Schools and the Tragedy of the Commons

 

Are you familiar with a theory called "The Tragedy of the Commons"? It's a scenario that's been played out in societies all around the world. A resource (a piece of grazing land, for example), is owned by the city or the town and shared by the citizens of that town, (ie. shepherds). All of the users have an obligation to steward and sustain the common resource for future use. The "Tragedy" arises when individual self-interest trumps restraint and the resource is depleted, (ie. when individual shepherds overgraze).

The concept has been generally applied to the depletion of shared natural resources: over-fishing, pollution, and so forth. And, of course, the scenario actually was played out on Boston Commons. What I would like to propose is that it may also apply to public education, and if so, in a more subtle way than is typically thought.

A simplified version of the argument for privatizing public education (whether by giving cash vouchers for families to spend at private schools or by giving public funds to private entities in the form of charter schools) is this:

The investment we are making is in this individual child, at a rate of between $6,000 and $9,000 a year. We, the people, must get the most out of our investment by giving the child the best education possible. Whether that education comes from a non-public entity or a public one is irrelevant, since the return we expect on our investment comes in the form of that child's education (ie. career prospects, contributions as a citizen, and general well-being). 

It is a convincing, child-centered argument. Considering our cumulative tax dollars as a "gift" to each person of school age. the argument holds. But considering it as a collective investment of public funds, the argument is short-sighted. What it misses is this:

Public schools, their buildings, grounds, and, most importantly, the people who run them, are public assets. We have an interest in their quality and sustainability, not just for the current generation of students in them, but for generations to come. At a public school, the cost of educating an individual student is also an investment in the system that we ourselves own. 

The equivalent per-student cost, paid to a private entity, does not enhance the value of a common, shared resource (the school and its people). It destabilizes the system by failing to invest in the future. 

"School choice" propoenents argue for the savings to the public through privatizing education. Becaue the state doesn't pay for buildings and grounds costs, the per-pupil cost is much less. As are, on average, the teachers' salaries. But we the People don't get a sustainable physical asset (b&g) out of our investment and nor do we get a sustainable human asset (a community of public teachers). 

Of course vouchers and charters are cheaper -- we the People make the investment one kid, one citizen at a time. We lose the other shared asset, the commons of the school itself. The difference in educational quality had better be profound to justify such a trade-off. I'm willing to entertain that it might be, but haven't been convinced yet.