Jordan Wald

Minot

Legislators are considering Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) for North Dakota students. ESAs use parent-directed state dollars to select educational services from approved vendors. Several outcomes are expected from an ESA program: greater parental autonomy over their children’s education, better outcomes for students, and more efficient use of tax-payer dollars through a more robust educational marketplace. If North Dakota has a relatively homogenous educational landscape with very few options for parents and children, we shouldn’t be surprised. This comes from subsidizing only one kind of education. We’ve created this educational monopoly through economic incentives, and we are reaping the results of a monopolistic policy: inefficiency and lack of choice in the marketplace.

Economist Thomas Sowell writes in his work Basic Economics: “Monopoly is the enemy of efficiency, whether under capitalism or socialism. Even in a mixed economy, with some economic activities being carried out by government and others being carried out by private industry, the government’s activities are typically monopolies, while those in the private marketplace are typically activities carried out by rival enterprises.” (Sowell, 2015, p. 180) While one may argue that public schools are not monopolies because other schools do exist, it is also true that those schools are nowhere near free to attend. This places a high barrier to competition in the marketplace; making other educational options less available.

Taxpayers should look at the debate on ESAs from the perspective of the state’s interests in education. Why does North Dakota’s constitution talk about education at all? The answer is simple: educated voters are necessary for the “prosperity and happiness of the people” in government by the people. By keeping the purpose of the state’s involvement in education in mind we can think more clearly about ESAs. Opponents to ESAs often argue that “public dollars should only go to public schools.” This argument confuses the means with the end regarding the state’s involvement with education. I agree that the state should only fund education which serves its interests. The state’s interests, however, are not identical with and limited to public schools.

Parents have a natural right to direct the education of their children. Pierce v. Society of Sisters recognized that parents cannot be compelled to put their children in a public school. While the state must fund free public schools, it should also support parents for whom non-public school education is best for their children: both are means to the same end. Similarly to other areas of our lives where personal and public interests are intertwined, for example healthcare, public dollars should go where those dollars satisfy the state’s interests regardless of whether the service provider is governmental. In the case of ESAs, public dollars are still serving North Dakota’s educational interests by empowering parents to exercise their right to direct their children’s education while also creating a more efficient and optimized educational marketplace responsive to the needs of children. ESAs are a win-win proposal for our state.