The Public-Private Divide and the Power of the Province

For the first twelve years of my life, I grew up in a small suburb of Dallas, Texas. I went to a regular public school, lived in a regular middle-class home, and was surrounded by other “regular” kids. Just weeks after my 12th birthday, everything changed: My parents enrolled me in a fancy private school, we moved to a wealthy neighborhood, built an extravagant house, and all the sudden I was surrounded by the sons of CEOs and investment bankers rather than the motley group of 6th graders I was used to. Over the next 6 years, I led what felt like a completely different life; I dedicated myself to a niche (and overwhelmingly white) sport in water polo, had small discussion-based classes, and learned basic math from former college professors. By the time I began senior year and started my college applications, the private school bubble had already taken over. T20s were the norm, Ivies were nothing spectacular, and flagship state universities were a disappointment. This high falutin view of college admissions was misguided, but how could I be blamed? Admissions officers from elite universities visited my high school weekly, and wealth guaranteed that even the least intelligent members of my graduating class would somehow slip between the cracks at the Vanderbilt or Rice admission offices. Most of my peers looked down at Dallas-area private schools (with the exception of one very wealthy subdistrict) not because the people there were any worse, but because they simply didn’t produce the same matriculation statistics that the private schools did. To a certain degree, this attitude was justified:

On March 26th, 2020, Harvard College accepted a record 6 students out of Dallas Independent School District’s (DISD) nearly 10,000 graduating seniors. That same year, St. Mark’s School of Texas, one of the most prestigious and expensive private high schools in the country, saw 8 of its 80 graduating students receive admission to the highly selective university. If you asked the St. Mark’s admissions office, they would likely attribute this discrepancy to “rigorous admissions exams” and a “strict standard of excellence”. While it is true that many intelligent students attend St. Mark’s, the statistics found in Texas Tribune articles and on the St. Mark’s website show another side of the public private divide:

· DISD spends less than $10,000 per student each year, while a private school like St. Mark’s charges over $30,000 in tuition and benefits from large alumni donations and a $140 million endowment (nearly as much as Texas State University).

· Wealthy Texan school districts take over 10% less in taxes from their constituents when compared to their poorer neighbors.

· Dallas county is 30% white, but Dallas Independent School District (DISD) is only 5% white.

· The average salary for a Texas public school teacher is $57,091, while a Master Teacher at St. Mark’s makes $170,374 each year.

· DISD has a 16 to 1 student/teacher ratio, St. Mark’s’ is 8:1

· The Average SAT score in Texas is 1022 while the average at St. Mark’s is 1520 (likely due to better quality of education and private standardized test tutors).

· 67% of Texas public school students are eligible for free or reduced lunches, while only 13% of St. Mark’s students received need-based assistance with their 5-figure tuition.

In response to these deep-seated economic and racial discrepancies, some journalists like John Cook from GAWKER push to ban private schools outright, arguing that they “allow parents to purchase better life-prospects for their kids simply because they can afford it.” While in my opinion, this is patently true (I was sent to a private high school for this exact reason), other critics of the American education system defend the right to private schools, either for religious reasons like Allison Benedikt from Slate or because they do a better job at prioritizing student’s interests (like Daniel Buck’s thesis in the National Review).

While I personally see the value in private schools by creating smaller classes, tighter-knit communities, and more loyal alumni networks, it’s hard not to acknowledge the dangers of Private schools as an institution, and impossible to ignore their tendency to keep wealthy, white students at the forefront of academia and economic success while foisting minorities and the economically disadvantaged further into a cycle of poverty and low-skill employment… at least in their current form. The thing is, it doesn’t have to be this way, and private schools aren’t to blame.

According to Bruce J. Biddle and David C. Berliner of the Educational Leadership Journal, “nearly half of the funding for public schools in the United States is provided through local taxes, generating large differences in funding between wealthy and impoverished communities.” This means a few things for impoverished neighborhoods: First, because their property values are lower, their schools will receive significantly less funding than an equivalent school in a wealthy neighborhood — this leads to lower quality teachers, less funding for extra-curriculars that keep kids out of trouble, a smaller (or non-existent) college counseling department, and less AP or advanced classes. Furthermore, because property values are so much lower in certain neighborhoods, those residents have to pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes to account for lower property values overall (ASCD). In other words, poorer families are forced to give up a larger share of their already small incomes to fund schools that don’t produce results, furthering the cycle of poverty and making it harder to break out of the working class. While it is true that private schools exacerbate this issue and become

Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands (all of which score higher than the United States in at least one PISA index) have adopted more equitable school-funding strategies that could begin to dismantle the racial and financial hierarchy in American education.

