The Grand Canyon Institute of Arizona audits the use of tax dollars that are spent for public and private schools. Under Governor Douglas Ducey, the state has been very generous to private, religious, and charter schools, but not with public schools.
Here is its latest report:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Dave Wells, Research Director
dwells@azgci.org, (602) 595-1025 Ext. 2
Amy Pedotto, Communications Manager
apedotto@azgci.org, 602-595-1025, Ext. 3
State pays $10,700 subsidy for private school students;
75 percent more than their public school peers
Phoenix — According to a new policy paper, Arizona’s two private school subsidy programs cost the state $10,700* on average per regular education student who would not otherwise have enrolled in private school. This imposes an additional $62 million expense on the state’s General Fund.
Published by the non-partisan think tank the Grand Canyon Institute (GCI), the policy paper $10,700 Per Student: The Estimated Cost of Arizona’s Private School Subsidy Programs looks at how the state’s two private school subsidy programs — private school tuition tax credit scholarships and Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) vouchers — have impacted private school enrollment and then estimated a per student cost to taxpayers. The paper looks at regular education students; it does not include students with disabilities because of the significant cost differences in providing their education.
The study’s findings also include that:
The estimated cost per subsidized private school student has increased $700 in the two years since GCI first analyzed the cost of the subsidy programs in Arizona.
On average, taxpayer-funded private school subsidies cost an additional $4,700 or 75 percent more per student than the $6,000 the state pays to educate a regular education public school student when paid entirely from state funds.
In 2015-16, private school subsidies cost Arizona’s General Fund a total of $141 million, nearly a 50-fold increase from $3 million in 1999-2000.
In 2015-16, GCI estimates that 13,170 students who used the taxpayer-subsidized program would have attended public school if the scholarships and vouchers were not available.
Private school as a percentage of total student enrollment has declined from 5.9 percent to 4 percent since Arizona first introduced a private school subsidy in the late nineties. An increase in the percentage of private school enrollment would have occurred if the programs were more effective.
“GCI’s research of academic studies found that lower income families using similar subsidy programs in other states frequently had negative academic impacts compared to public school peers,” Wells says. “The study raises questions about the efficacy of private school subsidy programs as voters are asked to expand Arizona’s ESA voucher program with Prop. 305 this November.”
George Cunningham, GCI’s board chair and former state legislator, commented, “Arizona can’t afford fiscally irresponsible private school subsidies that siphon money away from its public education system. These subsidy programs are placing an increasing burden on the state’s General Fund meanwhile research shows they provide no academic benefit when comparing demographically similar students attending public and private schools.
“Given these facts, it is appropriate to ask why our state government would continue tuition tax credit scholarships and seek to expand ESA vouchers to the general education population. At a minimum, it is strongly recommended that the total amount in tuition tax credit scholarships a student can receive be limited to the amount paid by the state for regular education public school students similar to ESA vouchers.”
What are Arizona’s two private school subsidy programs?
Tuition tax credit scholarships were introduced two decades ago. They divert individual and corporate taxpayer dollars from the state’s General Fund, providing donors a dollar-for-dollar reduction in taxes owed while decreasing the state’s revenue. GCI’s research found that in many cases students are receiving more than one tax credit scholarship by applying for funding from multiple School Tuition Organizations (STOs), the private organizations that accept tuition tax credit donations and distribute them to students.
ESA vouchers were introduced in 2011. Distributed by the state’s Department of Education and financed from the General Fund, ESA vouchers allow certain categories of students to attend private schools such as those with disabilities, students from D and F rated public schools, foster children and children of veterans. GCI’s paper did not include vouchers used by students with disabilities in its analysis due to the significant cost differences in meeting their needs. In November 2018, Prop. 305 will give Arizona’s voters the opportunity to decide whether ESA vouchers should be made available to all students, a significant expansion to the program.
Click here to read the full report.
*Methodology:
First, GCI’s analysis estimated that 13,710 out of 46,252 regular education students attending private school in Arizona did so because of the state’s private school subsidies. The ratio of Arizona to US private school enrollment as a portion of all students (0.45) was the dependent variable used in the regression analysis to control for any factors outside of Arizona that impacts private school enrollment such as recessions or economic growth. All of these factors impact private schools generally and would not have a separate impact on Arizona’s private schools. The analysis’ independent variables were the state’s enrollment growth of charter schools and private school subsidies because in both cases Arizona far exceeds the national average.
Next, GCI determined the cost of private school subsidies to the state, for those regular education students that chose private school because of the subsidy programs. This amount was calculated based on the total value of subsidies allocated for regular education students ($140,874,776) divided by the number of students that opted for private school due to the subsidies (13,710). GCI determined that subsidies cost the state an average of $10,700 per regular education private school student for those that would have attended public school if the private school subsidy programs weren’t available.
