Letter to the Editor: Project 2025

Sedona, AZ – The following is an argument against the suggested elimination of the U.S. Department of Education in the Republican sponsored Project 2025, written by former Sedona Oak Creek Unified School District  president Zach Richardson and Lyndsey Burke, Director of the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation:

A MANDATE FOR LEADERSHIP

“The Conservative Promise”

aka Project 2025

SECTION III

Chapter 11

Department of Education

Authored By Lindsey Burke

Reviewed by Zachary Richardson

Revised 20240923:1113

AN ARGUMENT AGAINST DISMANTLING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Qualifications: Chapter 11 fails to reference input from any professional educators or educational research to substantiate its recommendations for reform. The proposals and recommendations of Chapter 11 appear to be driven by political considerations rather than enhancing student performance. Neither Lindsey Burke[1] nor I[2] hold professional credentials in education or the expertise to unilaterally critique or recommend comprehensive restructuring of the Department of Education on an educational basis.

Perception: Historically, teaching kindergarten through 12^th grade (“K-12”) has been predominantly considered a “woman’s profession” within a male-dominated society. As a result, educators, particularly those teaching K-12 have not received the same level of respect or status as other public services such as policing and firefighting. There is also a common misconception that one’s personal experience as a student equates to becoming an expert in education, analogous to the fallacy that being a patient confers medical expertise. Unlike their male-dominated counterparts in law enforcement and firefighting, teacher unions, which are often led by women, have faced greater challenges in achieving comparable respect and bargaining power. Consequently, educators and their unions are frequently targeted for public criticism, despite the essential role education plays in society. Without education, one could NOT read this document.

Confusing Recommendations: Chapter 11 recommends a shift of control from government-controlled education to one that empowers students and parents and allows them to choose either public, private or home schooling that is taxpayer funded. The basis used to justify this shift is the rising costs of education and the decline in student test scores over the past decade. Chapter 11 also describes how taxpayer funded private education has expanded exponentially over the past decade. Ironically, Chapter 11 fails to recognize the correlation between the rapid expansion of publicly funded private education and the increased educational costs along the decline of student test scores. Without any explanation as to how this recommendation would reduce costs and enhance education, it appears from the data provided by Chapter 11, its very own recommendations will likely exacerbate the issues it aims to resolve.

Many Politicians and Parents Fail to Recognize That Students Are Not Robots.

Learning:  Education is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor. Students vary in their learning speeds and styles; some may need more time to grasp concepts, while others may become disengaged quickly due to boredom and mislabeled as problematic. Standardized testing has significant limitations in assessing student achievement. Even more problematic, when testing is used to evaluate teachers and schools, curriculum shifts from fostering cognitive thinking and subject comprehension, to simply teaching useless test taking techniques.

Standardized Test Limitations: From the 1960s, when multinational K-12 rankings started, the United States has never fared well, but America has always remained a superpower, dominated the world’s economies, and led higher education.  There does not seem to be a correlation between test scores and a society’s achievements. In lieu of standardized tests, a more effective gauge of an educational system’s success would be to evaluate how graduates contribute to society and the economy. Education encompasses more than proficiency in Math, English, and Science tests; it includes essential skills often referred to as the Five Cs:

• Critical Thinking: The ability to approach problems from various perspectives and integrate knowledge across disciplines.
• Computational Thinking: Employing deductive reasoning and trial-and-error methods to solve problems.
• Communication: The skill to articulate thoughts, questions, and ideas effectively through interaction with others.
• Collaboration: The capacity to work collectively towards common goals by leveraging individual strengths.
• Creativity: The ability to innovate and explore new approaches, which is nurtured through diverse learning experiences, including the Arts, often marginalized in favor of test preparation.

Education’s Greatest Threat: Chapter 11 overlooks the most significant threats to our educational system; The impact of social media and school shootings.

The pervasive influence of social media and emerging AI technologies like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Grammarly are contributing to dramatically decreasing student self-confidence and critical thinking skills. Additionally, the safety of schools remains a pressing concern, with increasing incidents of gun violence that create an environment of fear that distracts from learning. Effective federal funding should focus on solutions to support educators grappling with these challenges.

