A Case for Public School Vouchers

Seal of the United States Department of Education with a red X on it
Seal of the United States Department of Education with a red X on it

Public Schools Cater to Exceptional Students

Generally speaking, public schools have morphed from being institutions that serve the many, to institutions that serve the few. On the one extreme by law, and on the other extreme by choice, public schools now cater, primarily, to exceptional students.

By law, schools must expend considerable resources for exceptional students with physical, emotional or mental issues. This is not a bad thing, but it is a real thing. These exceptional students require expensive services that impact school budgets significantly.

On the other side of the spectrum, schools spend considerable amounts of their budgets on gifted exceptional students. This manifests itself in college preparatory classes that typically have smaller class sizes. The benefit for schools in providing these classes is that it encourages wealthy families to move into the school district, increasing housing costs and therefore increasing property taxes which therefore increase the schools’ coffers. Not necessarily a bad thing, but a real thing.

OK, so what’s the problem?

The end result of public schools focusing on exceptional students is twofold. First, those that are not exceptional on either end of the spectrum tend to get left out. There are fewer after school programs (sports, etc.) and fewer elective course offerings such as shop, music, etc. Non-exceptional students graduating from public schools now do not receive the varied education they received just a few decades ago.

Further, as wealthy families move in and drive housing prices up, middle and lower income families get pushed out. The end result for them is having to send their children to less desirable school districts. And in these school districts, even those students gifted academically suffer as there aren’t college prep classes and the overall academic standards tend to be lower.

So what is the alternative?

Most states mandate children be in school and receiving an education until the age of 16. This mandate is inarguably a good thing. However, nowhere is there a mandate that the education be provided by a publicly funded institution. And as Hamlet said in his soliloquy, “”Aye, there’s the rub.”

The vast majority of Americans do not have the financial resources to send their children to private schools. And for those children that do not fall on either end of the “exceptional spectrum,” for the most part they are relegated to what is at best a mediocre education. They are set up to fail in life and are at a significant disadvantage to those that have received an appropriate education.

This is why school vouchers make sense. With money available, a free market would create schools to service a more varied student body. They would specialize and provide a better education more appropriate for individuals rather than more the generic masses. Further, over time, and probably not much time, competition would create much better schools. Essentially everyone, with the possible exception of teachers’ unions, would benefit. And, in fact, many teachers in unions would like be incented to leave and teach in specialized schools which would be more rewarding to them, and where they would provide a better education for their students.

But hey, where’s the money for all of this?

As it turns out the money is already there. The real issue is on how the money is allocated. Let’s start with the Department of Education.

US Department of Education

The U.S. Department of Education was established by the Department of Education Organization Act, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. The department officially began operations on May 4, 1980. The primary aim was to ensure access to education and to improve the quality of education across the nation. It was created to consolidate several federal education programs and to provide a cabinet-level voice for education. It is estimated that approximately $2.1 trillion has been allocated to it since its inception.

Many individuals advocate for the elimination of the Department of Education for several reasons. Critics argue that the federal oversight of education infringes on states’ rights and local control, leading to a one-size-fits-all approach that does not account for regional differences and needs. They believe that local and state governments are better suited to address the specific educational requirements of their communities. Additionally, some opponents view the department as an example of federal overreach and bureaucratic inefficiency, citing its significant budget with perceived limited impact on improving educational outcomes. They propose that eliminating the Department of Education would reduce federal spending and bureaucracy, and potentially lead to more innovative and effective educational policies tailored to local needs.

The current annual budget for the U.S. Department of Education for fiscal year 2024 is $67.4 billion. As of the most recent data, approximately 50.7 million students are enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools (kindergarten through grade 12) in the United States. This figure includes students attending traditional public schools and public charter schools. Therefore, the current the Department of Education is ~ $1,329 per student.

Now let’s look at educational funding by state.

Spending Per Student By State

The average amount spent per pupil for all 50 states is $12,798. The median per pupil for all states is $11,455. At $24,875 per student, New York spends the most and at $7,440, Idaho spends the least. New York is ranked as 14th in academic achievement. Idaho is ranked 32nd.

