Public Funds Meant For Needy, Diverted to Private Schools

[sardia]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/educa ... anted=1&hp
I'm kinda confused as to the details of the program. If I read it right, one can donate money to a fund, which is matched by the state. Then it is distributed to those who want to go to a different school. The trick is to donate money, then apply for the scholarship funds, which means the state is now subsidizing your wealthy kids to go to a private school. In addition, there seems to be implicit corruption and misuse of the funds, since they are using it to get the best football players or send kids to fundamentalist christian schools that teach creationism only.

"The program would be supported by donations to nonprofit scholarship groups, and Georgians who contributed would receive dollar-for-dollar tax credits, up to $2,500 a couple. The intent was that money otherwise due to the Georgia treasury — about $50 million a year — would be used instead to help needy students escape struggling public schools.

That was the idea, at least. But parents meeting at Gwinnett Christian Academy got a completely different story last year.

“A very small percentage of that money will be set aside for a needs-based scholarship fund,” Wyatt Bozeman, an administrator at the school near Atlanta, said during an informational session. “The rest of the money will be channeled to the family that raised it.” "
Ok, I understand that wealthy people are taking advantage of a program that was "designed' for the needy, but how did sports and creationism get into the mix?

Summary: Rich, conservative, creationists, football fanatics are taking advantage of a program meant for the poor. This is one of the programs that the republicans are always railing about. Government largesse and waste at its finest. Oh wait...I mean this is how the market should work, right?

[lutzj]

Badly-designed tax incentives are badly-designed, although "everybody with a kid in school gets a $2500 tax break" at least isn't a terribly perverse one.

They should have just funneled the donations into public schools and then maybe provided a similar tax break (probably <100% to prevent this kind of abuse) for donations to private schools.

[Tirian]

In addition, there seems to be implicit corruption and misuse of the funds, since they are using it to get the best football players or send kids to fundamentalist christian schools that teach creationism only.

The article took a really creepy tone on this point. There wasn't any hard evidence that private schools were targeting athletes for the scholarships, and certainly no evidence that student athletes were getting a better deal than a free tuition. To my ears, the public school coaches seemed to be arguing that poor student athletes shouldn't be entitled to school choice because it is having an impact on the playoffs. Maintaining a football dynasty is so far from any notions I have of the mandate of public education that I don't even.

As for the rest, I'm kind of with lulzj -- this is low on the list of things that outrage me. Everyone (individuals and corporations) who claims a (federal, at least) charitable deduction on a scholarship where they have a role in choosing the recipient should well be losing sleep over the fear of an audit that won't go their way. Also, people should make sure that the non-profits they give money to aren't skimming luxurious administrative budgets out of the money that you expected to go to the mission of the organization. Beyond that, I'm seeing twenty experiments that seem to be going reasonably well and are being adjusted over time, so good for them.

[Heisenberg]

Seems to me that it the program is doing what it intended to do.

I may be understanding this wrong, but it seems that the goal was to help struggling parents afford private schools. It's billed as a private school scholarship program, and it's supposed to "give poor children the same education choices as the wealthy." Obviously this is going to result in State money going to private schools, many of which are religious.

The mechanism seems weird. Apparently you can donate to the school, the State will match your funds, and then the school will give your kid a scholarship. The major objection here seems to be that there was no provision to stop those families with children already enrolled from getting this money. While that may not have been the intent of the bill, it's still working. Next year, more low income families will be able to send their kids there.

Subsidizing the private schools is going to make education cheaper for everyone. The fact that this applies to the weathy as well as the poor is almost unavoidable.

[kiklion]

[deleted]

I misread it.

I may be understanding this wrong, but it seems that the goal was to help struggling parents afford private schools. It's billed as a private school scholarship program, and it's supposed to "give poor children the same education choices as the wealthy." Obviously this is going to result in State money going to private schools, many of which are religious.

I believe you are understanding the program wrong. The state has a non-profit foundation that receives donations in order to assist needy children in affording private school. Because it is a non-profit, donations are tax deductible. The state then gives the money to schools for the school to distribute to needy children (or more specifically to reduce tuition for needy children.) However the school is not doing this, the school is reducing the tuition of those that donated. So the people who are donating are getting a tax deduction equal to their donation and a tuition reduction equal to 2x their donation (worst case scenario, no needy children receive tuition assistance)

There are a lot of facts not mentioned. For instance the donations may not be to a state fund that then gets split to the schools, for the schools to decide how to spend, but instead are donated directly to a fund managed by the school. This would make it much easier to earmark funds for your children.