Discussion: Chapter 11 presents a range of contentious viewpoints divided into eleven sections, with each appearing to have a lack of understanding of the complexities inherent in education and the role of the Department of Education (“DE”). The debate to eliminate or retain the DE reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose and challenges on both sides of the argument. While the department has faced significant issues, its elimination is not a viable solution.

PROJECT 2025 CHAPTER 11 REVIEW 

MISSION

Instead of having a mission to improve education, Chapter 11 states its Mission of eliminating the DE in the very first sentence; “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” Chapter 11 then goes on to spin the facts to support its preconceived conclusion instead of having a thorough examination of the facts to derive a conclusion. It goes on to recommend that, “…families and students should be free to choose from a diverse set of options and learning environments…”. Chapter 11 has no clear rationale as to how eliminating the DE and providing diverse learning options will accomplish cutting costs and improving education, the two primary objectives of Chapter 11.

Milton Friedman: Chapter 11 advocates that “Elementary and secondary education policy should follow the path outlined by Milton Friedman in 1955, where education is publicly funded but education decisions are made by families.” It is crucial to note that Friedman was an economist and not an educator. His proposals are based on outdated assumptions that do not account for the 70 years of significant social and educational changes. Moreover, Friedman’s proposals are criticized as being racist because they were crated the year after the 1954 landmark ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education that declared racial segregation of public education was unconstitutional, thus eliminating “white only” schools. Friedman’s direct “racist” response to that ruling was to create private schools that were taxpayer funded with selective admission policies to create “all white” student bodies. Chapter 11’s endorsement of such a policy:

1. Fails to address its problematic racist implications,
2. Fails to demonstrate how such changes resolve flaws Chapter 11 identifies with the DE.
3. Fails to justify eliminating the DE.
4. Fails to address the numerous contemporary educational challenges.

OVERVIEW

Chapter 11 Recommendation:

Chapter 11 provides a critical examination of the DE, alleging excessive costs, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and poor student performance, which are exacerbated by the federal government’s fiscal practices of “federal government’s ability to print money and operate without a balanced budget”, an overly general statement critically applicable to every governmental department, not just the DE. Chapter11’s recommendation is to shift educational oversight and funding to state and local governments as it dismantles the DE. The remaining functions of the DE would be to allocate to other agencies such as the Departments of Justice, Labor, State, Defense, and Health and Human Services thus reducing costs and bureaucracy as education quality would improve. Again, Chapter 11 fails to provide justification as to how such recommendations will accomplish its goals or address existing challenges.

Constitutional Right to Education:

Chapter11’s argument that education should not be mandated by the federal government could be supported by the fact that the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly address education.  This paradigm was followed until the 1950s when the Eisenhower administration recognized the importance of education as being critical to maintaining national defense, economic stability, civil rights, and overall national welfare; areas all specifically addressed in the U.S. Constitution, thus making education a Constitutional issue to be addressed by the federal government. This paradigm shift for federal intervention into education culminated in the passage of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958.  This republican sponsored act represented a significant federal commitment to education. The NDEA laid the groundwork for subsequent federal initiatives which ultimately lead to the establishment of the DE.

Historical Context:

Chapter 11 bases much of its argument for eliminating the DE by citing historical inaccuracies.

1. Inaccurately attributing the DE origins to President Johnson’s “Great Society” of the 1960s when in fact it was the republican sponsored NDEA.
2. Erroneously framing the department’s creation as a partisan tool of liberal Democrats for excessive spending as its framework and expansion despite the fact that it was republicans Nixon and Reagan who structured the DE and sponsored many of the federal funding programs that Chapter 11 claim are “out of control spending.”
3. Failing to acknowledge the challenges and political dynamics that have affected educational funding and policy over time.

Chapter 11’s narrative tries to simplify and distort reality [i]. The actual historical context suggests that while there have been many inefficiencies, the solution is not to dismantle the DE but to address these inefficiencies within a restructured framework.

