Archives for category: Vouchers

Colorado Senator Michael Bennett was previously superintendent of schools in Denver. There he set off the school choice frenzy and led the parade to open charters. Now he finds himself trying to explain that he is different from Betsy DeVos. He is a Democrat, one of DFER’s champions. She is a Republican, Trump’s pick as Secretary of Education. He sold out public education. She wants to privatize it. She loves vouchers. He doesn’t. She is a choice ideologue. So is he.

See the difference? Look closer. No, closer still. I know it’s hard but keep trying.

News for those who stayed home on Election Day 2016 or voted third party because Hillary was “just as bad as Trump.” The first casualty of Trump’s election might be the state bans on vouchers for religious schools.

Politico reports today:

SUPREME COURT COULD CLEAR ROADBLOCKS TO SCHOOL VOUCHERS: The Supreme Court on Wednesday is set to hear a case that could have huge implications for school voucher programs. At issue is an 1875 provision of Missouri’s Constitution banning public money from going “directly or indirectly” to religious groups, including schools. Similar provisions, called Blaine Amendments, exist in roughly three dozen states and have been a major barrier to school vouchers. They’ve also proved resilient, surviving numerous state ballot repeal efforts – including an unsuccessful Michigan initiative pushed by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos nearly two decades ago.

– Religious groups see this and a related Colorado case as their best shots at scrapping the amendments – and they believe Neil Gorsuch, who just took his seat on the high court, will take their side. They point to Gorsuch’s deference to religious rights in other cases. Most notably, while on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, he backed a religious challenge to the Affordable Care Act – joining the panel’s majority in the Hobby Lobby case to rule that the Obama administration could not require a closely-held business to offer contraceptive coverage if that interfered with the owners’ religious beliefs – a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court. In another case, he ruled that a Wyoming prison had to provide a sweat lodge to a Native American for his religious practices.

– Court watchers believe Gorsuch might cast a tie-breaking vote since the court had apparently delayed arguments in the Missouri case until they had a ninth justice. “The justices have likely seen this as a case on which they would have been divided four to four,” said Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University. “They must expect that Gorsuch will be the deciding fifth vote.” Benjamin Wermund has more on that here.

– There is a chance the case could get tossed out . The case hinges on the state’s denial of Trinity Lutheran Church’s request for a grant to reimburse the cost of resurfacing its preschool playground with recycled tires. State officials said the Blaine Amendment prevented it from aiding the church in any way. But late last week, Missouri’s newly elected Gov. Eric Greitens, a Republican, announced that he has directed the state agency to consider religious organizations for such grants. The parties on both sides must submit their views by noon today on whether the the announcement makes the legal dispute moot. Even if the justices dismiss this case, they could soon hear the same issues in a pending Colorado case in which the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State claim a school voucher program violates the state’s no-aid clause.

Gene V. Glass, one of our nation’s most eminent education researchers, writes here about the Big Lie embedded in Arizona’s voucher program.

http://ed2worlds.blogspot.com/2017/04/what-goes-around-comes-around-voucher.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+EducationInTwoWorlds+(Education+in+Two+Worlds)&m=1

The program began as vouchers for students with special needs (although we now know that students with disabilities abandon their rights when they leave the public system).

Glass writes:

“Originally intended only for special needs students, it was broadened to include children of military serving in Iraq & Afghanistan, and then children living on Indian reservations. The cynical intent is obvious.

“The latest incarnation of the program will expand the program by 5,000 students per year until a cap of 30,000 is reached.

“Even Republicans were reluctant to support the expansion, probably because of persistent non-support of vouchers among the voting public. The latest PDK Gallup poll continues to show more than 60% of parents opposed.

“Big lobby pressure to expand the program came from the local Goldwater Institute. When a compromise on the 5,000 per year expansion was reached, the reluctant Republicans fell in line.”

And then the scammers at the Goldwater Institute scammed their dupes in the Legislature. They immediately boasted that the cap would soon be abolished altogether, and everyone could get a voucher.