[Tirian]

According to the article, what happens (in Georgia) is that people get a dollar for dollar tax credit for donations to these scholarship non-profits. So, for instance, if you owe Georgia $3500 in state taxes, you can give $2500 to a scholarship program and only $1000 to the state. That would seem to be the "trick" that satisfy the courts that the state isn't writing a check to a religious school. The state has long exercised the right to give tax advantages to people who spend their money on faith-based programs, the only difference here is that the payoff is a below-the-line tax credit instead of an above-the-line deduction.

[mosc]

In addition, there seems to be implicit corruption and misuse of the funds, since they are using it to get the best football players or send kids to fundamentalist christian schools that teach creationism only.

Not all private schools exist for athletics and religious affiliation. Some exist for higher academic standards, some support mental or physical disabilities, and yes there are even some which stress more ecumenical policies than public schools (3 bathrooms instead of 2, no Santa's secret helper shop, etc).

[Dauric]

In addition, there seems to be implicit corruption and misuse of the funds, since they are using it to get the best football players or send kids to fundamentalist christian schools that teach creationism only.

Not all private schools exist for athletics and religious affiliation. Some exist for higher academic standards, some support mental or physical disabilities, and yes there are even some which stress more ecumenical policies than public schools (3 bathrooms instead of 2, no Santa's secret helper shop, etc).

Proper use of the scolarship funds, even towards ecumenical schools where applicable, doesn't eliminate the instances where the funds are being mishandled for high-school sports.

Here I go again with the Frontline links...
Football High

The story is mostly about the injuries sustained by highschool football players, sometimes fatal injuries, but the way that highschool football has become 'big business' with big production values, major corporate sponsors, press conferences,... It's nothing like what many of us expect from high-school sports, and it's a recent development in the last half-a-decade or so.

And (to the topic of the thread) if money is being redirected from needs-based tuition assistance to support high-school football programs, to recruit students that give any particular program a better chance of becoming or staying a "nationallly ranked" football team with those televised games and commentators doing interviews of the star players rather than to provide educations to students that really need the financial assistance, it's clearly a violation of the spirit of the law if not a violation of the letter of the law.

[Heisenberg]

The football thing is unsubstantiated and simply doesn't make sense.

If a student is going to a private school, it's not possible to use the tax break as an incentive because it applies equally to all private schools. There's no way to make it favor one school over another.

If a student can't afford private school and is planning to go to public school, and this tax break allows them to afford private school, then that is exactly what the bill is trying to accomplish!

[sardia]

In addition, there seems to be implicit corruption and misuse of the funds, since they are using it to get the best football players or send kids to fundamentalist christian schools that teach creationism only.

Not all private schools exist for athletics and religious affiliation. Some exist for higher academic standards, some support mental or physical disabilities, and yes there are even some which stress more ecumenical policies than public schools (3 bathrooms instead of 2, no Santa's secret helper shop, etc).

Should the state discriminate between former and the latter? Or should we let people have full control over where they want to go?

[Metaphysician]

Isn't school choice common in the glorious and perfect socialist utopias of Europe? I don't understand why we don't just follow their example, attach funds to the child instead of to school districts, and let parents make their own choices about where their kids go to school. I mean, I'll probably get crucified for saying this, but I'd rather send my child to a school that only teaches creationism, where they at least have a chance to graduate highschool with proficiency in mathematics and above an eighth grade reading level. For many poorer families, even the opportunity to send their kids to a school that teaches creationism is often a better choice than continuing to send their children to a school that doesn't really teach them anything. If you don't believe the public school systems are all that bad in the US, you probably live in the suburbs. I've worked with a non-profit tutoring organization in Kensington Philadelphia (the poorest neighborhood in the city) and had the pleasure of teaching intelligent ten year old kids the alphabet. I know it's only anecdotal, but in my experience the poorest kids get robbed the most by the public school system.

As to this particular situation, it seems like a poorly designed incentive scheme, or at the very least it seems like not enough money was designated for the need based scholarships to actually make a tangible difference, and so the private schools are simply selecting the needy students that will most benefit their schools.

