Highlights:
A recent report from a progressive advocacy group, the Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP), critiques private investment in the education system. The report reflects fairly standard progressive viewpoints on education, which typically mischaracterizes public spending on schooling, advocates for greater unionization, and dismisses school choice. Each of these views rests on faulty assumptions.
Funding Education
With the exception of providing for the common defense, the clearest example of a public good, there are few government programs for which progressives do not support more lavish public spending. Education is no exception and indeed, the PESP report observes that, “With a federal government that spends ten times more on the military than it does on education.”
The PESP report’s assertion that federal education spending is merely one-tenth of defense spending is misleading. While it’s true that federal contributions to education are relatively small, this perspective overlooks the broader picture of education financing in the United States. Education funding in the U.S. is primarily sourced from state and local governments, with the federal government contributing about 14 percent of total public school funding. Put another way, 85% of education spending comes from state and local governments. This structure results in a combined annual expenditure of $857.3 billion in FY2022, which was over $130 billion more than what the federal government spent on the military in 2022.
Curiously, the PESP report asserts that declining education spending has provided an opportunity for private investment in the space. While that should not trouble education policy observers, it is quite misleading. Again, PESP only focuses on the relative minority of federal spending, and ignores the system overall. According to the most recent comprehensive review of education finances by the Census Bureau, overall spending in recent years has surged.
The Education System is Not a Jobs Program
The report laments the absence of collective bargaining for educators, implying that stronger unions would inherently benefit the education system. However, this perspective warrants a more nuanced examination.
First, PESP has previously allied with teachers’ unions on other progressive advocacy efforts unrelated to education. Teachers’ unions, such as the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA), have historically advocated for policies that align with their members’ interests, which do not always coincide with student welfare.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, these unions were instrumental in prolonging school closures. These extended closures have been linked to significant learning losses. With the pandemic several years behind students, the school closures continue to cause lasting harm. The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores show continued declines in reading, while math aptitude remains well below pre-pandemic trends.
Washington D.C. Public Schools: A Case Study
Washington D.C. public schools exemplify the model advocated by the PESP report—substantial funding, strong union presence, and yet, subpar educational outcomes.
The shortcomings of the public system have led to high demand for alternatives, precisely of the sort that PESP criticizes, such as charter schools. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides vouchers for low-income students to attend private schools, has provided tuition assistance to over 11,000 students since its inception and is serially oversubscribed.
Conclusion
The PESP report reflects a common progressive stance that advocates for increased funding and union influence in education. However, this viewpoint wilts under scrutiny and in the face of the real-world outcomes observed in areas like Washington D.C. Rather than reflexively attack private investment and defend teachers unions, progressive activists should look towards educational models that prioritize student outcomes over ideological commitments.