The Legislature proved itself to be lap dogs of the Goldwater Institute and Betsy DeVos. They betrayed public schools and their constituents by extending the privatization of a democratic institution.

Arizona is in a Race to the Bottom.

I am way too late in starting this new feature of the blog. It is called the Wall of Shame. The Arizona Legislature and Governor Ducey will be the first to receive this Badge of Shame.

Sara Stevenson, librarian at the O. Henry Middle School in Texas, signed up to testify at 8 am in opposition to the Senate bill authorizing vouchers. She says she was the fifth person to sign up. She went to work and returned at 2 pm and waited until 8 pm to be called. She wrote an opinion piece in the Austin American-Statesman about the hearing. She maintained that people were called at random and it didn’t matter when she signed up.

Sara is already on the honor roll of the blog. She is a living example of the power of resistance, relentlessness, and readiness. The new Three Rs.

Politifact reviewed her claim and concluded that she was right.

The Texas State Senate loves vouchers, but the House of Representatives does not. The bill passed the Senate and went down to crushing defeat in the House.

From a reading of the Politifact report, it appears that the order was not very random. In fact, the order suggests that pro-voucher witnesses were called first, and that pro-voucher witnesses had a better chance to testify than those who opposed vouchers.

The lead witnesses, we found, included advocates such as a former Wisconsin gubernatorial aide and delegates from the conservative Heritage Foundation and Charles Koch and Goldwater institutes. Also, all but one of eight initial witnesses backed SB 3; Donna Corbin of Lubbock, president of the Texas Classroom Teachers Association, expressed opposition.

And how did Corbin land that spotlight? By phone, the association’s Lonnie Hollingsworth said Corbin wasn’t an invited expert. Rather, he said, the association had alerted a committee clerk that Corbin had to catch a flight.

Back to the video: In eight-plus hours of testimony after senators returned from a midday recess, people were called to testify mostly in groups of four.

And by our count, before Stevenson was called to speak, followed by 25-plus others, the people who testified included 45 individuals speaking in support of Taylor’s measure, 29 opposed and a few speaking “on” his proposal.

All told, according to the committee’s alphabetized list of individuals who testified, 67 witnesses ended up speaking in favor of SB 3, 40 expressed opposition and 12 testified without registering a position. In contrast, among 154 people who registered a position without testifying, 38 were in favor, 110 were against and six took no position, the list indicates.

An Ohio legislator has proposed lifting the income cap for private school vouchers, so that 74% of all families in Ohio would be eligible to use a voucher to attend a religious or private school.

The cost estimates of this proposal range from $70 million to $1.2 billion (if every eligible student were to use a voucher). The assumption–or hope–is that not every eligible student would use a voucher because there are not enough seats available in nonpublic schools. Presumably there would be an explosion of new private schools to take advantage of the money.

This is money that would be transferred from public schools to nonpublic schools. The public schools would essentially be defunded to favor religious and private schools.

The irony in this enthusiasm for vouchers in Ohio is that the voucher-friendly conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute recently released a study showing that students in Ohio who take vouchers to enroll in nonpublic schools actually lost ground academically as compared to their peers in public schools.

Does anyone in the Ohio legislature look at evidence?

Does Ohio want to destroy its future?

This post was written by a woman in Indiana who requested anonymity to protect the identity of her step-son.

The Reality of Indiana Vouchers

My husband’s child goes to an expensive private Catholic high school in Indianapolis. By a divorce agreement, my husband must pay for the child’s education at this school. To respect privacy, I will call the child “A.” If the administrators of the school were to figure out that A was the subject of this account, A would be expelled even though there are only a few weeks to graduation.

