Public Schools Charge Tuition, Just Like Private Schools
All too often, admission is only open to students whose families can afford a home inside the districts’ boundaries or pay transfer student tuition.

Public schools are often lauded as the bedrock of democracy, especially when supporters claim that public schools take all comers. But the truth is that public schools aren't open to all.
All too often, admission is only open to students whose families can afford to buy or rent a home inside the districts' boundaries or pay transfer student tuition. In 33 states, students living outside a district's boundaries can be barred from its schools simply because of their geographic location.
Most states permit some form of open enrollment, which lets students attend public schools other than their residentially assigned one. However, 24 states also let school districts charge tuition to transfer students.
This means that transfer students and their families can be on the hook for pricey public school tuition. For instance, Clayton School District in Missouri charged the families of non-resident students in kindergarten through the fifth grade $18,300 and those in the sixth through 12th grades $19,400 for the 2023-24 school year.
In Virginia, Reason Foundation found that the average tuition rate in 72 school divisions that permitted cross-district transfers was $4,000, with rates peaking at $24,000 per student at Meridian High School in Falls Church.
At the same time, New York's Tuxedo Union Free School District charged non-resident students in the seventh through 12th grades $11,000 annually for the 2022-23 school year. Yet this pales in comparison to the $20,200 charged annually by Pelham Public Schools that same year.
In cases like these, tuition makes schools out of reach for many students, especially those from low-income families.
Sometimes, neighboring school districts establish special agreements to pay tuition for each other's transfer students. Proponents might argue that these dollars help offset the costs of new students, but in many instances, it's clear that districts are selling seats to rake in extra cash.
For example, when Dacia Mumford was elected in 2022 to the school board of the West Lafayette Community School Corporation in Indiana, she discovered that the district's superintendent used transfer tuition funds as a "slush fund" for travel and other dubious expenses.
She found that tuition funds were diverted to a "Promotion of Schools/RATM" fund which were funneled to credit cards used at the superintendent's discretion. Mumford found that he used these funds to pay for various travel expenses, including a trip overseas.
"The April 2019 credit card statement shows $14,837 in payments to a travel agency for what seems to be the trip to London, though the destination is redacted," Mumford wrote in a September 2022 blog post. "There are also charges for a couple of thousand-dollar meals and several hotel rooms in Philadelphia that appear to be part of a trip for school board members."
With the school board's approval, these funds paid for the superintendent's and others' travel to a London concert in celebration of new school buildings, one of which, Mumford noted, was named after a performer's family member.
Moreover, these purchases occurred the same month the school board voted to fire all first-year teachers at the district's elementary and middle schools to save costs.
While most school districts have better oversight of transfer student tuition funds, this example highlights how some are willing to sell their seats for the right price.
However, state policymakers are beginning to take note and recognize that charging families public school tuition is an oxymoron. Last year, state policymakers in Montana and North Dakota established laws stopping school districts from charging tuition to students using open enrollment.
This year, Indiana policymakers followed suit. Gov. Eric Holcomb signed H.B. 1380 into law which stops school districts from charging transfer students public school tuition or any other fee associated with the transfer.
This is a major victory for the 87,000 students in Indiana who use open enrollment or some other transfer mechanism to attend a public school other than their residentially assigned one.
This reform is long overdue, since Indiana's constitution guarantees that public schools are open to all students. Yet, in practice, school districts could bar their doors to transfer students who can't pay the price of admission.
Indiana's new law ensures that school districts cannot use open enrollment to sell seats, making Indiana the 26th state where public schools are free to all students. Policymakers in the remaining 24 states should follow suit and ensure that public education isn't free in name only.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In the district I grew up in, it cost 3x per student to run the public high school, compared to what the private one I attended charged for tuition. And they had larger class sizes, lower test scores, and more problems.
I wonder why.
^EXACTLY This.
Commie-‘Guns’ don’t teach kids anymore than they grow food and make sh*t. They just enslave (turn citizens into labor-slaves) at the end of that ‘gun’ for some criminally minded lazy-*ss utopian dream of having a nation of slaves at their disposal. If those statements above weren't 100% true then there would be absolutely no reason to involve ‘gov-guns’ in anything short of maintaining Individual Liberty and Justice for all against thieves and greedy-dictators putting on a show as being saviors of ?charity? (armed-theft).
A local school district charged parents $120 for a background check to volunteer at their child's school and student parking at the Senior High School was $250 per year. For years those funds were not accounted for and no background checks were ever done.
This is just silly! At best it represents a misunderstanding of the meaning of “open to all” and at worst it totally misrepresents the fact that in almost every school district in America there are at least some residents who neither own their own homes nor pay rent to live in that district. Free education is only free for people on welfare who pay no school taxes. School district taxes are almost all property value based, although some funding comes from state taxes originally gathered from sales taxes and other state fees; and from Federal grants funded somewhat by income taxes. I cannot imagine anyone reasonable trying to tout a totally open-doors policy for every school district in America! How would a school building designed to hold a thousand students a day cope with an extra five hundred per day from outside the district just because they wanted to attend there? At the very least they would have to limit transfers to available slots after all of the residents had been admitted, which could not even remotely be considered to be “open doors.”