Impact of Federal Programs on Education:

Chapter 11’s recommendations focus almost exclusively on the education for “WHITE UPPER AND UPPER MIDDLECLASS STUDENTS” with a complete misunderstanding of the complexities surrounding educational reform, the critical role of educators and inner-city education challenges. Historical initiatives aimed at improving education in inner-city communities illustrate that sustained, well-supported programs can lead to significant positive outcomes. The limited success of these programs often stems from political interference rather than intrinsic flaws.

Chapter 11 overlooks the fact that its own data actually confirms the success of our educational system as it shows steady increases with test scores resulting until 2013. Huge advances were made for lower-income communities that Chapter 11 also fails to acknowledge. Initiatives from the 1960s played a pivotal role in transforming inner-city neighborhoods, shifting the focus from crime and drug abuse to education and economic development.

Federal funding is required to achieve these inner-city goals because school funding is based on community property tax, and inner cities have a much lower tax base resulting in insufficient funding to provide a quality education environment.[3]

While there have been notable improvements over the past six decades, the potential impact of these programs would have been amplified had they been sustained. Ongoing educational initiatives could have significantly reduced crime rates, spurred economic growth, and decreased reliance on welfare and Medicaid programs, ultimately saving billions of dollars by promoting productive citizenship and reducing incarceration rates.[4]

Political leaders often struggle to defer to educators on educational matters, failing to recognize that meaningful changes require time to produce results. This challenge highlights the need for more informed and patient approaches to educational reform—an aspect that is regrettably overlooked in the conclusions and recommendations of Chapter 11.

The Creation of the Department of Education

Chapter 11’s assertion that the formation of the DE was primarily driven by special interest groups seeking to expand “uncontrolled federal funding” through a “single, captive agency” to promote their agendas. However, this claim lacks substantiation and overlooks the foundational purposes behind the establishment of the DE.

The Department of Education was created for three primary reasons:

1. National Importance of Education: President Eisenhower emphasized the critical importance of education for the well-being of the nation. The formation of the DE was intended to elevate the status of education within the federal government, reflecting its significance in national security and development.
2. National Guidance: To provide coherent national guidance that aligns educational practices with the evolving needs of the country. This alignment is crucial for addressing challenges in a rapidly changing global landscape.
3. Efficiency and Consolidation: Prior to the DE’s creation, federal funding for education was fragmented across multiple unrelated government agencies, leading to inefficiencies and a lack of accountability. The DE was also designed to consolidate and streamline the funding programs initiated under the Eisenhower and Johnson administration as well as reduce bureaucratic red tape and improve overall efficiency.

Chapter 11’s recommendation to eliminate the DE would splinter the existing consolidation and oversight of funding across various departments of Justice, Labor, State, Defense, etc. and inevitably lend itself to increased inefficiencies and confusion of resources. This recommendation disregards the broader historical context of bipartisan support for federal guidance in education.

 

STRUCTURAL REFORMS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REQUIRES

Chapter 11 claims that federal intervention has failed to improve student achievement, citing stagnant academic outcomes despite significant expenditures. However, data presented by Chapter 11 shows just the opposite with an upward trend in educational performance until 2013, with a decline thereafter. Basing recommendations to improve education by the elimination of the DE and reallocate funding without addressing the underlying issues shown by the data implies that those recommendations are not designed to benefit students, but strictly a political approach.

Summary of Proposed Restructuring Plans in the above three Sections:

Federal Funding Directly to States and Local Governments: This proposal advocates for federal funding to bypass federal oversight and go directly to state and local governments that would reduce costs and improve education. To the contrary, historical evidence indicates that federal oversight has helped mitigate the misuse of education funds by state and local governments. Without federal guidance, there are risks of exacerbating existing issues rather than solving them.

This proposal not only lacks supporting data, but it also ignores the fact that 92.2% of educational funding is already provided by state and local governments[5]. One could argue that more federal funding and a stronger DE is required to address the many issues with education that Chapter 11 identified as requiring reform. Chapter 11 proposal to eliminate the DE is undermined by the likelihood that more funding directly to the states could only make matters worse.