[Derek]

Isn't school choice common in the glorious and perfect socialist utopias of Europe? I don't understand why we don't just follow their example, attach funds to the child instead of to school districts, and let parents make their own choices about where their kids go to school. I mean, I'll probably get crucified for saying this, but I'd rather send my child to a school that only teaches creationism, where they at least have a chance to graduate highschool with proficiency in mathematics and above an eighth grade reading level. For many poorer families, even the opportunity to send their kids to a school that teaches creationism is often a better choice than continuing to send their children to a school that doesn't really teach them anything. If you don't believe the public school systems are all that bad in the US, you probably live in the suburbs. I've worked with a non-profit tutoring organization in Kensington Philadelphia (the poorest neighborhood in the city) and had the pleasure of teaching intelligent ten year old kids the alphabet. I know it's only anecdotal, but in my experience the poorest kids get robbed the most by the public school system.

I think part of the reason is historical. In the late 70's the courts decided that schools weren't sufficiently desegregated, and mandated busing to desegregate schools. Obviously this strategy can't work if you allow school choice: People tend to self-segregate, even if they're not racist, but especially if they are, so white families would all send their kids to the same (mostly suburban) schools, and avoid the inner city schools where most of the black kids were. Incidentally, this era corresponded to the founding of many secular private schools (including the one I went to in high school).

Mandatory busing is mostly gone these days, because really no one, white or black, liked it (and many schools have become largely self-segregated again), but it is still a lingering historical issue. I don't think it's a complete explanation though.

[Metaphysician]

Isn't school choice common in the glorious and perfect socialist utopias of Europe? I don't understand why we don't just follow their example, attach funds to the child instead of to school districts, and let parents make their own choices about where their kids go to school. I mean, I'll probably get crucified for saying this, but I'd rather send my child to a school that only teaches creationism, where they at least have a chance to graduate highschool with proficiency in mathematics and above an eighth grade reading level. For many poorer families, even the opportunity to send their kids to a school that teaches creationism is often a better choice than continuing to send their children to a school that doesn't really teach them anything. If you don't believe the public school systems are all that bad in the US, you probably live in the suburbs. I've worked with a non-profit tutoring organization in Kensington Philadelphia (the poorest neighborhood in the city) and had the pleasure of teaching intelligent ten year old kids the alphabet. I know it's only anecdotal, but in my experience the poorest kids get robbed the most by the public school system.

I think part of the reason is historical. In the late 70's the courts decided that schools weren't sufficiently desegregated, and mandated busing to desegregate schools. Obviously this strategy can't work if you allow school choice: People tend to self-segregate, even if they're not racist, but especially if they are, so white families would all send their kids to the same (mostly suburban) schools, and avoid the inner city schools where most of the black kids were. Incidentally, this era corresponded to the founding of many secular private schools (including the one I went to in high school).

Mandatory busing is mostly gone these days, because really no one, white or black, liked it (and many schools have become largely self-segregated again), but it is still a lingering historical issue. I don't think it's a complete explanation though.

I agree that this is a lingering historical issue but I think we need to move on from it. I honestly don't care if people decide to self segregate, if that's their choice, then let them do it. The reality is that as you said, it has already happened again anyway. But if the money were attached to the children, they would still have alternative choices as to where to attend schools, in their self segregated communities or not. There has been an increasing number of non-profit charter schools in low income areas popping up even without school choice. These charter schools often have two to three times the performance figures of public schools, a much higher rate of graduation and a much higher instance of children going to college, and many of these charter schools operate on a lottery system, which means the only admissions process is random selection, no picking and choosing, so it's not as if they get better numbers because they only take the smartest kids. If we were to introduce a system that allowed children and their parents to choose where they attend, then the competition among schools would ensue and many more schools would be founded. Competition can be a dirty word these days, but lets be honest, don't we want schools competing to offer the highest quality education possible to our children? After spending time in some of the worst slums in the country, I can tell you this, in many cases there is no difference between going to school and not going to school for these kids. They literally have nothing.

[Tirian]

There has been an increasing number of non-profit charter schools in low income areas popping up even without school choice. These charter schools often have two to three times the performance figures of public schools, a much higher rate of graduation and a much higher instance of children going to college, and many of these charter schools operate on a lottery system, which means the only admissions process is random selection, no picking and choosing, so it's not as if they get better numbers because they only take the smartest kids.

