August 27, 2009 2:57PM # I Would Rather You Just Said “Thank You, Private Schools,” and Went on Your Way… By [Adam B. Schaeffer](https://www.cato.org/people/adam-b-schaeffer) --- SHARE Some well-known bloggers are being terrible bullies, beating up on private schools. [Felix Salmon](http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/08/25/are-private-schools-charitable-institutions/) kicks things off by hoping the government tightens the definition of a “charitable” organization and begins taxing private schools who don’t “do a bit more to earn it.” [Matt Yglesias](http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/08/school-for-rich-kids-isnt-charity.php) agrees that private schools are mooching deadbeats and ups the ante, calling them actively *harmful* as well. Finally, [Conor Clarke at The Atlantic](http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/08/do_private_schools_serve_the_public_interest.php) agrees, but makes the other two look like panty-waists by proposing the government radically narrow what is considered a charity in the first place. Yglesias even has the temerity to indict private schools for the failure of NYC *public* schools: > And as best one can tell, their main impact on the common weal is *negative*, drawing parents with resources and social capital out of the public school system and contributing to its neglect. You’d have to believe that New York City’s public schools would be both better funded and [free of this kind of nonsense](http://www.quickanded.com/2009/08/the-best-interests-of-teachers.html) if a larger portion of the city’s elite were sending their kids to them. Really? Would we *have* to believe what Yglesias says? No, it’s not “the best one can tell.” According to the evidence, Yglesias’ breezy, offhand accusation is [demonstrably](http://joshua.c.hall.googlepages.com/HallVedder-PrivateSchoolEnrollmentandPublicSchoolPerformanceEvidenceFromOhio-JEP.pdf) [wrong](http://jaypgreene.com/2009/02/23/evidence-shows-vouchers-are-a-win-win-solution/). Increased competition from private schools actually *improves* public school performance. And the more kids who leave public to go private, the [more money](https://www.cato.org/2008/12/16/school-choice-saves-money-and-children/) the schools have for the kids who remain. What ingrates. They complain about the lost tax revenue while dismissing out of hand the *[billions](http://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/9517.pdf)* of dollars that parents and donors spend every year to educate children outside the government system. They dismiss the fact that these parents and donors are [saving taxpayers in the neighborhood of $60 Billion a year](http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_181.asp?referrer=list) based on current-dollar public school spending and the number of [kids](http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tableswhi.asp) in private schools. Finally, if this is all about rich people getting a free ride, why aren’t these guys screaming about means-testing public schools? Why shouldn’t we charge rich parents tuition to attend public schools? If a charitable deduction for private schools is so bad, why isn’t a *free* public education even worse? ##### Related Tags [Education](https://www.cato.org/education), [General](https://www.cato.org/general), [Center for Educational Freedom](https://www.cato.org/center-educational-freedom) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).