Empowerment of Students and Families: Fostering a collaborative relationship between parents and educators is essential for creating a thriving educational community, but it must respect the professional role of teachers. Empowering students and families to bi-pass or significantly reduce input from educators would jeopardize the essential collaborative relationship. [6] This shift undermines educational quality by placing decision-making in the hands of those without professional training and discourages professional teachers who would be accountable to non-professionals whose children they will have to teach. [7]

Empowering parents as recommended by Chapter 11 leads to increased conflicts and pressures on educators, potentially driving talented teachers out of the profession. Historical and empirical evidence shows that effective education requires the expertise of trained educators. Education is a specialized field requiring professional training and expertise. Allowing untrained parents or students to make educational decisions will undermine the effectiveness of teaching and learning.

Increased Taxpayer Funding for Private Education: Increasing taxpayer funding for private educational options through school vouchers, while popular among some policymakers, has not been proven to improve education.  In fact, the recommendation for taxpayer funded private education is undermined by the data Chapter 11 presents which shows a correlation between the rise of taxpayer-funded private education and the decline in student performance.  This concept has been criticized for not only its failure to improve educational performance, but also for diverting funds from public schools, questionable financial practices, racism, selective admissions, exacerbating student inequalities, total mismanagement, lack of oversight, uncertified and unqualified teachers, high teacher turnover, failed ventures, profiting from students, and more.[ii]

Student Loans: Chapter11’s critique of the DE’s role in student loans raises important points that merit careful consideration. The DE should not be viewed as a lending institution and must remove itself from being a political target as being such. A more effective approach would involve facilitating lending through the private sector, with the government acting as a guarantor to reduce risk and subsidizing interest rates to make education financing more manageable. Additionally, the DE should develop programs aimed at making public college tuition more affordable, ensuring that higher education remains accessible without compromising financial responsibility.  It is fiscally irresponsible to convey to students that borrowing money can be done without the expectation of repayment.

Contradiction: Recommendations advocate for reduced federal oversight while simultaneously calling for the Department of Justice to enforce conservative ideological positions in education on a national level such as a properunderstanding of gender ideology, critical race theory, same sex marriage, and other conservative right ideological issues. These recommendations prevent any local government which wants to teach a broader view outside the acceptable confines of the conservative federal mandate, a complete contradiction to Chapter 11’s recommendation for less federal government.

CONCLUSION

Chapter 11’s Mission and Recommendations lack any analysis of the complexities within the educational system and the role of the DE. While it raises some valid concerns, the proposals presented are insufficiently supported by evidence or a basic understanding of the historical and contemporary challenges facing American education. In fact, the data provided in Chapter 11 contradicts its very conclusions and recommendations.

The origins of the DE trace back to the Eisenhower administration, reflecting a longstanding commitment by successive presidents to prioritize education. Each administration since Eisenhower has aspired to be regarded as the “Education President,” emphasizing the role of education as a foundational element of democracy and a critical federal responsibility, a concept totally ignored by Chapter 11.

Chapter 11’s absence of any references to student achievement suggests that its Mission to dismantle the Department of Education is strictly politically motivated rather than genuinely focused on enhancing educational outcomes. The emphasis on privatizing education, without adequately addressing the underlying complexities, echoes failures observed in other privatization efforts.

Moreover, it is important to recognize the inconsistency in recommending improved fiscal and management practices when the leader of the conservative party has faced significant financial failures, including multiple bankruptcies and substantial debts totaling over $8.43 billion[8] and had 13 business failures costing investors and customers many billions more[9]. This raises credibility issues of the recommendations being made.

Education is the cornerstone of national development and requires a well-structured and professionally managed system to effectively address its challenges on a national level. The Department of Education is the most important department within any administration and without a strong national educational system, all other disciplines will fail.

Project 2025 is purely politically based and not in the best interest of the students – the Department of Education should not be eliminated, just restructured.

[1] Lindsey Burke, author of Chapter 11, is the Director of the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank. She is also on the Board of Visitors for George Mason University, serves on the board of the Educational Freedom Institute, and is a fellow at EdChoice. Burke holds a BA in Politics from Hollins University, an MA in Foreign Language Education from the University of Virginia, and a PhD in Education Policy from George Mason University.

