Education Reform: Investment In Empty Promises And False Claims

Alayna Anderson

Dr. Laura Ullrich

ECON 215H

1 December 2015

Education Reform: Investment in Empty Promises and False Claims Education reform is a hot topic for politicians. And why shouldn’t it be? Education involves two things that few Americans could vote against: helping children, especially those that are economically disadvantaged, and ensuring a bright and prosperous future for the country. How could someone possibly vote against that? School choice, public charter schools, and alternative education methods, such as virtual school, are educational options that reform has provided to parents who, naturally, want the best for their child. Although traditional public schools receive some public funding, politicians direct more and

The operating body has a legislative contract (charter) with the state/jurisdiction that exempts the school from certain regulations in exchange for meeting the accountability standards in the charter (Institute of Education Sciences). It is important to note that the accountability standards for the school are those outlined in the charter, not those put forth by the state for traditional public schools. In the book, 50 Myths and Lies that Threaten America’s Public Schools: The Real Crisis in Education, authors David C. Berliner and Gene V. Glass explain that charter schools use the autonomy they have as privately run corporations that are not subject to the same regulations as traditional public schools to discourage the enrollment of certain students, including those with special needs or from a low socioeconomic background. They may require certain forms or applications that limit the ability to apply. Other schools systematically flunk students in order to achieve a one hundred percent graduation rate. Still others choose to build in affluent areas in order to attract affluent students

Berliner and Glass explain that tax credits, which result in a significantly larger decrease in taxes owed than a mere tax deduction, are used to fund scholarships that supposedly help underprivileged children attend private schools and receive a better education. In states with legislation allowing tuition tax credits, people can direct a percentage of their income to a school tuition organization (STO) and have the amount of income taxes owed by a sizeable percentage of the amount, or possibly the entire amount, sent to the STO. The money is then distributed by STO administrators to worthy students in the form of scholarships. For the work involved in finding these highly worthy students, the administrators receive 2% of the money taken in by the STO (188-189). Because STOs are not obligated to release the names or even the demographics of scholarship recipients, it is incredibly difficult to determine how many underprivileged students the program has helped. Investigations into how recipients are chosen have yielded no information. In fact, in 2011, Georgia passed legislation that further lessened the information their Department of Revenue, which tracks the income of STOs, could release (192). What little information has been gathered about the recipients of STO scholarships reveals that the students typically deemed worthy of receiving STO