In Defense of Independent Education

Independent education in British Columbia has had a hard time of it recently. The move by a local Catholic school to suspend Lisa Reimer, a lesbian teacher who made her sexual preferences public, has complicated matters immensely. Hard core advocates of public-only education have taken the opportunity to pile on independent education, calling for a complete rollback of public funding.

Polls and surveys playing off of these calls have popped up in various media outlets. Typically, the questions sound something like this: "Should taxpayer money be used to fund private schools?"

At first glance, the question seems reasonable. The query may even agitate casual observers who may have not otherwise given the matter any serious thought. Independent schools are wealthy enough, one might think. Why should they receive additional funds? Isn't that a drain on the public system?

In order to answer these questions, it is crucial to unwrap the subtle misconceptions loaded into the initial question: "Should taxpayer money be used to fund private schools?" I believe the following essential understandings about this issue not only clarify - but greatly strengthen - the case of independent schools.

1. Parents of students attending independent schools usually pay double the amount paid by their public school counterparts. It's important to note that independent school parents pay their property and provincial taxes, just like their neighbours. These tax streams form the basis of revenue for all public schools in the K-12 system. Independent school parents don't receive a benefit from one cent of these tax contributions directly, however, since their children don't attend local community schools. Instead, these parents make the sacrifice to pay additional tuition (in effect, they pay taxes twice or thrice) in order for their child to receive a different sort of education (often faith-based).
2. Independent schools save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs. The taxpayer dollars spent on each public school student must cover all capital expenses (buildings, facilities, and bus costs). By comparison, independent schools are an absolute bargain. Taxpayers contribute absolutely no separate funding for private school capital expenses of any sort; building campaigns and the like must be supported entirely from the private sector - often the same parent community that is already paying high tuition.
3. Independent schools only receive a portion of the per-student provincial funds made available to their public school counterparts. We've just established that independent schools receive no separate capital funds toward buildings or buses, but the disparity becomes even more apparent when one compares the ratio of funding per student. Most independent schools receive 50% of the per-student grant received by public schools; the more affluent independent schools only receeive 35%. Once again, this is not "extra" taxpayer money going toward a private system; instead, each independent school student represents a significant savings for the province.
4. In no way do independent schools siphon money from the public system. If it hasn't been made sufficiently obvious already, it's important to make this final statement. Independent schools do not threaten the public system in any way. Remember, parents of independent school students pay taxes just like any other citizen. Technically speaking, a portion of their tax dollars goes not only toward the education of their own child ... but also their neighbour's child; tuition payments are then paid in addition.

Parents of independent school students make enormous financial sacrifices. The result is a healthy, efficient, hybrid education system. It's one that penalizes no one, protects the public system, and allows all parents the freedome of choice in education. I'm thankful that we live in a society where such freedoms still exist.