Andrew Samwick says yes. He argues that by reducing the cost of public schools,
sending children to private schools generates what economists call a “positive externality.”
His proposal:
…allow a federal (and possibly state) tax deduction for parents who send their children to private schools, in the amount of the per pupil expenditure in their local public schools.
I can imagine a few objections from supporters of public schools. They might argue that taking your child out of public school creates a negative externality, because public schools are presumed to be better for society. Also, they might argue that because a lot of the cost of public schools is fixed cost rather than variable cost, the average per pupil expenditure overstates the marginal savings from having one less student in the public school system.
Another argument: I don’t have any kids. Where’s my tax break for not costing public schools anything? Why am I paying for other people’s kids to go to school at all? Some readers here may conclude from this “abolish public school entirely” but they will not be in the majority elsewhere.
“they will not be in the majority elsewhere.”
The argument from plurality voting isn’t very persuasive. The economist might argue that there is some offset by the fact you also aren’t providing any humans who pay taxes, change your Depends, etc.
I’m not sure how this changes when people become a negative instead of positive externality due to climate change.
Indeed. Rather than offering vouchers, tax breaks, etc., for people who send their offspring to private schools, wouldn’t it make more sense to charge fees for the use of public schools? Like vouchers, etc., this would allow private schools to compete more fairly with public schools. Unlike vouchers, etc., which would entail an increase in government spending and would represent an additional transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the perpetrators of minor children, public-school tuition fees would shift more of the cost of educating children from the general taxpayer to the parties responsible for making the children.
The one I hear is that your good kid is supposed to rub off on the bad kids.
I never get an answer as to why it doesn’t work the other (obvious) way.
Well, if it did, it would mean that the “good rub off” is not an externality (positive), but the positive social good was being exploited from a private party without proper compensation. I could create positive externalities like that all day long.
Well, it’s a toss-up. My gut instinct is to favor the public schools — we’re a republic, after all; there are all sorts of things that ought to be allocated on a reasonably egalitarian basis. But we don’t have to settle for ideology.
Samwick’s proposal, if enacted, would probably lead to the existence of more private schools, and fewer public schools. It’d make the US look more like England, at least at the level of elementary-to-high school education.
So how do the English like their system? What do English folk transported to the US think of American schooling? What do ordinary public-schooled Americans think of English schooling when exposed to it? Are there American parents who exert themselves to ensure their offspring are educated in say Greater London comprehensives?
I have a friend who teaches at a private school in Indiana. The local public district was required to provide transportation for students at the private school — the rationale being that this made sense because the private school was saving money for the public system:
http://indianapublicmedia.org/stateimpact/2011/11/03/what-the-law-the-constitution-say-about-franklin-townships-busing-fees/
As a parent who sends 2 of his 4 children to a private school (*) I wonder how this will impact the demand for seats in private school. It seems likely to increase that demand. There are limited seats available in the private school that I send my kids to, and I suspect the private schools will simply raise their prices to deal with the demand. My guess is they’d raise their prices by the amount of the benefit I’d get in lower taxes.
So I suspect that the beneficiaries of such a policy wouldn’t be the parents who send their kids to private schools but rather private schools. Which is fine if what you want is more private schools. But as a parent, I would expect rational indifference to this policy.
Forgot to include my footnote:
(*) the older two go to public school. First, because the private school doesn’t have a grade level for the older two. And, second because they prefer to stay in public school (with their friends).
Increased demand should lead to increased profits and then to market entry by new competitors, no?