You're going to need to back that up. Even professionals who promote charter schools don't paint that rosy a picture of their performance. Careful research seems to suggest that charters generally produce equivalent academic results but when they are not in the middle they disappoint more often than they impress. That's a fairly encouraging result that we're not significantly harming our students by offering them the opportunity to pursue the intangibles that would come from an appropriate charter community, but let's not oversell it.

[Metaphysician]

There has been an increasing number of non-profit charter schools in low income areas popping up even without school choice. These charter schools often have two to three times the performance figures of public schools, a much higher rate of graduation and a much higher instance of children going to college, and many of these charter schools operate on a lottery system, which means the only admissions process is random selection, no picking and choosing, so it's not as if they get better numbers because they only take the smartest kids.

You're going to need to back that up. Even professionals who promote charter schools don't paint that rosy a picture of their performance. Careful research seems to suggest that charters generally produce equivalent academic results but when they are not in the middle they disappoint more often than they impress. That's a fairly encouraging result that we're not significantly harming our students by offering them the opportunity to pursue the intangibles that would come from an appropriate charter community, but let's not oversell it.

I feel I was unclear. When speaking of the higher performance being two to three times higher than public schools, I was particularly talking about charter schools operating in the poorest areas of the country. I was also using my work with students from some of the most impoverished neighborhoods in the country as a frame of reference. I don't have any official statistics done by studies at ivy league schools. But I am aware that statistics tend to be easily manipulated. I admit that my experience is by definition anecdotal and likely to be dismissed by a good majority of the scientifically minded on these forums. I'm not trying to win an official debate here or anything though. This forum has plenty of people for the scientific and statistical side of things, so I'm just trying to add another perspective to the conversation. I probably was overstating things a bit but it's really hard to communicate to people how absolutely fucking broken the public schools are in neighborhoods the police won't even enter. It bothers me that this doesn't bother people. That people think the system as it exists is doing just fine. It's not doing just fine. As far as education performance goes our country is in the shitter. Pick your enemy, unions, the public school system as a whole, lack of choice, fuck, maybe Americans are just fucking stupider than everybody else and all the teachers (except the ones so terrible the state of New York pays them to go sit in a room all day and not teach children), the fact that many states spend insane amounts of money on administrators that do jack shit.

There is a documentary about the harm the unions cause to schools in New Jersey called "The Cartel". It's obviously not unbiased, it's basically a rage project done by a reporter that tried for years to get change moving in local communities. I haven't verified all their statistics because I suck at math and don't have time, but it's a good example of at least some of the problems within the system.

[Krealr]

I think part of the reason is historical. In the late 70's the courts decided that schools weren't sufficiently desegregated, and mandated busing to desegregate schools. Obviously this strategy can't work if you allow school choice: People tend to self-segregate, even if they're not racist, but especially if they are, so white families would all send their kids to the same (mostly suburban) schools, and avoid the inner city schools where most of the black kids were. Incidentally, this era corresponded to the founding of many secular private schools (including the one I went to in high school).

Another part could be a concern over destabilizing schools. If children can go wherever they want and take the money with them you can have situations where a school has to hire a large number of teachers one year as a huge wave of students migrate from a school perceived as worse. Then fire them all if they don't live up to expectations and there is a mass exodus the following year. This could make teaching jobs highly unstable which is a bad way of attracting quality people to the profession.

*Note I have no idea if this would actually happen but I could see some people being concerned about the possibility.

[mosc]

Yeah, school vouchers always seems to me like the proponent failed his 1950-1970 US history class. Probably a few presentations in February they slept through as well. And it's not like they don't exist in certain states already. They're able to get around the law by making them "trials" or "temporary". And they have led to segregation in places with large shares of multiple ethnic groups. They have also led to an even worse lack of funding to inner city schools.

[Heisenberg]

Another part could be a concern over destabilizing schools. If children can go wherever they want and take the money with them you can have situations where a school has to hire a large number of teachers one year as a huge wave of students migrate from a school perceived as worse.

Seems easily solved with a student cap greater than the number of students in the district.