Pie in the sky utopian thinking.
Listen for a second. The people who teach and those who make the laws about schools AVOID this whenever they want
TEACHERS
Roughly 20% of public school teachers have sent their own children to private schools. Three out of ten have utilized some alternative schooling option – charter, private, or home
EDUCATION LAWMAKERS
41% of representatives in the House and 46% of U.S. senators send or have sent at least one of their children to a private school
So, your argument betrays a certain contempt for parents and kids
So the gist of this article is that "free" public schools are great except they need to be more "free".
Did someone say this was a libertarian website?
The gist of this article is right there in the lede.
“Public schools are often lauded as the bedrock of democracy, especially when supporters claim that public schools take all comers. But the truth is that public schools aren't open to all.”
The kids can attend the schools where they live, but want to go where they don't live. So more "free".
Not even close to what the article is about.
The kids can attend the schools where their parents can afford to live. But differential cost of moving is hard to measure so the transfer costs are a proxy for those costs of moving to a better district. And those transfer costs are real and high.
Conclusion: "free" public school isn't free so stop using that false claim as a cudgel against for-profit schools.
free and more free still con't cover the issue. No one is going to pay for you to move so you can take advantage of this
And with Biden pushing hard to destroy any real differentiation about students (dumb-smart,citizen-immigrant, pervert sex change lunatic-normal child) we will have free schools that don't teach a damn thing because the spectrum from dumb-as-a-rock to Mensa material will weed out the only people that should be in school
Huh? Never heard that before.
It's an odd argument too, since I'm paying the same property tax rates, even though I have no children.
^UR the Gov-Gun slave. Now get back to work or the Commies will steal your house.
The highest correlation to student academic achievement is parental involvement.
One of the best ways to get parents more involved is to charge tuition.
The best way to improve education in America would be to close all the government-run ("public") schools this summer, lay off all the staff, and sell the buildings to the highest bidder.
Entrepreneurs would compete to offer competitively priced educational services to parents, without all the state mandates and bureaucratic overhead.
Would grocery stores be better if the government ran them? We already know the answer to that one.
What about poor children whose parents can't afford school? So many people express so much concern for them, that any number of educational charities could be started to provide need-based scholarships.
Just image how 'smart' US residents would become if they were actually taught by actual prosperity earners instead of endless cost-liable bureaucratic garbage and politician demands.
What if those noble public school teachers who care only about kids were chained to their desks and never paid again (except in food that some sympathetic kids might bring each morning).
This means that transfer students and their families can be on the hook for pricey public school tuition.
Only if they choose to.
What's nice is to see that even public schools can see the merit of a for-profit education system. By requiring compensation, they effectively turn their education into an investment that they then have to provide returns on to those paying it. The parents can obviously discern which investments provide greater returns and invest their money accordingly. Meanwhile the schools that fail to deliver returns wither on the vine, as they should.
Seems like all the more reason to end the whole public school system entirely. The taxpayers are propping up a failing business.
+10000000 That day 'gov-gun' armed-theft became a legal business model all on its own.
I don't know if libertarianism is totally fucked out or if it's just the hacks at Reason. A bit of both, I suppose.
If they want to write articles supporting charters / vouchers or abolishing 'public' school altogether, I'm there for it. Why the hell they would take issue with admission being largely limited to the local homeowners who PAY FOR THE FUCKING SCHOOLS is beyond me. It's like they don't even have a basic grasp of what libertarianism did / does / should mean.
But I guess anything is better than their stance on open borders and drug legalization. You certainly wouldn't want to look at the results of those policies and admit you were 100% wrong. What a joke this philosophy has become.
It’s like they don’t even have a basic grasp of what libertarianism did / does / should mean.
Their apparent definition of it is "Marxism, with lots of drugs and no cops."
The open borders contingent will argue that people from around the world should be able to walk in and have their children attend whichever public school they wish. Again, as if schools are funded by magic.
Chicken/Egg problem?
Here in my part of the world, we had a semi-rural sub-suburban area districted to one school that was highly rated. Housing prices were above average. As development increased, they needed to redistribute the student population. Those redistricted to the more lamentable school saw their housing values plummet.
You lament the housing cost in good school districts, ignoring the supply/demand problem. School choice won’t fix that without the involvement of very non-libertarian ideas.
Why are “libertarians” whining about the natural outcome of supply/demand? A good school is a draw for people and there’s only so much you can fit within a certain area… and even if you added more dense housing (it’s still not ever going to be unlimited), schools can only accommodate a certain number of students… it’s not infinite. And new schools will have to be built, causing the same issues all over again.
But you know, don’t let reality intrude on your utopian pie sky dreams.
Good schools are directly related to two things:
1) school board
2) local culture
Mess with either of those, and it affects your local school. And that causes (yes, cause) housing price changes.
Our school board elections are coming up in 2 weeks. I got a flyer on my door yesterday from one of the candidates with a list of her priorities:
- Defending DEI
- Raising teacher salaries
- Expanding school district facilities
Etc, the list went on. Nowhere did it mention anything about students, reducing classroom sizes, raising test scores, improving college placement - you know, things to do with the quality of the education.