'Fixed costs': Why vouchers hurt public schools

Reprinted from the NJEA Reporter, November 2003

Voucher supporters like to tell policymakers that it's only right to take the entire per-pupil expenditure from a school that loses a student to a voucher school. "Why pay for students who no longer attend the school?" they say.

Unfortunately, they ignore the fact that 60 percent or more of a school's budget is tied up in "fixed costs" that must be paid pretty much regardless of enrollment. For example, consider a third-grade class with 22 students. One student leaves for a voucher school, and takes his entire per-pupil expenditure with him. But wait. The teacher still has to be paid. So do cafeteria staff, the custodian, the secretary, the principal, and the nurse. The electric, phone, and water bills still have to be paid. Software and library books still need to be bought, and the driveway still needs to be plowed in the winter.

Those "fixed costs" don't ever go away entirely, and even if an entire class of students leaves, laying off the teacher will only save about a third of the lost funding. But in Milwaukee - the largest voucher program in the nation - an average of only 19 students left each public school for voucher schools. The schools they left behind were left with fewer resources, and the students attending them were short-changed.

When voucher supporters say they can save tax dollars, and that they won't hurt the public schools, they're engaging in fiscal sleight of hand.