You could still see an exodus from a shitty school, but I'm really not concerned about the job security of shitty teachers. The better schools would get more students, capped at a manageable number that could be increased with more staff and infrastructure.

It's this crazy idea that a free market would reward successful schools and eliminate bad ones.

[Zamfir]

Isn't school choice common in the glorious and perfect socialist utopias of Europe? I don't understand why we don't just follow their example, attach funds to the child instead of to school districts, and let parents make their own choices about where their kids go to school. I mean, I'll probably get crucified for saying this, but I'd rather send my child to a school that only teaches creationism, where they at least have a chance to graduate highschool with proficiency in mathematics and above an eighth grade reading level.

A bit of a backtrack, but I'd like to respond to this. Perhaps someone is even interested.

Spoiler:

First the standard disclaimer: there is no general European approach to education. Systems differ probably as much from each other as they do from the US,especially at the younger ages. Also, many European countries have a history of closer ties between politics and religion than the US.

So I'll stick to my own country here. Lucky for you, the Dutch system is very close to what you would call 'charter schools'. The system is even explicitly intended to support religious schools.

All towns have public schools, run by the municipalities but funded by the Kingdom. But everyone is allowed to start a "special school", and these schools will be funded exactly as public schools. About 70% of kids is in these schools, most of them mild or strong religious schools or experimental schools. Such schools get the same government inspections and exams as public schools.

Special schools are not allowed to charge extra tuition. This is important: you cannot use goverment funds as a subsidy for an expensive private school. There are a few unsubsidized private schools as well, but they are rare. Some special schools try to circumvent this rule with 'voluntary' donations, but that's frowned upon.

They are allowed to refuse children, but only if the parents 'do not subscribe to the principles of the school'. That's a sensitive legal subject, and usually applied in favour of the parents. Most schools accept every child.

Despite your hopes, the system doesn't work well for poor urban neighbourhoods. Those are far more reliant on public schools than the rest of the country, and have their share of problems. The Kingsdom does give extra money to schools with high shares of poor children or children from immigrant parents.

[nitePhyyre]

Another part could be a concern over destabilizing schools. If children can go wherever they want and take the money with them you can have situations where a school has to hire a large number of teachers one year as a huge wave of students migrate from a school perceived as worse. Then fire them all if they don't live up to expectations and there is a mass exodus the following year. This could make teaching jobs highly unstable which is a bad way of attracting quality people to the profession.

I don't know if it would be suicide, but I'd love to hear politicians say "Well, of course fixing a fundamentally broken system will have some growing pains. But when the alternative is the monumental waste that comes from continually throwing good money after bad, fuck 'em."

There is a documentary about the harm the unions cause to schools in New Jersey called "The Cartel". It's obviously not unbiased, it's basically a rage project done by a reporter that tried for years to get change moving in local communities. I haven't verified all their statistics because I suck at math and don't have time, but it's a good example of at least some of the problems within the system.

"When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren."
-Albert Shanker, United Federation of Teachers president 1964-1985

[Derek]

Yeah, school vouchers always seems to me like the proponent failed his 1950-1970 US history class. Probably a few presentations in February they slept through as well. And it's not like they don't exist in certain states already. They're able to get around the law by making them "trials" or "temporary". And they have led to segregation in places with large shares of multiple ethnic groups. They have also led to an even worse lack of funding to inner city schools.

For the record, I am entirely in favor of school choice and school vouchers. I mentioned the historical issue as a source of objections, but I don't think it is actually a good reason to oppose school choice. I'm also not sure what laws you're saying they're circumventing, there is nothing illegal about school vouchers.

[sardia]

My problem with school choice is similar to my problem with people who say we don't need a consumer protection agency. They say parents will notice which schools are bad, and which are good. Then the free market will decide who stays in business.
There should be some sort of watch dog to watch over the schools, or the program should set some standards as to what qualifies as a good school. Or does setting rules and standards is against the spirit of using the free market?

[Heisenberg]

My problem with school choice is similar to my problem with people who say we don't need a consumer protection agency. They say parents will notice which schools are bad, and which are good. Then the free market will decide who stays in business.
There should be some sort of watch dog to watch over the schools, or the program should set some standards as to what qualifies as a good school. Or does setting rules and standards is against the spirit of using the free market?

