Opinion – Martin Lueken: School choice saves taxpayer dollars and provides a significant return on investment

Opponents warn of budget meltdowns, but their math doesn’t come close to adding up.

School choice has emerged as a defining political issue this year. In states such as Texas and Tennessee, opponents argue that such programs will destroy public-school funding and worsen educational outcomes. These claims don’t hold up. (Editor’s note: In Kentucky voters will see Amendment 2 on the ballot — about public money for private schools.)

Decades of data show that these programs generate substantial fiscal benefits for taxpayers.

A recent EdChoice analysis of 48 school-choice programs across 26 states through 2022 estimates that school-choice programs generated cumulative net fiscal benefits for taxpayers worth between $19.4 billion and $45.6 billion. This translates to up to $7,800 a student. Put another way, for every dollar spent on these programs, taxpayers have saved between $1.70 and $2.64 — a significant return on investment.

Opponents claim that school-choice programs cause budget meltdowns. But these programs represent only a fraction of overall state spending. Across all states with choice programs, total state spending on all public services exceeds $1.2 trillion. The cost for choice programs represents only 0.3% of state budgets. These programs aren’t large enough to upend budgets — and they’re flexible. They typically start small and grow slowly over time, allowing states and districts to adjust their budgets and operations.

Some activists often mischaracterize Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program in particular. They neglect that the program represents a small slice of the state pie—$730 million, or 0.9%, of the $80.5 billion in state spending on public services. In the long run, the current cohort of students in Arizona’s program will generate taxpayers $244 million in annual savings.

School-choice programs also create modest but positive learning, attendance and behavioral outcomes. This holds true when states expand choice programs by eligibility and funding. A 2019 study by a team of researchers at University of Texas, Austin and other universities concluded, “In general, competition resulting from school-choice policies does have a small positive effect on student achievement.” This could “ease critics’ concerns that competition will hurt those students ‘left behind’ due to school-choice policies.”

When students leave public schools for private options through school-choice programs, public schools benefit from reduced class sizes. This allows public-school teachers to focus more on students and tailor learning to their needs. Should enrollment drop, public schools wouldn’t need to fear that they would suddenly lose their funding: States often have protections that shield districts from immediate financial losses due to declining enrollment. They would be given time to adjust their budgets, meaning that the financial effect of school choice would be gradual and manageable.

The fiscal and educational benefits of choice programs are clear — and they are only beginning. When we expand education options, we can expect crime rates to decrease and youth mental-health outcomes to improve. Instead of retreating from choice programs, policy makers should embrace efforts to expand education options for families as fiscally responsible and educationally sound policy for the future.

Martin F. Lueken is director of the Fiscal Research and Education Center at EdChoice. This commentary first appeared in the Wall Street Journal and was shared by EDChoice Kentucky.

The post Opinion – Martin Lueken: School choice saves taxpayer dollars and provides a significant return on investment appeared first on NKyTribune .