The+Exeter+Myth

The Exeter Myth

//"Private schools have higher test scores because they have more money and recruit high-performing students while expelling low-performing students."//

It is well know that private-school students outperform public-school students, and the reason for this gap is the subject of much debate. Some argue that private-school students experience these superior outcomes only because private schools have more money than public schools, and because private schools recruit high performing students and expel low-performing students while public schools must accept everyone. This is the Exeter Myth - higher achievement in private schools is caused by their selectivity and resources.

The fact is, far from having more money than the public school system, private schools on average spend substantially less money per student than public schools. Neither is it true that private schools are highly selective in admissions or expulsions; on average, private schools actually take almost all comers and expel few of their students.

Research on voucher programs has shown that students randomly selected to attend private schools consistently outperform peers who applied for the same vouchers but were not randomly selected and thus remained in public schools.

The American Federation of Teachers articulated the Exeter Myth clearly: "The critical factor [in higher outcomes for private schools] is that public schools are obliged to take all comers while private schools select their students, turn away applicants who do not meet their standards and are free to get rid of students who do not work out and who generally end up in public schools.

People are willing to believe the Exeter Myth for a variety of reasons. One is that defenders of the status quo in public education repeatedly chalk up the better results at private schools to those schools' alleged special advantages. If private schools perform better than public schools because they're all copies of Exeter with highly selective admissions policies and big stacks of gold bullion secreted away in their basement vaults, then their superior performance doesn't reflect poorly on public schools. But if the reality is that private schools aren't highly selective and spend less money than public schools, their superior performance sends a strong message about the public school system's failure to perform adequately.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, the average private school charged $4,689 per student in tuition for the 1999-2000 school year. That same year, the average public school spent $8.032 per pupil. Among Catholic schools, which educate 48.6 percent of all private-school students, the average tuition was only $3,236.

Even though private schools are not highly selective, they do have somewhat more advantaged student population than public schools. For example, 77.4 percent of private school students are non-Hispanic whites, compared to 61.2 percent of public school students. The willingness of these families to make the financial sacrifice to send their children to private schools may indicate that on average they are families that place a higher value on their children's education than public school families. This might lead us to attribute the superior performance of private school students to their favorable family backgrounds rather than to any quality of their schools.

//Comment: This essay mixes religious private schools with exclusive private schools... there is a difference. The real gains in private schools are for the schools that do recruit from those who can pay the high tuitions. There are also differences in public schools. Public schools located in wealthy communities look different, have different programs, more resources and have higher test scores. This entry could stand some more research.//

Education myths: what special interest groups want you to believe about our schools, and why it isn't so. Jay P. Greene, 2005