Adding the average spent per pupil by the Department of Education ($1,329) to the average spent per pupil by all states ($12,798) equals, on average, for each US public student is $14,127. This is on peer with what Illinois spends per student, $14,685. Illinois is ranked 18th overall in terms of academic achievement.

But aren’t private schools ridiculously expensive?

Private School Tuition

The average annual tuition for private schools in the United States in 2024 is approximately $12,832. This average can vary significantly depending on the type of school and the state. For example, private elementary school tuition averages around $11,915 per year, while private high school tuition averages about $16,408 per year​.

The cost can also differ widely by state. Connecticut has the highest average tuition at about $29,433 per year, whereas South Dakota has the lowest at approximately $4,212 per year​.

Additionally, the cost structure can differ between religious and nonsectarian schools. For instance, Catholic schools often have lower tuition rates, with elementary school tuition averaging $4,840 per year and secondary schools about $11,240 per year. Nonsectarian schools tend to have higher tuition rates, averaging $25,700 annually​.

Drum roll, please…

So, as it turns out, there is plenty of money available for each and every child in the United States to receive a high-quality education, more suitably tailored to their needs than that provided by a generalized public school education. There are really only two issues: 1) how the money is allocated, and; 2) how do parents disassemble powerful teacher’s unions that are impeding this reallocation.

It really comes down to choosing whether you want a centralized, bureaucratic agency dictating how education dollars are spent, or if you want more localized and personalized control. Voting certainly has consequences.

Following are some tables of raw data. If you found this essay useful, please share it.

The Raw Data

Spending Per Student by State

StateAvg $ Spend/Student
Alabama9,870
Alaska17,480
Arizona8,275
Arkansas9,915
California13,650
Colorado10,475
Connecticut20,445
Delaware15,235
Florida9,605
Georgia10,955
Hawaii15,415
Idaho7,440
Illinois14,685
Indiana10,785
Iowa10,990
Kansas10,930
Kentucky10,725
Louisiana11,035
Maine15,700
Maryland15,755
Massachusetts20,740
Michigan11,405
Minnesota13,995
Mississippi9,180
Missouri10,260
Montana11,975
Nebraska11,435
Nevada11,675
New Hampshire9,395
New Jersey19,600
New Mexico9,940
New York24,875
North Carolina9,755
North Dakota13,105
Ohio11,945
Oklahoma11,025
Oregon11,475
Pennsylvania17,045
Rhode Island17,400
South Carolina11,885
South Dakota10,375
Tennessee11,620
Texas10,890
Utah9,875
Vermont8,155
Virginia22,045
Washington11,890
West Virginia13,465
Wisconsin10,775
Wyoming13,315
Average12,798
Median11,455

Spending Per Student by State Ranked Lowest to Highest

StateSpending per Student
Idaho7,440
Vermont8,155
Arizona8,275
Mississippi9,180
New Hampshire9,395
Florida9,605
North Carolina9,755
Alabama9,870
Utah9,875
Arkansas9,915
New Mexico9,940
Missouri10,260
South Dakota10,375
Colorado10,475
Kentucky10,725
Wisconsin10,775
Indiana10,785
Texas10,890
Kansas10,930
Georgia10,955
Iowa10,990
Oklahoma11,025
Louisiana11,035
Michigan11,405
Nebraska11,435
Oregon11,475
Tennessee11,620
Nevada11,675
South Carolina11,885
Washington11,890
Ohio11,945
Montana11,975
North Dakota13,105
Wyoming13,315
West Virginia13,465
California13,650
Minnesota13,995
Illinois14,685
Delaware15,235
Hawaii15,415
Maine15,700
Maryland15,755
Pennsylvania17,045
Rhode Island17,400
Alaska17,480
New Jersey19,600
Connecticut20,445
Massachusetts20,740
Virginia22,045
New York24,875

