Opinion

Political Columnists: The Cost of Choice

Medha Valluri and Nishanth Bhargava
February 16, 2023

Two writers with opposing views argue a long-contested topic: is public education or private education better for our youth?

Pro: Power to Private Schools

Discontent towards the quality of the American public education system has increased over the past few decades, but it has worsened after the COVID-19 pandemic that shut down schools, allowing parents to take a peek into their children’s classrooms for the first time. As a result, the rate of enrollment in private schools has been steadily rising since 2020, with no apparent end in sight, even as the impact of the pandemic fades. In fact, a new survey by the National Center for Education Statistics shows that private school enrollment increased by 53 million; even after a year back in normal schools, the consulting company Gallup recently released a poll that says, even after a year back in person, only 28% of American parents say they have confidence in the public school system.

What’s behind the sudden loss of hope in public education institutions? Part of it is parents’ realization that their children are not benefiting as much as they could be. The Common Core State Standards for curriculums in schools, developed in 2009, set a strict standard of “equity” amongst schools in the country, which was measured by annually administered standardized tests. Not only did this create a “one size fits all” educational system that fails to adapt to a variety of students that require individualized learning in order to thrive, but it sets a new objective of learning: to pass the test, not to understand the material. On top of that, funding for education in the United States relies almost entirely on state and local resources. Yet studies show that funding does not rise with need, leaving teachers miserable, underpaid, and even underqualified.

Recently, I met Anna Steinberg—owner and teacher of her own private Montessori school in Bucks County, Pennsylvania—and asked her to comment on the reasoning behind her decision not to send her children to public school. She mentioned that there’s “choice in every aspect of our society, from ice cream to sneakers, so why shouldn’t there be room for experimentation and options to meet the needs of students too?” This is what allowed her to found a program focused on entrepreneurial development and 21st century skills that did not exist locally, she was “inspired to build it for [her] children and anyone else who wanted to join in on the adventure.” Upon visiting her school, it was clear to see how aptly she pegged the damaging principles behind public schools. Her students (aged six to eleven) had individualized education that fit their needs, and were eager to learn and unafraid to make mistakes and improve, which is implicitly discouraged with the public school grading system. The policies were also drastically different from public schools. Within private schools, there is a substantial amount of parental involvement and sense of community. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, private high schools require more rigorous graduation requirements than public schools, encouraging higher academic standards and more coursework.

One of the most obvious concerns with private schooling is the cost. Constant funding for extracurricular activities must come from the parents. However, if more schools turned private, they would need to maintain the quality of their school in order to compete with other private schools, eventually leading to a decrease in prices and an increase in quality. The focus of education is to expand a child’s knowledge of the world, to allow them to gain a better conceptual understanding of their future and what it holds, and to equip them with the resources they need to achieve their full potential. That means a focus on the child and their specific educational needs must become a top priority, which is only ensured by private schools.

-Medha Valluri

Con: Education for the Elite

In 2012, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, a proud Indian-American and an even prouder conservative, introduced a new program to aid the state’s disadvantaged youth. In order to improve access to education, Jindal and state Republicans turned to the private sector by providing subsidies, or vouchers, to encourage enrollment in private schools. The results were abysmal. Voucher students educated in private schools fell, on average, 24 points behind on state math tests compared to their peers in the public school system. Proponents of educational privatization argue that such a measure would increase competition, improve student outcomes, and reduce the burden on taxpayers. Cases like Louisiana’s, however, demonstrate that the vast majority of empirical and theoretical evidence shows that educational privatization programs are misguided and largely ineffective.

Proponents of privatization point to the fact that children in private schools appear to perform better on standardized assessments and have better life outcomes than their public school peers. These benefits vanish, however, when external factors such as wealth are brought into the equation. A 2006 study by the Department of Education found that, when accounting for confounding variables such as differences in income and enrollment in free-lunch programs, no real differences could be found in the quality of education between public and private schools. Moreover, private schools have the right to decide whether or not a student is “worthy” of their services—public schools do not. By locking pupils less likely to succeed out of their institutions, whether it be through high academic thresholds or exorbitant tuition fees, prestigious private institutions are able to fuel their own success by selecting a student body that is already high-achieving.

Another key issue to consider when discussing school choice is that not all individuals in this libertarian utopia would have an equal choice in what schools they may attend. In a market-driven education sector, monetary barriers to entry would prevent poorer students from attending the best schools their area has to offer. This de facto socioeconomic segregation highlights the fact that the only “choice” that exists in a school choice system is that of those who can buy their way into any institution they please. Advocates for private education have tried to sidestep this concern through voucher systems as was implemented in Louisiana. Such systems, however, have proven lacking both in quality and quantity. In the case of Louisiana, researchers found that voucher student’s math and English skills after 2 years of private education were even lower than they were when they entered the private school system. In many school voucher programs, the majority of school vouchers go to students already inside private education systems, effectively subsidizing private schools off of taxpayer money. The insurmountable socioeconomic inequalities of privatization, alongside the lack of any clear plan to bridge these divides, makes it clear that public education is important to ensuring that students of all income levels have access to the tools they need to succeed.

Simply put, privatization is not a viable solution to the challenges facing America’s K-12 education system. Privatization will increase inequality, fail to improve student outcomes and cost families more than they currently pay in taxes. If private schools have their way, our students will certainly pay the price.

-Nishanth Bhargava

The Hawkeye

Political Columnists: The Cost of Choice

The Hawkeye

Comments (0)