The imposition of public schoolfees may be growing in importance as a supplement to general revenues that support schools. This article considers user charges from the perspective of taxation theory. Its most relevant aspects are the benefit principle, ability-to-pay, yield, neutrality, and administrative costs. Information about schoolfees was gathered from 18 public secondary schools within five districts. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 43 superintendents, principals, and teachers using a purposeful sampling strategy. Interviewees invoked both the benefit and ability-to-pay principles regarding fees and fee waivers. Students were offered more extensive choices, but the imposition of fees probably distorted their selection. Administrative costs were incurred through extensive collection arrangements, some burden on teachers, and problems of compliance. In general, taxation theory provided an appropriate framework for this inquiry, and the interview technique was a very useful method to gain knowledge about school fees.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Benson, C. (1978). The economics of public education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
2.
Brown, D., & Bouman, C. (1996, March). Policies on fees in public schools.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Finance Association, Salt Lake City, UT.
3.
Bulthaus, R. L. (1983). The analysis of expenditures, costs, and fees related to student participation in selected Iowa public high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
4.
Cameron, M. G. (1969). Academic service charges to students in the public high schools of Arkansas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
5.
Catterall, J. S., & Brizendine, E. (1985). Proposition 13: Effects on high school curricula.American Journal of Education, 93, 327-351.
6.
Eckstein, O. (1973) Public finance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7.
Foutch, C. V. (1975). A descriptive study of fees and incidental costs to students participating in the public schools within Butler County, Ohio during the 1974-75 school year. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Miami University, Oxford, OH.
8.
Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (1981). Free to choose: A personal statement. New York: Avon.
9.
Goldman, J. P. (1991). User fees to the rescue? The School Administrator, 48(4), 30-31.
10.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Guthrie, J. W., Garms, W. I., & Pierce, L. (1988). School finance and educational policy: Enhancing educational efficiency, equality, and choice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12.
Hamm, R. W., & Crosser, S. (1991). School fees.The American School Board Journal, 178(6), 29-31.
13.
Haviland, J. (1988). Take care, Mr. Baker!London: Fourth Estate.
14.
Katz, D. (1979). Proposition 13 and the public schools: The first year.Unpublished paper prepared for the Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance, Center for Educational Research, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
15.
Kirkman, D. H. (1982). Legal aspects of school fees inpublic elementary and secondary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Greensborough, NC.
16.
Lincoln, Y S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
17.
Lloyd, P. J. (1989). Calculating costs and setting fees for university tuition.Journal of Tertiary Educational Administration, 11(1), 5-14.
18.
Monk, D. H. (1988). Educationalfinance: An economic approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1984). Quantitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
20.
Musgrave, R. A., Musgrave, P. B., & Bird, R. M. (1987). Public finance in theory and practice. Toronto, Ontario: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
21.
Mushkin, S. B. (Ed.). (1972). Public prices for public goods. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
22.
New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. (1993). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
23.
Nimmer, D. N. (1994). Comparison of tuition/fees charged to out-of-state and international students.College Student Journal, 28, 402-407.
24.
Phillips, C. E. (1957). The development of education in Canada. Toronto, Ontario: Gage.
25.
Salloum, K. (1985). Private funding for elementary and secondary public education in British Columbia for 1983-84. Unpublished masters thesis, Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
26.
St. John, E. P., Starkey, J. B., Paulsen, M. B., & Mbaduagha, L. A. (1995). The influence of prices and price subsidies on within-year persistence by students in proprietary schools.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(2), 149-165.
27.
Stabler, D. A. (1982). Participation fees in public schools in southern California. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
28.
Van House, N. A. (1983). Public library user fees: The use and finance of public libraries. London: Greenwood.
29.
Vetere, M. J. (1986). The legal aspects of assessing additional fees to public school students for participation in curricular and extracurricular activities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
30.
Walker, W. (1953). A study of pupil participation costs in the public secondary schools of Arkansas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
31.
Waters, H. L. (1969). A study of the hidden costs of education in selected secondary schools in the State of Georgia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, Birmingham.