A started at the private school in the 2013/14 school year. At the time, my husband had the financial resources to pay the $20,500 per year tuition and fees. Cancer put an end to his career in the middle of A’s 9th grade school year and suddenly the ability to pay for this school by a court order was in jeopardy. After a discussion with the business office at the private school, it was determined that my husband would qualify for financial aid, but he would have to apply for the state voucher to get the financial aid. My husband had a very public career where he spoke out against vouchers and worked in politics to defeat voucher legislation. Even though he was politically and morally opposed to the vouchers, he was in a position where he had to participate.

“A“ had difficulty with the school from the very beginning of the Freshman year. Teachers often reminded A of the exclusivity of the school, and how A was lucky to be attending, as a reprimand for poor performance in their classes. A’s mother and my husband were encouraged to have A evaluated, and the determination was made that A was depressed and needed counseling. The school psychologist told A and the parents that they should not reveal the depression to the school because A would most likely be “kicked out,” and not allowed to finish the year.

The psychologist changed the diagnosis to ADHD, the mother put A on medication and A was required to be enrolled in the school’s “Learning Center,” a resource room for students with special needs. My husband and the mother of A asked for an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for A, but the school failed to provide the IEP, and there was never any goal or plan for A in the Learning Center, only that A have access to the center. The Learning Center added an additional $2,500 per year to the cost of the school and was often short staffed by only one teacher for over 200 students.

“A” was required to take AP classes and the tests for the AP courses. Although A always scored well on tests, classes were a struggle. Teachers offered A little help and berated A for asking for help. Not once were we contacted or informed about A’s struggle keeping up with homework and assignments. Once we found out, my husband encouraged me as a teacher to assist A with homework and A welcomed the help. A’s mother objected to my participation and went to the school to have both my husband and myself banned from the school premises and outside activities. This was done without any meetings with the principal, any discussion of the issue or any legal proceedings barring us from the school.

In other words, we had no rights as parents of a student to dispute the mother’s claim, although we were required to pay the $6,000 of tuition left after the financial aid and voucher payments, we were not allowed to set foot in the school that we were scraping every penny together to pay for.

In the following years, A continued to have issues with the school because of our economic status. To participate in sports activities (which we could not attend), we had to fork over nearly $1,000 for equipment use and uniforms; band was out because we would have had to purchase or lease instruments for far more than we could afford; class trips or field trips were off the table because of the cost and the requirement that we provide transportation, pay for expensive air travel. The ultimate embarrassment came from having A’s car driving privileges rejected because the 1999 Honda Civic we provided for A to drive was “too old” and did not meet the safety criteria for student vehicles.
A eventually had far too many classroom issues for the school to tolerate in the upcoming senior year; A had to bring up the grades or face expulsion. At the same time, our financial aid was cut in half and we had to pay $10,000 after financial aid and voucher money was applied for the senior year tuition, an amount that was completely out of reach for a family that lived on a teacher’s salary and social security. We worked out a payment deal with the school and A could stay if grades improved which they did. A went on to take the ACT and SAT and received a perfect score on the ACT and a few points shy of perfect on the SAT. Suddenly, the student that was near expulsion was the golden child and the private school took all the credit for A’s remarkable accomplishment. The school wanted to use A’s high test scores as part of a marketing campaign that would claim the “poor kid” on financial aid and vouchers could succeed only because of the private school, not the efforts of A. If we agreed to this exploitation of A, the school would waive half of the $10,000 we owed. Of course, we did not agree. Loans from amazingly wonderful family and friends helped us pay the balance and A will graduate in a few weeks and go on to a state university with a full scholarship next school year.

Private schools are not a good fit for all students. They don’t allow the students and families any rights, the primary interest of the school is financial, and they are accountable to no one. It is clear to me and almost anyone else that had been in our situation, that the sole purpose of state vouchers is to support the students that already attend private schools, and to promote economic segregation. Vouchers fit into the ideology of those that believe there are those deserving of “good” education, and there are those who only deserve training that allows them to function in society; and that is an abuse of our tax dollars but most importantly of the children.