Finally, Arizona’s private school subsidies cost $140,874,776 for regular education students who would not have otherwise attended a private school. For this analysis, GCI uses the cost of educating a charter school student ($6,000) for comparison because the state government uses this amount to determine the value of ESA vouchers for a regular education student. The cost of educating a charter school student is used in GCI’s analysis because they are completely state funded, whereas the cost of educating a public district school student varies per district based on a state and local funding. (This provides a more conservative comparison because the average cost of educating a regular education student in a district school is less than a charter school.) Arizona would have spent $82,260,000 to educate taxpayer-subsidized private school students if they had attended a charter school instead. Therefore, Arizona’s private school subsidies increased the cost of educating these regular education students by $4,700 each or $62 million in total.
If information like this matters to you, please consider a tax deductible donation to the Grand Canyon Institute to support our continuing work.
The financing of Education Savings Accounts is a national issue, thanks to moves underway by the IRS.
The school choice crowd is up in arms about pending IRS rules on deductions for “choice” investments.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-education/2018/09/07/school-choice-supporters-flood-irs-with-criticism-333347
It’s always interesting to watch what issues motivate ed reformers into political action.
They can’t be bothered to pitch in on any public school funding issue campaigns but boy, threaten vouchers for private schools and the whole echo chamber are up in arms!
When’s the last time an ed reform “advocate” lifted a finger on behalf of any public school, anywhere?
This was the exact same scenario that the right wing was trying to impose on Florida through this Amendment 8 which would have given politicians the power to make charters a priority through fiscal manipulation that would have given the state the power over local communities.
And one of the original claims/lies of the autocratic charter school assembly line education “industry” was they’d be better than public schools and cost less.
Why isn’t anyone shouting from the rooftops to keep that false claim alive so it isn’t forgotten by the short memories of many American voters.
posted at https://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Arizona-State-Pays-75-Mo-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Diane-Ravitch_Education_Education-Costs_Education-K-12-180909-998.html
Today, in the NY Times Magazine, where all the articles are about what is afoot on the education stage today, there is this one, which lays bare th corruption that Gov. Ducey has allowed to flourish
and while you are reading the NY Times Magazine, read this wonderful story, which likes all stories really demonstrates the truth by conveying the details of one person who experiences the reality of teaching in a failing school. This one in Atlanta..I really thought this was wonderful https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/06/magazine/student-performance-atlanta-teaching.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fmagazine&action=click&contentCollection=magazine®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront
It’s such a shame what’s happening to public school families in these ed reform-dominated states.
They really need to clean house- throw the bums out and start over with a group of new lawmakers who value public schools, and public school students.
They need an advocate in state government. They’re getting screwed.
Ed reformers are really excited about the new supreme court justice- the plan is he’ll vastly expand vouchers nationally:
https://www.the74million.org/there-is-an-open-question-four-religious-school-choice-cases-that-could-face-scotus-and-kavanaugh/
As usual, there’s no mention at all of public school families or children – no one in DC can be bothered with us.
It’s not surprising really- fewer and fewer powerful people attended public schools and virtually none of them have children or grandchildren in public schools. They don’t put any work, effort or investment into our schools because they wouldn’t dream of ever attending one of our schools. That’s unimaginable to them.
No surprise. Campbell Brown owns The 74. She and DeVos are close. One served on the other’s board.
The law of unintended consequences may come into play here. Many people in the USA want to have additional spending on K-12 education. The situation in Arizona, is showing exactly that. More spending on education.
If the per-capita spending on students at non-public schools is increasing, then the families of the students at the public schools, may begin to demand their share as well.
This may result in increases at both the public and non-public schools!
This is a win-win situation.
The public schools are being starved to pay for a small minority to attend religious schools.
A win for the religious schools, a loss for public schools.
Then families who choose to remain with the public schools, should be demanding their fair share.
That would be the overwhelming majority of kids and families.
Charles, Finland pays public money for children to attend private schools. That means in Finland parents and children have a choice.
But, those publicly funded private schools must follow all the same rules and laws that the public schools in Finland have to follow. There is no double standard. The teachers are trusted to make most if not all decisions on what to teach and how to teach it and there are no required high stakes, rank and punish tests.
That explains why less than one-percent of Finland school are private —- less than 25.
In China when a school looks like it is failing, those schools aren’t closed and the children turned over to greedy frauds running private schools, China sends in teams of teachers and administrators from the most successful schools to help improve the school that wasn’t performing well. In addition, China is known for high stakes tests. There are two major ones but the results of those tests are not used to rank schools and close them. They are used to rank students and the scores are used to decide who gets to go to high school (mandatory in China) and once done with high school to college all paid for by public dollars.
Teachers are not fired in China or Finland based on test scores.
We are on the same frequency here! Maybe school choice, will result in the improvement of both public and non-public schools. Some studies have shown that when school choice comes in, that the existing public schools show some improvement.
I don’t know of any studies that show beneficial effects of school choice. The kids who leave don’t get a better education, and the kids who stay lose teachers and have larger class sizes.
Lose lose.
