Local school districts, their boards, school
superintendents, and district offices have
come in for a lot of criticism of late. Dylan Scott, in a recent Governing magazine article (May 2013),
reports that advocates, both left and
right, increasingly call for the outright elimination of local school
districts, which would mean turning educational policy/finance
over to state control. This notion is surprisingly attractive to some conservatives,
who would make state governments the only higher authority for individual
schools, which would be state funded but independently controlled and operated,
although a more likely outcome of full state-level funding and control would
seem to be machine bureaucracies of even greater scale and scope than at
present.
Is the antagonism toward
local school districts justified? In Making
the Grade: The Economic Evolution of American School Districts, William A.
Fischel argues that it is not. Fischel adopts the prevailing economic view of
the function of local governments in our unique system of fiscal federalism:
local governments, both general-purpose governments and special tax districts
are like businesses, property owners are equivalent to shareholders, and local officials
create value by maximizing property values within their jurisdictions’
boundaries via the provision of services and amenities that can be more
efficiently financed collectively than by individual property owners. This
basic logic underlies local reliance on user fees and property taxes, which,
where assessments reflect market prices, are the economic equivalents of user
fees.
According to
Fischel, school districts play a central role in this system, because of the
importance of schools to a critical class of property owners: homeowners.
“A significant factor for many
people deciding where to live is the quality of the local school district, with
superior schools creating a price premium for housing. The result is a ‘race to
the top.’ as all school districts attempt to improve their performance in order
to attract homeowners.” Fischel also argues that locally funded schools,
especially those funded by ad-valorem
property taxes, provide homeowners with the motivation to monitor and control
local jurisdictions, because amenities and taxes are capitalized in the value
of their largest asset, their homes, and local governance gives them an
opportunity to do so. Finally, he provides evidence that home prices are more
responsive to district boundaries than to the boundaries of school attendance
zones, which he attributes to the special role played by local school districts
in the accumulation of community-specific social capital, “mainly through the networks
parents establish,” which spills over to a wide array of collectively provided
services and not just to schools.
In defending school
districts supported in part by local property taxes, Fischel also questions voucher
programs, noting that their greatest virtue is also their greatest vice:
greater competition among schools erodes location-specific social capital.
The tax-financed, local public school
system makes “exit” (to private schools) more costly, which in turn promotes
more “voice” within the community. Parents will inevitably seek to make their
voices heard in their children’s schools, wherever they are located. Public
schools induce those within the same jurisdiction to have a more common voice
in self-governance in other community matters.
Critics of Fischel’s argument in favor of linking resources to location typically
ground their claims on two priori beliefs.
The first has to do with the demand for educational services, the second with
democratic governance. The first of these is that education is primarily a
public, not a private good, and should, therefore, be supplied equally to all. I
am inclined to believe that this argument misconceives the nature of public
goods. Public goods are characterized by two characteristics, non-excludability
and non-exhaustibility, which means that only one quantity can be supplied to
the citizenry within a given jurisdiction, that the citizenry’s enjoyment the
good is entirely passive, and that the good must be equally provided to all,
whether they like it or not.
Clearly neither of these characteristics nor their implications applies
to educational services, at least not for the most part. Consequently, most
economists believe that educational services are primarily private goods. For a
friend of education, this should generally be seen as a good thing. The single
most powerful implication of the theory of public goods is that they tend to be
under supplied. The principal exception to this generalization occurs where
they are combined with private goods and dominated by the latter.
However, to say that education is not primarily a public good does not
mean that this argument is wrong. Repairing it in this case is fairly
straightforward. Equity or, more correctly, enjoying the benefits of living in
a reasonably fair and equitable community is
itself a public good and the delivery of educational services and amenities may
be an effective means of promoting its provision. However, the relationship
between educational services and a more equitable society is an empirical
question, one that that most of those calling for equal student funding neither
ask nor answer. My own view of the evidence is that improving access to and the
scope of pre-school services and meeting students’ basic needs and, thereby,
raising attendance once they have started school will go further toward
improving outcomes for students from low-income families than increasing school
resources per se, and that those
things are appropriately state responsibilities
Opposition to
using local property taxes to finance schools also rests upon a peculiar view
of democratic governance, which holds that citizens are entitled to certain
services simply “by virtue of their membership within a polity,” that
governments are obligated to provide these services equally to all, and that
this obligation cannot be outweighed by other considerations. Consequently, if
education is one of the services to which the citizens of a state are entitled,
it must be provided equally to all. Here
too, I am inclined to take issue with the argument. I would freely grant that
all citizens have certain rights and have been afforded certain entitlements,
but what those entitlements are and how far they go is entirely a matter for
the members of the polity to decide through its participation in the processes
of democratic governance, deliberation, and debate. Folks are well within their
rights to argue that education should
be a service to which all citizens are equally entitled; that education is a service to which all citizens are
equally entitled violates both fact and logic.
Indeed, I would
argue that, from the standpoint of democratic governance, the most important
criterion by which any institutional arrangement should be judged is the degree
to which it promotes citizen engagement and participation in the management of
the polity and an understanding of the consequences of collective choices for
themselves and their neighbors. And, while this factor does not outweigh all
other considerations, it should weigh very heavily in our assessment of
alternative institutional arrangements.
From this
standpoint, our idiosyncratic system of fiscal federalism appears to work
fairly well in general and specifically with respect or the governance of public
education. There is evidence that the system promote citizen monitoring of
school performance, that higher tax prices and home ownership are associated
with higher levels of monitoring, and that greater reliance on property taxes
and other measures of decentralized control are associated with greater
efficiency on the part of school districts. Further, looking at interstate
variations in average student achievement, operating stability, flexibility,
and transparency, one consistently finds that they are inversely related to
state level financing and control, both in cross-sectional analysis and panel
studies. In the face of this evidence, one might conclude that it would be
wiser to question the merits of state-level finance/governance than
district-level governance.
3 comments:
Before measure 5, Oregonians had a lot of control of local costs, at least that was my experience. As for economies of scale and or scope in back office operations, entities can always take advantage of them by contracting out the function to a specialized service provider, which could be a private company or another government.
Fred, I agree with everything you wrote, but I'm curious about your thoughts on the political viability of going to back to local funding/control. There are forces that have worked very hard to make education a state burden, but I don't remember anybody fighting against that effort.
The benefits of centralization have been elusive, and many voters will be enchanted by the idea of local control, but will that be enough to win out over concerns about potentially higher taxes?
Our political process is biased to the status quo, whatever it is. It has been particularly difficult to get the legislature to think about property taxes (actually, to think about taxes very much period) for the last 20 years or so. Consequently, I am not too sanguine about the likelihood of change, but until someone makes the effort to change things we won't know how difficult change will be. Portland City Club has been one voice that has consistently called for such change.
Post a Comment