Are private schools more privileged than public?

Two years after Education Savings Accounts were signed into law to allow Iowa families to spend their portion of per-pupil funding at a private school of their choice, over 27,000 Iowa students are actively exercising the option commonly known as school choice.

Many had already been paying for their private school out of pocket on limited incomes. Others discovered a new — and better — fit for their education.

But according to some Iowans, those students should not be entitled to the same public investment in their education as children attending public schools, based on the claim that private schools can pick and choose their students and deny admission to anyone they want for any reason.

That’s quite the overgeneralization of private schools. This column has discussed in the past the level of accountability that private schools actually face — not just from their communities, but to the general public, according to the requirements of state law.

Those requirements are extensive. As I wrote in January 2023, teachers at accredited non-public schools must be licensed or certified for their position. The schools must have adequate staff at all times and have a calendar year of at least 180 days. Attendance policies are mandatory, as are rules to prevent and address truancy.

Accredited private schools must meet curriculum requirements virtually identical to public schools. Staff must participate in professional development, the cost of which must be factored into their budget. They have to be “governed by a reliable authority” and record their meeting minutes, log all receipts and expenditures, and meet all other reporting required by law.

Private schools also have to have established disciplinary policies and procedures. State administrative code does not distinguish between public and private schools when it comes to the adoption of execution of those policies. Like public schools, they can’t just randomly kick a kid out or ignore certain behaviors.

And contrary to what school choice opponents imply, Iowa private schools can’t discriminate against students who require reasonable accommodations. They must provide Individualized Education Programs for students with disabilities and are not exempt from Section 504.

To school choice opponents, the similarities aren’t enough — private schools should only be able to “get public money” if they eschew any standard that is different from public schools. At least, when it comes to public schools’ obligations by law.

What that argument fails to do, however, is balance public schools’ obligations with their advantages. Especially when it comes to funding.

If public and private schools have to compete for per-pupil revenue based on enrollment, public schools hold the advantage by default because enrollment is assigned based on residence within a defined area. Private school enrollment relies on a family’s choice to send their children there, so private schools must first attract families, often from a broader area than that of a school district.

Public schools get more funding from the state than just per-pupil aid. Only they have access to Securing an Advanced Vision for Education funding, a one-cent sales tax distributed to public schools for a variety of uses determined by voters of each school district.

Public schools are also a taxing authority, which means that unlike private schools, they get to levy local taxes for additional revenue and collect them from the owner of every taxable property in the district, regardless of whether the property owner has any children attending a district school.

Options for tax levies are numerous. They include a management levy to pay the cost of unemployment and early retirement benefits for employees, liability insurance, legal judgments or settlement costs, mediation and arbitration costs, and in certain situations, employee retention bonuses.

Separately, there’s the Physical Plant and Equipment Levy (PPEL) for an extensive list of uses related to school facilities, equipment and technology. On its own, a school board can certify a PPEL levy for up to 33 cents per $1,000 of assessed value of taxable property. A district can also ask voters to kick in $1.34 per $1,000.

The Public Education and Recreation Levy (PERL) is for up to 13.5 cents per $1,000 in assessed property value and can go toward playgrounds and other recreational spaces on district grounds. A voted PPEL must be renewed by voters every 10 years. A PERL levy continues until voters rescind it.

Keep in mind, every school district levy or fund is on top of the taxes already paid by property owners to form a significant portion of a school district’s finances.

Tax levies do have the burden of requiring approval from voters, at the cost of not only “informing” them (district funds cannot be used to influence voters,) but also the expenses of the election itself. Iowa Code requires polling places for a school election be paid for by the school district.

Taxing authority also highlights the differences in how public and private schools are accountable, and to whom.

As they are directly funded by taxes, public schools must answer to their entire district, where voters and taxpayers are essentially the shareholders.

Not all of the shareholders care to be involved. Even in the highly controversial bond vote for the Cedar Rapids Community School District in 2023, only 24% of voters participated — and that was an unusually high turnout for school elections. Since not all voters have children attending school, not everyone has the same interest in holding a district — or its leaders — accountable.

A school board member has the burden of seeking election and re-election, but only has to face voters every four years. Aside from certain egregious acts that qualify for removal by the board, no recall process exists for dissatisfied residents to recall an ineffective school board member. Ousting that member in an election still requires a superior challenger for what can be a thankless, tiresome role.

Private schools have their own building, equipment, staffing and recreation obligations that they must fund, but with no access to property tax revenue or authority to levy any taxes.

Even with ESAs, they are not directly tax-funded — the per-pupil dollars go into an account that gives a parent complete control over how the dollars are allocated. The money is directly exchanged between the parent and the school, making for a more concentrated group to which the school must answer — not to mention a more invested one.

Unlike public school districts, private schools answer primarily — if not entirely — to stakeholders. And they all hold an equal stake.

Which is better than which might be in the eye of the beholder. Indeed, the two institutions are different, even though their mission is identical: Educate students.

Granted, these comparisons don’t include the obligations public schools have for special education services. But they also don’t consider the large and completely separate funding formula for special education dollars — or how that funding is dispersed, which favors public school districts.

But I’ll be blunt: For all of the differences and similarities and discussion of which has the advantage over the other, none of it really matters in terms of getting critics of school choice to understand its appeal to the tens of thousands of Iowans who have signed on. When it comes to revenue financed by state per-pupil funding, it doesn’t matter whether or not private schools are actually made to conform to every single one of the same criterion as a public school district.

Nor does it matter whether per-pupil funds will be used to finance the education of kids from wealthy families. Many of the wealthiest people in the state of Iowa — including those in the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City areas — have long sent their kids to public schools at no cost to them beyond what they already pay in taxes. No one, your friendly neighborhood opinion columnist included, has ever protested the state picking up the tab for the per-pupil funding of rich kids in public schools.

And why not? Because none of the opposition to education reform has ever actually been about whether a family can afford to pay their own way or whether private schools deserve state-financed revenue. It has always been about who gets the money.

Anti-choice activists and legislators have claimed that Iowa has “always had school choice,” because families can choose a different public school through open enrollment.

But when the Iowa Legislature expanded open enrollment only four years ago, it was those same activists and legislators who loudly opposed it. If they had their way, certain Iowa school districts would still be able to block a student’s transfer in the name of “diversity.”

They also say that Iowans have always had a choice because of public charter schools — as if they didn’t also oppose the 2021 law to expand charter school options. Had they been successful in defeating it, Iowa might still have only two public charter schools instead of the 17 now approved by the state.

Two years in, opponents of school choice still rail on ESAs because of who gets the money. Those who suddenly have more options in front of them know that education is about far more than just the dollars. That’s an advantage that all Iowa students deserve.

Comments: 319-398-8266; althea.cole@thegazette.com