In the Netherlands, the government “finances public and private schools on a completely equal basis, with the Dutch government paying directly for teachers, buildings, and other school costs in both sectors” (NCES). This funding strategy guarantees that while private schools exist, “the proportion of funding targeted to private-school students approximates the proportion of private-school students in the student population,” meaning that Dutch Citizens have the freedom to send their children to private schools for religious or other familial reasons but are not directly buying better life prospects for their children. Under a national funding strategy, Netherland private schools are required to follow certain curriculum and policy requirements, limiting the difference in quality of education between public and private schools while still preserving the concept of school-choice.

Admittedly, Netherlands private schools are very different from the ones in the U.S., but Canada has come up with a strategy to leave their private schools relatively independent while giving public schools more equal resources in order to give any student from any socio-economic background a chance. Three provinces of Canada, specifically Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario, have transitioned from a federal-local funding strategy to a fully provincial one (meaning all school funding is managed by the government of an individual province rather than the national or local government). According to Juliana Herman from the Center for American Progress, “Funding schools at the provincial level creates a broader tax base than the more traditional system that depends on local property wealth, which has inevitable yet less predictable and often very unevenly dispersed fluctuations in value and thus revenue” (Herman). This means that poorer neighborhoods that would struggle to pay for supplies or fund after-school programs in America receive the same resources as schools in wealthier neighborhoods. Additionally, by collecting taxes on a provincial level then redistributing, schools receive a constant stream of income, and, like Herman mentions, budget ore effectively. Critics agree that “for a system to be truly equitable, it must allocate dollars at all levels based on student needs,” and “Adopting a more equitable system of funding school districts and even moving to a state-level (the American equivalent of provincial) funding system would be one element in creating and implementing a fully equitable school-funding system” (Herman). In fact, alternative funding systems do more then guarantee stability, as “decentralized public funding is consistently associated with better school performance, with respect to centralized funding” (Turati and Montolio).

Ultimately, when I look back at my private high school experience, I recognize my privilege, but I am not guilty. I would support a system where private schools are more regulated and monitored by the government as to prevent the propagation of the cycle of wealth and cradle-to-ivy pipeline, but, as seen in other countries, there are ways to change how we fund our public schools and provide a more equitable system for all… without abolishing the private school. In order to start dismantling America’s racist and hierarchical educational institutions, and provide every student at every public school with the opportunities they deserve, we should take a look at our friends on the other side of the world, and change our models to look a little more like theirs.

Herman, Juliana. “Canada’s Approach to School Funding.” Center for American Progress, www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2013/05/14/63131/canadas-approach-to-school-funding/.

Turati, G., Montolio, D. and Piacenza, M. (2017), Funding and School Accountability: The Importance of Private and Decentralised Public Funding for Pupil Attainment. Fiscal Studies, 38: 615–639. https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1111/1475-5890.12112

Woessmann, Ludger. “Why Students in Some Countries Do Better.” Education Next, 20 Jan. 2021, www.educationnext.org/whystudentsinsomecountriesdobetter/.

Swaby, Aliyya. “Texas’ School Finance System Is Unpopular and Complex. Here’s How It Works.” The Texas Tribune, The Texas Tribune, 15 Feb. 2019, www.texastribune.org/2019/02/15/texas-school-funding-how-it-works/.

Fikes, Micah. “How Much Can I Expect To Earn When Becoming A Teacher In Texas?” ECAP Blog-Texas Teacher Certification Information, blog.ecapteach.com/how-much-can-i-expect-to-earn-when-becoming-a-teacher-in-texas#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Texas%20Education,location%20of%20your%20teaching%20job.

“At A Glance.” St. Mark’s School of Texas | At A Glance, www.smtexas.org/about-us/at-a-glance.

“College Counseling.” St. Mark’s School of Texas | College Counseling, www.smtexas.org/academics/upper-school--grades-9-12/college-counseling.

Murphy, Ryan, and Annie Daniel. “Texas.” Texas Public Schools, 5 Apr. 2019, schools.texastribune.org/states/tx/#:~:text=State%20of%20Texas&text=As%20of%20the%202019%2D2020,average%20teacher’s%20salary%20was%20%2457%2C091.

“Standardized Testing for College Admissions: No Longer the Standard!” Bass Educational Services, 22 Feb. 2021, www.basseducationalservices.com/standardized-testing-for-college-admissions-no-longer-the-standard/.

Benedikt, Allison. “If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 29 Aug. 2013, slate.com/human-interest/2013/08/private-school-vs-public-school-only-bad-people-send-their-kids-to-private-school.html.

Cook, John. “There’s a Simple Solution to the Public Schools Crisis.” Gawker, gawker.com/5943005/theres-a-simple-solution-to-the-public-schools-crisis.

Buck, Daniel. “In Defense of Private Schools.” National Review, National Review, 22 Mar. 2021, www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/in-defense-of-private-schools/.

Ascd. “A Research Synthesis / Unequal School Funding in the United States.” Unequal School Funding in the United States — Educational Leadership, Educational Leadership, www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may02/vol59/num08/unequal-school-funding-in-the-united-states.aspx.