[2] Zachary Richardson comes from a family of educators and raised on a college campus where his father was president. Holding an F&M College Geology degree he served as a naval aviator for 21 years. His career spans leadership roles in public and private companies, corporate boards, and guest speaking engagements at high schools and colleges regarding entrepreneurship. He founded a business to provide college students practical business experience and has served on alumni and school boards. As school board president, he implemented significant reforms to boost student achievement, increase teacher salaries, expand curriculum, and consolidate schools, despite facing a failed recall effort by far left progressive parents, teachers, and community members.

 

[3] Dr. Jean Richardson, a college professor of elementary education and my mother, led an ambitious Inner-City Education Program in Newark and Elizabeth, New Jersey. This 20-year initiative was designed to affect a cultural shift by the time the children in the program reached adulthood. The program included the construction of new schools equipped with community pools, gyms, daycare facilities, after-school activities, and adult education programs. Initial funding came from various sources, including the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, which supported successful music and art programs. However, these programs faced challenges when funding was prematurely withdrawn because politicians from both parties, who knew little about education, wanted immediate results, leading to the eventual dissolution of these programs.

 

[4] Currently, the national average cost per student is $17,280 per year, compared to the Federal Cost of Incarceration Fee (COIF) of $43,846 per prisoner annually, with state COIF[4] costs reaching as high as $307,000 per year per prisoner. Private prisons, funded by taxpayer dollars, often incur even higher costs. Also, inefficacy and lack of accountability of the privatization of the prison system raises concerns about Chapter 11’s proposal to privatize the education system.

 

[5] Public education funding in the U.S. needs an overhaul: How a larger federal role would boost equity and shield children from disinvestment during downturns | Economic Policy Institute (epi.org)

[6] Loss of Talent in Education: In no other profession do service providers receive professional direction from those they serve as is often the case in education. Teachers thrive when they work under the guidance of experienced educational leaders who understand the complexities of pedagogy and can provide professional support. When the influence of parents—who may prioritize the needs of their own “gifted” children—overrides this professional framework, it can create insurmountable challenges.

Empowering parents is crucial: however, if their involvement leads to a diminished respect for the expertise of educators, it is difficult to attract and retain talented teachers. Educators seek an environment where they can exercise their professional judgment and expertise, rather than feeling like subordinates to untrained stakeholders.

[7] The Impact of “Bulldozer Parents” on Education: Many exceptional educators have left the profession due to the pressures exerted by overly involved parents. It is not uncommon for these empowered parents to file formal complaints when their children do not receive top grades or gain admission to preferred classes.

Often, these parents believe they possess a greater understanding of educational practices than trained professionals. This can lead to demands for their children to be placed in learning environments that may not align with their actual needs, prioritizing prestige over suitability. While Chapter 11 does not explicitly address the concept of empowering students, the phenomenon of empowered parents can undermine the integrity of grading systems and disrupt the learning curriculum. Ultimately, it is the students who bear the brunt of this chaos, as their educational experience becomes compromised in the pursuit of parental approval.

 

[8] Trump Bankruptcies:  The Trump Taj Mahal in 1991: $675 million in junk bonds,  $3 billion and  approximately $900 million in personal liabilities he negotiated away. Trump Castle Hotel & Casino in 1992 and Trump Plaza Casino 1992 —Trump Plaza $550 million and Trump’s Castle $338 million in debt. Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts in 2004 —$1.8 billion Trump Entertainment Resorts in 2009 —$1.2 billion

 

[9] Trump Business Failures: Trumped!: syndicated radio /  Trump Steaks /  Trump Network: Nutrition supplements / GoTrump: Online travel site / Tour de Trump: Bicycle race /  Trump Airlines /  Trump Vodka /  The New Jersey Generals: Pro football team. / Trump Mortgage /  Trump: The Game /  Trump Magazine /  Trump Ice: Bottled water.  Trump University

 

[i] Department of Education History: Chapter 11 misrepresents the department’s history by asserting that it was established by Carter as a strategic maneuver to finance ineffective projects. A comprehensive summary of the department’s historical development is provided.

