cost of special education.

The Team 5 report includes a close look at special education services, their purpose, and funding sources.  In addition, you can find additional resources for information and reports.  You can view the complete report by clicking here.

In Franklin, nearly 10 percent of the school budget is used to provide special education services.  By law, each school district must provide “a free and appropriate education for special needs students in the least restrictive environment.”  This law — known as IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act) came into effect in 1975.  When Congress passed the law, it promised to fund 40% of the associated costs.  In reality, however, Franklin receives around 10% reimbursement for special education costs. 

We have done a good job in past years balancing the needs of all students, but the system is constantly tested by rising costs.  While the per pupil expenditure statewide for regular education students has increased by 88 percent, special education costs have risen by 156 percent in the same time frame.  As an example, this week, the Franklin Public Schools were notified that one of its vendors was increasing its tuition by $44,000 per student per year, bringing the total cost to $192,000 annually per student.

The question on special education is not whether we should provide the services.  We have a moral obligation to do so, and it is the right thing to do for these children and their families.  The question is, however, who should pay.  Currently, the burden is left to municipalities like Franklin, and that taxes our limited resources.  The only way to meet these budget needs is through property tax overrides — an unpopular choice.

There are potential solutions, however.  First, we can demand that Congress increase the funding as promised back in 1975.  Second, we can request that the state fund special education transportation.  Currently, the state provides no help in that area.  And third, we can attempt to keep more special education students in district by expanding program offerings.  Franklin has been successful in this third area, but we need more support from the federal and state government.

Look for more information in the newspaper, television, and future School Committee meetings.  This is a topic certain to receive more attention.

Strength of the property tax

Though it has a lot of detractors, the property tax remains one of the best ways for citizens to participate in democracy. In a recent op-ed piece for the Boston Globe, authors Joan Youngman and Andrew Reschovsky, fellows at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, noted that the strength of the property tax is that citizens can view just how their tax dollars are spent by looking at local budgets. As they noted in the article:

We get the bill, and compare it with the local services we receive. If the comparison is unfavorable, we are motivated to restrict local spending and support local candidates who agree with that view. Linking additional local spending to local taxes is an important source of fiscal discipline.

By contrast, few taxpayers have any idea of the amount they spend annually on sales taxes. Even income taxes that are withheld from paychecks are less visible than bills that must be paid in one or two large installments every year. The transparency of the property tax allows taxpayers to be engaged and to evaluate the performance of their local government to make independent decisions on the mix of taxes and services they prefer.

In Franklin, citizen’s can view the annual town budget simply by showing up at Town Hall and asking for a copy. They can participate in the budget hearings at the Town Council, Finance Committee, and School Committee meetings which take place each spring. The town’s Annual Report, which is published each November, gives line item detail of all income and expenditures. Through these processes, it is truly the citizens who make the calls, either through participation in hearings or by electing representatives in local government. On those years when the local government seeks to increase property taxes beyond 2 ½ percent, citizens participate directly through override elections.

In this way, the property tax is sound and represents an investment by the community for the community. These tax dollars go to fund local services such as police, fire, education and roads, among others. Debate about these expenditures is often robust, which demonstrates that the property tax works the way it is intended.

The property tax is not perfect, and results in some inequities. But it stands up well to the alternatives.

As Youngman and Reschovsky point out: “No one likes paying taxes, but as long as we value the New England tradition of local control over public services, we should appreciate the inherent strengths of our system. With the property tax, the citizenry has its hands on the steering wheel.”

To view the full article, click here.