The state of Indiana had to fork over $21,000 in tax dollars to help pay the tuition of religious school that denied A and the family of our rights, forced A to be labeled with a learning disability that was false, blocked A from the normal high school activities such as band, sports and even just driving to and from school because of our economic status. I am sorry we had to do that to the state, but I am sorrier for A and what A had to endure to go to the “good” school. I hope one day these vouchers will stop, solely for the sake of kids like A.

Jeff Bryant writes that Congress is in recess until April 23 and this is the time to reach out and speak to your member of Congress and your members of the state legislature about protecting public education against the DeVos privatization agenda.

Join with your friends and neighbors.

Join the Network for Public Education. Use its toolkit to inform yourself about the issues.

Jeff writes:

Why should you care?

Whether you have school-age children or not, you have a lot at stake in the struggle to ensure public schools continue to benefit the public.

Public education is America’s most collaborative endeavor by far. We all pay taxes to support public schools. Schools are community anchors like main streets, town halls, public parks, churches, and community centers. And we depend on public schools to prepare our future workers, entrepreneurs, and citizens. Public schools are the foundation of our democracy where students learn to respect and appreciate others who are different from them and schools model civic values to students and the community.

But public schools are imperiled, which means our democracy, and our future, is too.

If you doubt that at all, just review prominent news stories from the past few days. They present ample evidence of the widespread effort to turn public education into opportunities for private gain.

The Trump-DeVos regime has nothing positive for public schools. They want to turn your tax dollars over to entrepreneurs and corporate chain schools and religious schools. This is not about better education. It is about turning our tax dollars into someone else’s profit or treasury.

Vouchers! Failed.

Charters! Failed.

Cyber Charters! Failed.

There is nothing new in this agenda, nothing that hasn’t been tried for the past 25 years without success.

Consider a recent news story from the other side of the continent. As the Los Angeles Times reports, a new study by pro-public advocacy group In the Public Interest finds that in California, charter schools are getting billions of dollars in state funding to open in places where they’re not needed and compete with public schools for students and precious education resources.

The report reveals that that three-quarters of these charters do worse on standardized tests than comparable public schools, and hundreds of them have been caught red-handed by the American Civil Liberties Union for maintaining discriminatory enrollment policies. Much of the money taxpayers provide goes to charter schools that are part of large chains that operate statewide and across the country. And charter organizations use public funds to purchase vast tracts of real estate and buildings they profit from and can retain even if the school operation shuts down.

Although the study is confined to California, the findings are likely similar to what occurs in the charter industry in other states, says report author Gordon Laffer, during a media call. What’s also worrisome, says ITPI Executive Director Donald Cohen during the call, is that Secretary DeVos and President Trump are strong supporters of charter schools, pledging to provide federal funds to incentivize the spread of these schools.

RESIST!

Dana Goldstein is a noted education journalist who joined the New York Times shortly after Trump’s inauguration. As she writes, she began to focus on vouchers since that would be the focus of this new administration.

Betsy DeVos has held up the Florida voucher program as a national model, so Goldstein went to Florida to learn about the McKay Scholarship Program, which provides vouchers for students with disabilities (Jeb Bush wanted vouchers for the general population, but his referendum to change the state constitution was rejected by voters, and the voucher legislation he passed anyway was overturned by the courts, leaving only the McKay program in place.) Thirty thousands students with disabilities are enrolled in the program.

Goldstein writes that the McKay voucher program has a hidden cost: students relinquish their state and federal rights when they leave the public schools for a private school. Many parents are unaware that they abandon their civil rights protections under the IDEA law when they leave the public schools.

Vouchers for special needs students have been endorsed by the Trump administration, and they are often heavily promoted by state education departments and by private schools, which rely on them for tuition dollars. So for families that feel as if they are sinking amid academic struggles and behavioral meltdowns, they may seem like a life raft. And often they are.