Nixon While Chapter 11 suggests that the creation of the Department of Education was primarily a result of collaboration between teacher unions and President Carter, the idea of a dedicated federal education department predates Carter’s administration. My father, Dr. Thomas Richardson, a college president, was part of an educational task force initiated by President Nixon. Despite identifying as a liberal progressive Democrat, my father held President Nixon in high regard for his understanding of educational issues. Nixon recognized that Johnson’s policies had become highly controversial among Republicans, which impeded effective progress in education. Nixon had promised to address these issues in his second term, but his presidency was ultimately derailed by Watergate. Had he been able to follow through, Nixon’s Department of Education might have been more robust and effective than the one we have today.

Carter: During his presidential campaign, Jimmy Carter sought the support of teachers’ unions with a promise to establish a Department of Education. However, upon taking office, Carter’s administration delayed fulfilling this promise, which led to friction with the unions. It was not until the final year of his presidency that Carter established the department which never had an established clear mission or infrastructure, My father believed that Nixon’s approach to education was more promising than Carter’s.

Reagan: President Reagan’s administration was marked by a notable skepticism toward the Department of Education, which he inherited without a clear structure, direction, or goals. Reagan’s administration viewed the department as a political liability, partly due to its leadership being comprised more of political appointees than experienced educators. This, in turn, undermined its ability to effectively address student needs. Reagan’s policy preference was to reduce federal funding and delegate more control to individual states. However, his administration faced challenges as the evolving role of schools necessitated increased federal funding and oversight to support a broadening array of educational initiatives.

Upon Bill Bennett’s appointment as Secretary of Education, his initial goal was to diminish the department’s prominence by reducing its cabinet-level status and redirecting federal funding to the states. Despite this, Bennett emerged as a staunch advocate for comprehensive school reform, driven by three primary factors:

1. Economic Competitiveness: The so-called “Toyota problem” highlighted the growing concern over America’s technological and productivity edge diminishing in the face of fierce competition from Japanese industries. The resultant economic and trade imbalances underscored the urgent need to bolster educational standards to regain a competitive advantage.
2. Changing Family Dynamics: The 1980s saw significant shifts in family structures, including rising divorce rates, increased television consumption, dual-income households, and a generational gap in parenting skills. Consequently, schools began to assume many roles traditionally performed by parents, placing additional demands on the educational system.
3. Legislative Changes: New legislation required public schools to offer more extensive services to students with mental and physical disabilities, further intensifying the need for increased federal support and oversight.

In response to these factors, education emerged as a critical national issue, necessitating substantial federal investment and regulation to address the evolving needs of the educational landscape.

Clinton: Richard Riley, known as the “Education Governor” from his time in South Carolina, was appointed Secretary of Education. He continued the reform efforts initiated by Bennett and focused on implementing educational standards, improving student performance, closing the achievement gap, expanding technology access, and making higher education more affordable.

Bush: Appointed Rod Paige as the seventh Secretary of Education the first educator in that position.  Paige was instrumental in the implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, which introduced nationwide accountability standards. However, as NCLB began to show drawbacks, including financial exploitation and political issues, Paige resigned. His successor, Margaret M. Dudar, who had limited educational experience and was involved in the creation of NCLB, faced criticism as the department struggled with various issues, including the controversy surrounding same-sex marriage books and conflicts of interest in student loan programs.

Obama: President Obama appointed Arne Duncan, a professional educator, as Secretary of Education. Duncan tackled bipartisan demands for national education improvements by initiating the Common Core State Standards Initiative. This initiative aimed to establish consistent educational standards for English language arts and mathematics across states. Although the program was conceptually strong, political disputes over the standards led to its mischaracterization and resistance from many states, which often adopted similar standards under different names.

Trump: President Trump appointed Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. DeVos’s primary qualification was her marriage to billionaire Dick DeVos, former CEO of Amway and major Trump donor. Her tenure was marked by a strong push for federally funded private schools, which were created at the expense of public schools.

