Mother Talkers

Paying Tuition at Public Schools

Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:34:08 AM PDT

Here is a concept we have never discussed before: paying tuition at a public school. We have discussed school choice, in general, but have never explored whether parents could or should pay for their children to attend public schools in other districts.

Some families in Washington D.C. are doing just that, according to the Washington Post.

It isn't clear, however, if these families are receiving a huge boost than if they attended their local public schools. But they are taking advantage of programs not offered at their local schools like International Baccalaureate, the Post reported.

Tuition-paying students are a small but significant part of the broader movement known as school choice. Several states have enacted open enrollment policies in recent years that require educators to allow families at low-performing schools to transfer not only within but outside their school system, according to the Education Commission of the States.

In Montgomery, Julia is one of 58 students attending 26 county schools this year under the nonresident tuition option, which allows principals to admit students from outside the county if the school has space. Most come from the adjoining D.C. and Prince George's County school systems, each of which has dozens of schools cited for low performance under the No Child Left Behind law. Tuition approximates the per-student cost of an education in Montgomery schools.

The tuition-paying students are scattered across the region: 20 in Fairfax County, 30 in Charles County, six in Loudoun County and one in Alexandria. They pay from $6,415 to $18,886. Even the distressed D.C. school system has 60 students paying tuition, most of them drawn to a handful of specialized high schools.

In Julia Egger's case, her parents are paying $13,627 for her to attend Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School in Maryland where she is enrolled in the IB track. The family lives in Washington D.C. but did not deem its local public high school safe, could not pay $30,000 a year for a private school and did not want to re-locate. Her mother drives her to school. They must leave before 7 a.m. to arrive on time, although the parents of other non-residents work nearby and find the school's location convenient.

I am not sure how I feel about commuting so far away for school and I questioned whether it was fair for these families to write off their local public schools because of NCLB. But it is cool that their dollars are benefiting public schools rather than stuffing the coffers of already endowed private or parochial schools. What do you think? Would you commute and/or pay tuition at a public school?

  • ::

Tags: Washington Post, tuition, public schools, private schools, parochial schools, school choice, Bethesda, Maryland, Virginia, Fairfax, Washington D.C. (all tags)

Permalink | 12 comments

  • I have kids who attend (or have attended) (0 / 0)

    schools all over my city.  They've often had long commutes.  We've made all kinds of choices because frankly, the schools that we are districted for just don't work for my kids.  I spent a long, long time trying to change this, and you know, in the end, my kids suffered for my efforts.  I'm not alone...most of the kids in my neighborhood don't attend the districted neighborhood schools.  While I might wish that these schools could get it together so they were more viable options, it didn't happen in time for my kids, so I did what responsible parents do, I made choices based on the best interest of my children.

    Part of me is bothered, however, by having to pay tuition to attend a public school, whether its in your district or not.  DC is not a great example, because those families are not part of a state...however, I would put forward the idea that if your child wants to attend another school, in your state, and that school has room to accommodate him/her, then the state funds should follow your child.  This, ofcourse, wouldn't even work for my state as we are considered "unconstitutional" because students are funded in an inequitable manner.  

    • amen (0 / 0)

      I agree that funds should follow the student.  But then they would want the funds to go to a private school too, and while that would benefit us directly, it is certainly not going to happen here in Texas.  Since Texas does not have an income tax to support schools, the schools are funded solely through property tax assessments.  We pay a large private school tuition bill.  It feels a little better since we rent, and therefore we don't pay (directly anyway) a school tax assessment.

      It is just so cobbled together from district to district and from state to state that it seems very hard to find a solution.  And without a funding solution, many of the other issues just don't seem to addressed at all.

    • in NJ... (0 / 0)

      it would be hard to have the money follow the student, because each municipality funds a lot of its own school.  (There are regional high schools.)  This is why the property taxes are so high up there.  So state funds don't cover all of the student.

      For the record, if I lived in DC, I would pay to send my kids to a different high school, too.  DC schools are atrocious.

  • Very timely for me (0 / 0)

    I was considering writing a diary about this because it's kind of a long story, but I'll try to give the abridged version.  Here in Colorado, we have a choice system like tjb22 mentioned.  If there is space a district has to take out-of district (OOD) kids.  The way school finance works here, most of the money for operating comes straight from the state following some complicated formula.  Anyway, a district gets a certain amount of $ per student whether they live in district or out.  The property tax money schools get from the district is used for capital improvements, new schools, etc.

    We moved here because of the great reputation of the schools, but now our district is in a financial crisis.  The district is built out, no new construction, and all the aging people are staying - 78% of households have no school-aged children.  Young families have trouble affording houses here.  So, there are all kinds of cuts being made (eliminating the elementary spanish program, for one) and they will most likely be closing an elementary school, ours, of course  :(

    Another thing they are considering doing is marketing to increase our OOD enrollment, as the reason we are in the red is declining enrollment.  The problem is that there is a subset of people here who think that the OOD kids will "dilute" the quality of education and that we have to be careful "what kinds of people we are bringing in." (the lovely words of one of our school board members).  Everyone I know is completely disgusted by that sentiment, but it is there, probably largely among the rich old taxpayers with no kids in school.  In my experience from the OOD people I know, the ones who make the effort to enroll here and drive their kids in from all over are just as involved and invested in their kids' education as people who live here.  Every time I go to a school board meeting and hear that guy I want to move.  I hate the idea that I live in a place where people think that way.