Not at all. But school choice restriction is not like a consumer protection agency, or like an FDA. It's like mandating "Everyone on this block must go to Grocery Store X and Bank Y, but don't worry, we'll check in periodically to make sure they aren't too bad." An agency protecting consumers can and should make sure no stores are selling sawdust labeled as wheat flour, and that no schools are graduating poorly educated children. That does not require limiting consumers from going where they want to get their goods or education.

[Dauric]

Guys, the issue in the OP isn't over school choice, the article pretty much takes school choice as a given.

The issue is over a particular method of granting "scholarships" funded in part by taxpayers that makes an end-run around certain restrictions on public money by.. and oh can we count the lessons learned by the recession... private donation accounts.

The programs are insulated from provisions requiring church-state separation because the donations are collected and distributed by the nonprofit scholarship groups.

A cottage industry of these groups has sprung up, in some cases collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in administrative fees, according to tax filings. The groups often work in concert with private schools like Gwinnett Christian Academy to solicit donations and determine who will get the scholarships — in effect limiting school choice for the students themselves. In most states, students who withdraw from the schools cannot take the scholarship money with them.

So 1) they're using the program to pull and end run around laws restricting the kinds of schools taxpayer money can go to by combining tax rebates (possibly more than the parents are paying in property taxes in the first place) with private money in a private donation account. Argue whether you think the provisions are just in and of themselves, fine and whatever, it remains that these are provisions in the existing law. They're using the donation scheme to get around the spirit of the law by adhering to the letter of the law. No it's not illegal, but it should as hell raise some eyebrows that there's a loophole there that should probably be looked in to.

Then 2) these donation accounts are run by groups that are so closely aligned with the private schools that a parent seeking to move their child from one school to another can't use their donation account at another school or transfer their donation account to another organization that works with the parent's new school of choice.

The other thing being that these programs are supposed to be collecting for a fund for helping families who don't have the money to exercise school choice be able to afford private tuition if they so choose, except that these funds are token at best, and families who -already have children in private schools- are drying up the program funds to take advantage of the tax breaks for themselves. It's not expanding the availability of school choice if the program funds are going to the people who already have the ability to make the choice without the program.

Florida has taken steps to change these issues, however Georgia's program has been reported as a "Failed Experiment" (PDF file) by the Southern Education Foundation.

Again, the article really isn't about the existence of school choice or a voucher system in the abstract in the first place, it' about how -this particular system- of achieving school choice is flawed and potentially corrupt.

[kiklion]

Spoiler:

Guys, the issue in the OP isn't over school choice, the article pretty much takes school choice as a given.

The issue is over a particular method of granting "scholarships" funded in part by taxpayers that makes an end-run around certain restrictions on public money by.. and oh can we count the lessons learned by the recession... private donation accounts.

The programs are insulated from provisions requiring church-state separation because the donations are collected and distributed by the nonprofit scholarship groups.

A cottage industry of these groups has sprung up, in some cases collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in administrative fees, according to tax filings. The groups often work in concert with private schools like Gwinnett Christian Academy to solicit donations and determine who will get the scholarships — in effect limiting school choice for the students themselves. In most states, students who withdraw from the schools cannot take the scholarship money with them.

So 1) they're using the program to pull and end run around laws restricting the kinds of schools taxpayer money can go to by combining tax rebates (possibly more than the parents are paying in property taxes in the first place) with private money in a private donation account. Argue whether you think the provisions are just in and of themselves, fine and whatever, it remains that these are provisions in the existing law. They're using the donation scheme to get around the spirit of the law by adhering to the letter of the law. No it's not illegal, but it should as hell raise some eyebrows that there's a loophole there that should probably be looked in to.

Then 2) these donation accounts are run by groups that are so closely aligned with the private schools that a parent seeking to move their child from one school to another can't use their donation account at another school or transfer their donation account to another organization that works with the parent's new school of choice.

The other thing being that these programs are supposed to be collecting for a fund for helping families who don't have the money to exercise school choice be able to afford private tuition if they so choose, except that these funds are token at best, and families who -already have children in private schools- are drying up the program funds to take advantage of the tax breaks for themselves. It's not expanding the availability of school choice if the program funds are going to the people who already have the ability to make the choice without the program.

Florida has taken steps to change these issues, however Georgia's program has been reported as a "Failed Experiment" (PDF file) by the Southern Education Foundation.