Biden:  As a lifelong educator, Secretary of State Miguel Cardona, EdD, worked diligently to address the significant challenges facing the education system, including those exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as teacher shortages and low salaries. His administration faces the contentious issue of government-funded private schools, which undermines public education. Unfortunately, the Department of Education’s efforts have been overshadowed by controversies surrounding Biden’s student loan forgiveness policies, further politicizing the department and complicating its mission.

 

[ii] Profiting from our Children: The concept of taxpayer funded private education gained notoriety in the late 1990s with Jeb Bush’s money-making Liberty Charter School, which failed in 2008. The concept regained popularity in 2011 when Arizona started the Education Savings Account (ESA) program.  Though not widely known, most of the private schools that were funded with taxpayer money were for-profit endeavors from which politicians profited directly or indirectly. Forbes July 10, 2024 states: In almost every corner of the U.S., charter schools are non-profit. And yet, there are numerous ways to run a non-profit for profit.[ii]  Fordham Institute states,“… charter schools that send nearly all of their operating funds to their for-profit management organizations, which also have larger operator networks, more students per teacher, and more teacher turnover…[ii]

The Data: With taxpayer funded private education taking off in 2011, its impact on our educational system started showing results in 2013 to 2015, which coincides with the peak of educational trends shown in the data presented by Chapter 11. As taxpayer private education became more popular, Chapter 11 charts on pages 324, 328, and 329 show that educational performance continued to decline as the “out of control costs” described through-out Chapter 11 increased.  Instead of analyzing the data to understand the unfavorable trends, Chapter 11 blindly makes recommendations that could be contributed to the downward trends.

Selective Admission:  Chapter 11 cites data claiming that student performance is better with private education. This data is misleading because private schools can select who is admitted and who is rejected from their schools, so they pick the best performers and leave the underperformers to the public schools. Students with learning or physical disabilities are generally not admitted to taxpayer funded private schools and must attend public schools, thus public schools have many more challenges than private schools.

Special Needs Students: By legislation, public schools not only have open admissions and are mandated to accommodate all mentally and physically challenged students. Many of these students require special specific care requiring nonacademic related services and staff. Mental and physical challenges for severely handicapped students in ALL grades require bodily function assistance resulting in school staff preforming tasks such as diaper changing and physical restraint. Chapter 11 criticizes the DE for the “growing number of non-teaching staff in public schools across the country” without understanding the cause.  Over the past decade, the number of special needs students has increased dramatically as medical breakthroughs have extended the capabilities and life-span of such students, which has increased the cost of education dramatically and not addressed in Chapter 11.

Funding Dilution: The funding for teach special needs students has not kept pace with the costs, so public schools have had to divert funds from regular academic programs to special needs programs which have significantly diluted schools’ curricula. In addition, for every student that attends private education, funding for public schools is reduced proportionately. As public-school funding decreases, public school programs decrease as well.

Limiting Student Options: Chapter 11 does consider that a large public school can offer students many more programs than small private schools.  Therefore, by dividing a student population into many small private schools, academic options for students diminish and a rounded education is lost which include a variety of school subjects, extracurricular activities, and competitive sports.

Lack of Certification – High Turnover: In many states, Taxpayer Funded Private Schools do not require teachers to be certified, or even have a college degree.  The pay for such teachers is generally less than public schools with less benefits.  They also entail longer work hours and larger classes, resulting in high turnover rates and lack of teacher continuity. [ii]

Lack of Accountability: Public schools, which are directly funded by the government have strict accountability of funding and academics.  When taxpayer funding goes to private education at parental discretion there is considerably less accountability of funding and school performance. Accountability issues are discussed thought-out Chapter 11, yet it is promoting an educational system that is known for its lack of accountability.

Taxpayer Funding a Private Service:  If parents are dissatisfied with their local public school system, diverting taxpayer funds from those public schools is not the solution as the educational performance will naturally decline.  Likewise, if people are dissatisfied with their police department, the solution would not be to divert funds from the police department to private personal security firms, it would be to elect officials who can fix the problems.  The same for the school system.  Diluting funds for education can only have a negative impact on the system and community.