Dear Editor:

In a recent letter, the Edgecomb Citizens' Tax Group suggested that "if Edgecomb teachers and staff didn’t have to spread their teaching expertise across an additional 30 tuition students, Edgecomb students logically might receive more personal and effective instruction."

This is true, but it's a trade-off. Those tuition students bring in $375,000 in revenue, which offsets local taxes. If the goal is to reduce taxes by eliminating tuition-in students, it would require cuts such as staff reductions and combining classrooms. Any savings would require consolidating six classrooms into three, which would increase average class size and pose an even greater challenge for educators. Personal and effective instruction would diminish.

Imagine a delivery truck that's three-quarters full. How much more would it cost to deliver the load if it were full? You might think it would cost a little more in gas and perhaps some additional wear and tear on the truck. By the ECTG's logic, however, filling that truck becomes far more expensive. That extra one-quarter load is treated as costing one-quarter of every expense: the driver's compensation, registration, insurance, even windshield wiper fluid. In reality, many of those costs would be the same whether the truck was empty or full. Delivering a full load is generally the most profitable option.

This analogy highlights the difference between marginal cost (the cost of one additional student) and average cost (total cost divided by the number of students). The ECTG has repeatedly conflated these terms. Edgecomb residents deserve the truth about the benefits of tuitioning in students: they lower per-student costs at current capacity and help reduce local taxes.

Forrest Carver

Edgecomb