Again, the article really isn't about the existence of school choice or a voucher system in the abstract in the first place, it' about how -this particular system- of achieving school choice is flawed and potentially corrupt.

I am not sure they aren't following the spirit of the law. If it is about the religious nature of a few of the schools, if they are ran as non-profit you could already donate to the school and receive a tax deduction, so you are essentially transferring money from the federal government to the religious school. (This seems similar to a complaint/issue that arose earlier and is probably still on going, about government funding planned parent hood but don't want to fund any abortions so the money is separated. If that is fine, then a school should be able to use federal money for their non-religious teachings and use other money to hire the teachers teaching religious ed.) Also a $2500 cap on the donation means that it won't be higher then anyone's property taxes, unless my area has property taxes 500% of what theirs are. But also I don't understand why that would matter, the rebate is from the state it seems, the money the local public school gets from property taxes should be unchanged.

(2) is the bigger issue I feel. If the program was run by the government then it could help children at any school and could not be ear-marked for specific children.

[sardia]

Spoiler:

Guys, the issue in the OP isn't over school choice, the article pretty much takes school choice as a given.

The issue is over a particular method of granting "scholarships" funded in part by taxpayers that makes an end-run around certain restrictions on public money by.. and oh can we count the lessons learned by the recession... private donation accounts.

The programs are insulated from provisions requiring church-state separation because the donations are collected and distributed by the nonprofit scholarship groups.

A cottage industry of these groups has sprung up, in some cases collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in administrative fees, according to tax filings. The groups often work in concert with private schools like Gwinnett Christian Academy to solicit donations and determine who will get the scholarships — in effect limiting school choice for the students themselves. In most states, students who withdraw from the schools cannot take the scholarship money with them.

So 1) they're using the program to pull and end run around laws restricting the kinds of schools taxpayer money can go to by combining tax rebates (possibly more than the parents are paying in property taxes in the first place) with private money in a private donation account. Argue whether you think the provisions are just in and of themselves, fine and whatever, it remains that these are provisions in the existing law. They're using the donation scheme to get around the spirit of the law by adhering to the letter of the law. No it's not illegal, but it should as hell raise some eyebrows that there's a loophole there that should probably be looked in to.

Then 2) these donation accounts are run by groups that are so closely aligned with the private schools that a parent seeking to move their child from one school to another can't use their donation account at another school or transfer their donation account to another organization that works with the parent's new school of choice.

The other thing being that these programs are supposed to be collecting for a fund for helping families who don't have the money to exercise school choice be able to afford private tuition if they so choose, except that these funds are token at best, and families who -already have children in private schools- are drying up the program funds to take advantage of the tax breaks for themselves. It's not expanding the availability of school choice if the program funds are going to the people who already have the ability to make the choice without the program.

Florida has taken steps to change these issues, however Georgia's program has been reported as a "Failed Experiment" (PDF file) by the Southern Education Foundation.

Again, the article really isn't about the existence of school choice or a voucher system in the abstract in the first place, it' about how -this particular system- of achieving school choice is flawed and potentially corrupt.

I am not sure they aren't following the spirit of the law. If it is about the religious nature of a few of the schools, if they are ran as non-profit you could already donate to the school and receive a tax deduction, so you are essentially transferring money from the federal government to the religious school. (This seems similar to a complaint/issue that arose earlier and is probably still on going, about government funding planned parent hood but don't want to fund any abortions so the money is separated. If that is fine, then a school should be able to use federal money for their non-religious teachings and use other money to hire the teachers teaching religious ed.) Also a $2500 cap on the donation means that it won't be higher then anyone's property taxes, unless my area has property taxes 500% of what theirs are. But also I don't understand why that would matter, the rebate is from the state it seems, the money the local public school gets from property taxes should be unchanged.

(2) is the bigger issue I feel. If the program was run by the government then it could help children at any school and could not be ear-marked for specific children.

Think of it this way, if the budget of Georgia's was 1000 million dollars, and they set aside $100 million for the schools. Now they use this program, which takes money that would have gone to the treasury, and channels it into scholarships. What's going to happen to the $100 million that was set aside from the school? It'll get reduced by $50 million. They could take it from other areas of the budget, or raise taxes, but they won't.