    • I forgot to mention (0 / 0)

      that OOD kids do not pay tuition.

    • Just want to clarify, (0 / 0)

      that I was speaking of my children attending different schools outside of their districted neighborhood schools...not outside the city district itself.  To go out of one's school district, tuition would be charged here because we have an uneven funding system.  I would like to see kids be able to do this.  We don't even have a real open system within our own district.  Families have to choose a reason to transfer. At the high school level it's easier, as our kids can attend another high school within our district if there is a specific class or program he/she wants to enroll in.   For that reason, charter schools have been very popular.  

      When I was still pretty active in education circles, there was a group of parents in our city who were throwing fits, however, about children being allowed to transfer into the elementary school in their very affluent neighborhood.  Sadly, this really lessened my opinion of some of these people who I had thought well of before.  To be blunt, they were downright racist in their attitudes.  Did not want those "other" children coming into "their" school at all...thought they should stay home and go to their own schools.  Well, not a one of these parents would send their children to "those" schools...and I couldn't blame them.  I think its beyond tragic when we keep children in bad schools in order to satisfy some kind of districting or zoning.  I also believe that we're laying yet another heavy, and unfair, burden on poor parents when we tell them that if they want better schools, they are responsible for changing them.  Let me tell you, a poor single mother isn't going to get very far going up against an entrenched power like the public school system.

  • This is pretty common, I think (0 / 0)

    One of my best High School friends did this in the 80's and I've always known folks who made this choice.  I have to say, it always seemed kind of normal to me.  It never occurred to me that it was a provocative choice.  

    Then again, in the Midwest (where I grew up) there just aren't many private high schools.  Maybe that lack of options played into it?

  • paying tuition for public school (0 / 0)

    I live in Florida and I understand hazels position. The good schools are in the areas that cost the most to live and like CO.,we have a large number of senior residence that don't want to fund schools. However,I think it is morally wrong to pay tuition for public schools. Public schools are for everyone and should provide every child the same quality of education. Of course, we all know that we do not live in a perfect world and the reality is that children who live in poor neighborhoods have some of the worst schools in the country. Why should we allow anyone who is able to pay, go to the public school of their choice and those less fortunate, not have equal access to these schools? It's wrong and it's a sad commentary on our society and the state of our educational system.

  • Along the same lines (0 / 0)

    When we lived in DC, my husband's then-boss told us one night at dinner that he and his wife "donated" about $2,000 to the local elementary school. As I understood it, all the parents (probably more like most) agreed to give this money to the school to increase resources. Compared to paying tuition at a private school, this was a pittance. All pooled together it was quite a nice sum of money for the school. Plus all the kids got to go to their neighborhood school together. I actually thought this was a pretty great idea. It would suck if you couldn't afford it and there was pressure to give a big chunk of money like that to the public school which of course, should be free. But this was a ritzy part of the city so I kind of doubt that people were struggling with the payment.

    • This really makes for an uneven school system... (0 / 0)

      But it happens often in D.C.  School funding for public schools is equal, and totally  inadequate across the city. Many schools in the city do not have textbooks or supplies (although they may have fancy computer labs if someone made a targetted donation). But families who live on the western side of the city can send their kids to public school, pay a small amount extra, and have all the resources they need to get a good education. It perpetuates the divisions in the city and adds to the sense of loss and lagging behind for those on the eastern and southern sides of the city.

      On the other hand, BCC, the school mentioned in the article, is our "neighborhood" high school.  My older son is in private primary school and we are on the cusp of making the decision to stay there for middle/high school, or to go public. BCC is a decent school (with major recent renovations), but its not the best in the county.... I'm still weighing my options....

  • a good solution (0 / 0)

    It seems like this family found a way to make their lives work around high school without changing jobs and moving, so bravo to them.

    I questioned whether it was fair for these families to write off their local public schools because of NCLB.

    I guess I'm not sure what "fair" is when it comes to educating our kids.  I think parents, to the best of their ability, should try to make sure their kids are educated.  If the local school is crappy, I don't see the parents looking elsewhere as unfair.  It seems more like due diligence to me.   As tjb22 has pointed out, the idea of staying and trying to make it better doesn't always work out, as parent input is not always welcomed.  

    But it is cool that their dollars are benefiting public schools rather than stuffing the coffers of already endowed private or parochial schools.

    I think many private schools, especially at the K-12 level, are living hand to mouth.  I suppose there are some that are endowed and have stuffed coffers, but I think they're in the minority.  I sure don't see many folks getting rich working in non-profit private schools.  

    • Teachers and staff (0 / 0)

      tend to be paid quite a bit less in private schools.  When there is a need, fundraisers are often the only way to see that the need is met.  The vast majority of private schools are not well endowed "prep" schools.

Permalink | 12 comments