But there’s a catch. By accepting the vouchers, families may be unknowingly giving up their rights to the very help they were hoping to gain. The government is still footing the bill, but when students use vouchers to get into private school, they lose most of the protections of the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.

During Betsy DeVos’s confirmation hearings, she spoke glowingly about the Florida program. Senator Tim Kaine asked her what she thought about students forfeiting their rights under federal law, but she was unfamiliar with the federal law. She thought that the provision of services should be left to the states, and Sen. Kaine was surprised that she did not realize that students with special needs were protected by federal law.

As Goldstein notes, many parents are disappointed with the services provided by their public school, but when they get to the voucher school, they discover they no longer have the rights they were used to.

In the meantime, public schools and states are able to transfer out children who put a big drain on their budgets, while some private schools end up with students they are not equipped to handle, sometimes asking them to leave. And none of this is against the rules….

Legal experts say parents who use the vouchers are largely unaware that by participating in programs like McKay, they are waiving most of their children’s rights under IDEA, the landmark 1975 federal civil rights law. Depending on the voucher program, the rights being waived can include the right to a free education; the right to the same level of special-education services that a child would be eligible for in a public school; the right to a state-certified or college-educated teacher; and the right to a hearing to dispute disciplinary action against a child.

It’s not just Florida. Private school choice programs in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Tennessee and Wisconsin also require parents to waive all or most IDEA rights. In several other states, the law is silent on the disability rights of voucher students.

One of the children she profiles is attending an online charter school and getting visits from specialists two-to-three times a week. What he does not get is the social interaction with other children.

What we have learned about Betsy DeVos is this.

She doesn’t like public schools, unless they are “great schools,” which they seldom are, because they are government schools, dead ends, and godless.

In this article, Emma Brown of the Washington Post describes the schools that DeVos loves: they are religious; they are Christian; they don’t have to be accountable to the state; their teachers don’t have to be certified; if they fail, they aren’t closed; if they teach creationism, that’s fine.

Florida has channeled billions of taxpayer dollars into scholarships for poor children to attend private schools over the past 15 years, using tax credits to build a laboratory for school choice that the Trump administration holds up as a model for the nation.


The voucherlike program, the largest of its kind in the country, helps pay tuition for nearly 100,000 students from low-income families.
But there is scant evidence that these students fare better academically than their peers in public schools.

And there is a perennial debate about whether the state should support private schools that are mostly religious, do not require teachers to hold credentials and are not required to meet minimal performance standards. Florida private schools must administer one of several standardized tests to scholarship recipients, but there are no consequences for consistently poor results.


“After the students leave us, the public loses any sense of accountability or scrutiny of the outcomes,” said Alberto Carvalho, the superintendent of Miami-Dade County public schools. He wonders what happens to the 25,000 students from the county who receive the scholarships. “It’s very difficult to gauge whether they’re hitting the mark.”


Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, a longtime advocate for school choice, does not seem to be bothered by that complaint.




Students play chess during an enrichment class at Academy Prep, a private middle school in Tampa that includes students from low-income families who receive tax-credit scholarships to attend. Academy Prep students go to school 11 hours per day and nearly 11 months per year. She is driven instead by the faith that children need and deserve alternatives to traditional public schools. At a recent public forum, DeVos said her record in office should be graded on expansion of choice-friendly policies. She did not embrace a suggestion that she be judged on academic outcomes. “I’m not a numbers person,” she said.


In a nutshell, that explains how the Trump administration wants to change the terms of the debate over education policy in the United States.


In the past quarter-century, Republican and Democratic administrations focused on holding schools and educators accountable for student performance.


Now, President Trump and DeVos seem concerned less with measuring whether schools help students learn and more with whether parents have an opportunity to pick a school for their children. They have pledged billions of dollars to that end. And they have visited private schools in Florida to underline their support for funding private-school tuition through tax credits…


On Thursday, DeVos visited another Florida private school to highlight the program. Christian Academy for Reaching Excellence (CARE) Elementary is “an awesome example of the opportunities provided through the Florida tax-credit scholarship,” DeVos told reporters. She said that the administration is working on how to expand choice nationally and that there is a “possibility” its efforts might be patterned on Florida’s tax-credit program, according to Politico.