Academic Ranking Per State

RankState
1Massachusetts
2Connecticut
3New Jersey
4Virginia
5New Hampshire
6Maryland
7Delaware
8Nebraska
9Wisconsin
10Vermont
11Maine
12Minnesota
13Pennsylvania
14New York
15Iowa
16Colorado
17South Dakota
18Illinois
19Ohio
20Rhode Island
21North Dakota
22Indiana
23Oregon
24North Dakota
25Missouri
26Montana
27Kansas
28Michigan
29Kentucky
30Georgia
31Arkansas
32Idaho
33West Virginia
34Alaska
35Hawaii
36Utah
37Texas
38Mississippi
39California
40Tennessee
41Florida
42North Carolina
43Oklahoma
44South Carolina
45Alabama
46New Mexico
47Nevada
48Louisiana
49Arizona
50West Virginia

California Ranked

Picture of San Francisco homeless encampment

Following is a list, with links to sources of data, of how California compares to the other 49 states. The quality of life has gone down the toilet and the cost of living has gone up since special interest groups, progressives, liberals and democrats took control of the state.

Please share this list.

Special Interest Groups Created the Energy Issues

Picture of an oil refinery spewing smoke

The Irony of the “No Blood for Oil” Movement

With a diminishing reliance upon imported fossil fuel, the military costs associated with ensuring a steady supply of it also diminishes. Unforeseen consequences of laws passed by spineless politicians in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s were the direct end results of the dangerous reliance on foreign oil. Not unlike what we see today, to keep their legislative seats, the laws passed satisfied naive, ill-informed special interest groups. And, as in a quote often attributed to Albert Einstein, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Plaque memorializing the Three Mile Island nuclear incident. Naive special interest groups used this to curtail nuclear energy development.

Well Intentioned; Dangerously Naive

In the 70’s and 80’s, ill-informed special interest groups, using highly emotional yet specious arguments, railed against nuclear power plants. Nuclear plants produce less toxic waste in a year than coal plants produce in an hour. Investments in future plants are all but dead. Ironically, no deaths or illnesses attributed to nuclear energy in the US…

Concurrently, ill-informed, self-righteous, ‘environmental’ special interest groups, using highly emotional yet specious arguments, railed against oil drilling (“NOT IN MY BACKYARD!”) A dangerous reliance on foreign oil, primarily from OPEC and more specifically the Middle East, resulted. This created enormous wealth, held primarily by ruling families that were and are akin to the Mafia. To keep their wealth and power, these families paid off radical groups which ultimately morphed into terrorist organizations. Daily we see the result of that…

Hand of protester holding "No Blood For Oil" sign

The Result: “Blood for Oil”

A perilous reliance on foreign oil by the US resulted from these unintended and unforeseen consequences (by environmentalists.) Like it or not, oil is the blood that courses through the veins of the US economy. Count on this remaining so for decades, regardless of what the delusional Green New Dealers espouse…

Political cartoon of AOC blowing on a sail to make a bullet train move

This reliance on foreign oil, controlled by what are essentially mob families, necessitated a dramatic increase in military presence in the Middle East to ensure a steady supply of blood for continuous infusion into the US economic veins. And, as inevitable, actual human blood spilled to ensure this continuous supply of oil. The Left’s rallying cry became, “NO BLOOD FOR OIL!” And this, while heating their homes with oil, driving with oil derivatives and using petroleum-based products. Of course the irony and hypocrisy is lost on them…

Ironic special interest group picture of a bumber sticker on a gas guzzling car stating, "NO BLOOD FOR OIL."

Bring Back Real Green Energy

It’s probably safe to say that everyone would like to shift reliance on fossil fuels to green energy. However, the notion of a complete reliance on solar, wind and hydro power, as espoused by the Green New Deal activists, is absurd. Beyond the cost (that makes it infeasible in its current maturity) is the inability to control the climate and nature; wind and solar power are not a constant, but highly variable and therefore unreliable. And, BTW, in the late 70’s, I worked my way through college making solar panels for a subsidiary of EXXON. 40 years later and neither the technology nor the economics for solar makes it practical…

There are many beneficial consequences of increased US oil production. It lessens the dependency on oil supplied by questionable regimes. The need for military assets deployed to the Middle East decreases: no more “Blood for Oil.” There is also a tremendous, beneficial effect on the US economy. But most importantly, there is for breathing room until green energy becomes technically feasible and economically cost-effective.

Increase oil production. Increase investments in (green) nuclear energy. Decrease dependence on foreign energy.