“Some studies have shown that when school choice comes in, that the existing public schools show some improvement.”
Sounds like a Trump tactic, making a claim with no links to reputable sources. This is called an evidence-free claim.
“Trump’s habit of making unsubstantiated claims” is becoming an epidemic being spread by others..
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-art-of-the-evidence-free-claim-how-trump-gets-by-without-sourcing-what-he-says
“100 days of Trump claims
“Throughout President Trump’s first 100 days, the Fact Checker team tracked false and misleading claims made by the president since Jan. 20.
Update: See the Fact Checker’s ongoing claims database, 365 days of Trump’s claims
“As of Trump’s 100th day, we counted 492 false or misleading claims.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims/?utm_term=.f77d975683fa
@Lloyd: I posted the links for 23 (twenty-three) separate empirical studies on how school choice/vouchers serve to increase performance at the public schools (in areas where school choice is available).
The posts were deleted.
I tried.
There are a number of studies, which have shown that school choice has improved performance at the public schools (in areas, where school choice is available).
Here is an article from the respected Cato Institute, which indicates that of 23 separate and independent studies, 22 showed improvement at public schools. (In areas where alternate schooling is available)
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-school-choice-improves-public-schools
Here is an excerpt from an article from EdWeek:
Q Among voucher programs, these studies consistently find that vouchers are associated with improved test scores in the affected public schools. The size of the effect in these studies varies from modest to large. No study has found a negative impact. END Q
Here is the entire article:
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/02/22/21campbell.h31.html
If you do an internet search, you will find additional articles from a variety of resources, that state essentially the same premise.
Furthermore, intuition should tell anyone, that when a public enterprise (like schools) begins to feel the spur of competition, from the private sector, that the public enterprise will have to improve or else lose to the private sector.
The CATO Institute is not respected.
It is a far-far-far right libertarian organization founded and funded by the Koch Brothers.
The article you cite from EdWeek is dated 2012.
Since then, there have been many studies concurring that vouchers do not produce academic gains, but actually produce academic losses.
I have cited the studies on this blog–about Louisiana, Indiana, Ohio, and DC. All produced in the past two years.
Obviously you read and remember only what fits your pro-choice pro-voucher mindset.
Charles, scroll down to the comments in that EdWeek hatchet piece to discover the challenges to the hacks you allege are accurate.
Q I don’t know of any studies that show beneficial effects of school choice. The kids who leave don’t get a better education, and the kids who stay lose teachers and have larger class sizes. END Q
I can show you at least 23 (twenty-three) separate, empirical studies, which show exactly that.
Some (not all) students will get an improvement in the educational services that they will receive in the non-public school. (After all, there is a reason that many families, scrimp and save, to put their children in non-public schools. No one, believes that they do this, to purchase an inferior education, than that which is available in the “free” schools).
When there is a reduction in student population (for any reason), there will have to be a reduction in personnel. The remaining students will not necessarily have larger class sizes. The amount of per-pupil spending will remain unchanged, (or perhaps increase). Class sizes need not be increased, because of school choice.
Additionally: When there is a reduction in student population at a public school, and the number of teachers is not immediately reduced, the departure of a small number of students, will result in a reduction in the class sizes.
Untrue.
When money leaves the public school, it must cut expenses, which means laying off teachers and increasing class sizes. Do you ever read anything on this blog other than your own comments, Charles? Did you read Gordon Lafer’s study of the millions of dollars cut from the schools of Oakland, San Diego, and another district? Please don’t comment until you read this: https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/ITPI_Breaking_Point_May2018FINAL.pdf
OK, meet me halfway. When there is a reduction in funding, and there is no corresponding reduction in the student population, then there will be staff reductions, and the size of classes will be forced to increase.
BUT- look at the other side of the coin. When there is a reduction in student population, and a corresponding reduction in the funding at the public schools, the per-pupil spending is unchanged. I stipulate that the total amount of dollars coming into the school is reduced.
With the reduction in the school’s “mission”, comes a combination of less money, and fewer students to provide an education to.
There will be layoffs, but the size of the classes does not necessarily increase.
Why don’t people understand that the student population decreases, along with the funding?
(I read all kinds of information, both from the links here, and elsewhere)
“I can show you at least 23 (twenty-three) separate, empirical studies, which show exactly that.”
Charles, DO IT THEN! Post those 23 separate links.
Then anyone that wants to can verify if your alleged “empirical studies” are the real thing or cherry picked fake empirical studies.
“Empirical studies are the collection and analysis of primary data based on direct observation or experiences in the ‘field’. There are a variety of study types that can be employed when conducting an empirical study, including:
Descriptive or observational studies, that…
Empirical studies that describe what is happening based on direct observation, focus group discussions, and in-depth interviews are defined as qualitative studies.”
It is done. go to the post at 0940am, and follow the links. Of course, these are not the only studies. There are other studies, that show different results.
All the voucher studies for the past five years are negative