Florida’s program, created in 2001 with the full-throated support of then-Gov. Jeb Bush (R), was one of the first to harness corporate tax credits to help low-income families pay private school tuition. Sixteen other states have enacted variations on the idea.




In a speech on March 29, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said school choice will expand options for students like ride-sharing apps did for commuters.


Using tax credits to fund the scholarships, instead of direct payments from public treasuries, enabled lawmakers to work around state bans on the use of public funds to support religious institutions. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that tax-credit programs are constitutional.


Taking the idea to the federal level is one of the clearest ways Trump could make good on his promise to supercharge private-school choice across the country. If embedded in a larger tax bill that the GOP-held Congress passes via the budget reconciliation process, it would be protected from a Senate filibuster and therefore would require only 51 votes instead of the 60 usually required to pass legislation.


Vouchers are popular with the Republican majority on Capitol Hill but anathema to most Democrats. The Republican-controlled Congress in 2004 approved a voucher program that provides direct federal funding to help poor children in the District of Columbia attend private schools.



In Florida’s tax-credit program, businesses receive a dollar-for-dollar credit when they donate to nonprofit scholarship-granting organizations. A corporation that owes $50,000 in Florida taxes, for example, could donate $50,000 and pay nothing to the state. The nonprofit then dispenses money to students for tuition at participating private schools, although in some cases, the payment from the state does not cover the full cost of a private education.


Private schools do not need to be accredited to participate. They must show only that they’ve been in business for three years; that they comply with anti-discrimination and health and safety laws; and that they employ teachers who have gone through a background check and hold a bachelor’s degree, three years’ experience or “special skills.”


About 82 percent of scholarship recipients attend religious schools, according to state data. Many teach creationism instead of evolution and require students and parents to adhere to certain principles of religious doctrine.


The Family Life Academy in Archer, Fla., requires parents to subscribe to “corporal correction,” according to its handbook, and to sign a form giving the school permission to paddle their children. Colonial Christian School of Homestead, Fla., makes clear in its handbook that students will be expelled if they engage in homosexual conduct.


Critics say the public shouldn’t subsidize religious instruction, even indirectly. Supporters dismiss that argument.
“No one is coerced to go to a faith-based school. It’s a free decision,” said Doug Tuthill of Step Up for Students, which administers most Florida scholarships. “All the program does is provide the resources so they can exercise that freedom.”


The program is projected to receive more than half a billion dollars this year that otherwise would have gone to Florida’s treasury. But a 2010 analysis found it saves Florida money because each scholarship costs less than the state would spend to educate the same child in public school. The scholarship is now worth $5,886 per year.



In contrast, a federal tax credit would not save money for the federal government.


For more than 15 years, Florida has been out front in the movement to hold public schools accountable for academic results. It was one of the first states to use the results of standardized math and reading tests to grade every public school on an A to F scale, with rewards for the best-rated and sanctions for the worst. As in other states, annual report cards laid out how students at each school fared on the tests, with performance broken down by race and socioeconomic status.


But Florida exempts private schools from that accountability regime, even if they participate in the scholarship program.


Schools must give scholarship students standardized tests, but the outcomes are largely irrelevant. No matter how poorly a private school performs, it can continue receiving scholarship dollars.


The state commissions an annual report on the performance of scholarship students as a group, but their performance can’t be compared with that of poor children in public schools, who take a battery of different tests.


And parents seeking test data from a particular private school are likely to find none: Scores are reported separately only for private schools with at least 30 scholarship recipients. In the 2014-15 school year, just 198 of more than 1,600 participating schools met that threshold.


The stakes for parents are high: Although a disproportionate number of the state’s best schools are private, so are a disproportionate share of its worst, according to Northwestern University economist David Figlio, who has studied Florida’s tax-credit scholarships and produced the annual program report for six years.
“ There are some schools that, year in and year out, seemed to be adding considerable value, and other schools year in and year out that seemed to be leaving kids to fall further behind,” Figlio said.


Private-school results are translated into year-to-year changes in “national percentile rank,” a figure that offers insight into how students compare with others in the same grade nationwide. As a group, Florida scholarship students see no change in their percentile rank from one year to the next, which means that they’re learning at about the same pace as students nationwide.



But that average masks an enormous range.


At Lincoln-Marti Community Agency 23, a school of English-language learners in Miami, students on average scored 9 percentile points lower in math in 2015 than they had scored in 2014, and 5 percentile points lower in reading.


The school received $1.4 million from the tax-credit program this year to educate more than 250 students. Demetrio Perez, general counsel for Lincoln-Marti, said the test results offer an incomplete picture of performance. 
“The biggest measure of accountability is that parents have a meaningful choice,” Perez said. “If a parent is not satisfied with the educational program at a school, that parent can take his or her child to another school.”


At Okeechobee Christian Academy in Okeechobee, Fla., scores also show students losing ground. Principal Melissa King said the academy is constantly trying to improve. “Our core belief is to support these parents in raising up the next generation to advance the Kingdom of God,” King said.


Backers say the program forces public schools to improve. Figlio’s research found evidence for that idea: modest test-score increases at public schools facing the most intense competition.


Students who receive scholarships come from families with an average income of $24,000 per year. Many of those parents say the assistance has given their kids a shot at a better life.
“You only have one chance to either do well by your children or to ruin them, and I was trying to give them the best opportunity they could have,” said Linzi Morris, a mother of six scholarship recipients.
 All six have attended Academy Prep Center of Tampa, a middle school that she said provided top-notch academics as well as music, art, monthly weekend field trips, chess and other extracurriculars. Three are now in college, she said, and the other three are headed there.


Academy Prep students go to school 11 hours per day and nearly 11 months per year, far longer than the typical student. To pay for that, the school raises more than $1 million per year in donations to supplement the scholarships. In all, the program costs $17,000 per student.

 The investment appears to pay off: Students at the school learn faster than their peers nationwide, and 98 percent who finish eighth grade go on to graduate from high school, according to school officials. Eighty-four percent enroll in college.


Lincoln Tamayo, the school’s principal, said it doesn’t make sense to allow schools to continue receiving scholarship dollars if they fail to help children.
“Schools of all stripes, whether they be private or public charter or traditional public, are not immune from mediocrity,” he said. “The anvil’s got to drop somewhere.”


Mercedes Schneider explores a paper published by Carl Davis of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, in which he explains how tax credits for vouchers allow the rich to cut their taxes and make a profit. With such an alluring inducement by the states and the federal government, people of great means are able to reduce their taxes and undermine public schools at the same time. And, as they do great harm to the majority of children enrolled in increasingly underfunded public schools, they will be celebrated as “philanthropists,” when they are, in reality, raiders of the public good.

Davis’ paper begins like this:

<blockquote>One of the most important functions of government is to maintain a high-quality public education system. In many states, however, this objective is being undermined by tax credits and deductions that redirect public dollars for K-12 education toward private schools. Twenty states currently divert a total of over $1 billion per year toward private schools via special tax credits and deductions. These tax subsidies are essentially backdoor voucher programs, or “neovouchers,” as they use the tax code to provide what amount to private school vouchers even when traditional voucher programs are unpopular with the public or outright unconstitutional.

Because of the ways that state and federal tax law interact, the subsidies offered in ten of these states turn the concept of a charitable “donation” on its head by offering upper-income taxpayers a risk-free profit on contributions they make to fund private school scholarships. In these cases, even taxpayers who would not ordinarily be interested in contributing to private schools may find the incentive too strong to ignore.