Isaac Rus and the Accountability Act failure

It was a touching story that provided a needed gut-check on the policy debates over the Alabama Accountability Act.

The article — published Wednesday in the Mobile Press-Register and immediately broadcast statewide by Republicans defending their controversial law — told the story of a young mother who was grateful for school choice.

Dig a bit deeper, however, and the story underlined the failure of a law that is unlikely to provide school choice and will damage the public schools that remain the only option for almost all Alabama children.

Headlined, “Alabama Accountability Act a lifeline for one Montgomery family,” the story focused on a 5-year-old autistic child, Isaac Rus. His mother, Angie Rus, had been distraught over her son’s limited options when he enters kindergarten next year. He is assigned to a failing school and she does not like the public magnet schools which he could also attend. She has not applied to a private school and may home-school her child, but the prospect of a tax credit to help with tuition is enough to convince her to study private-school options.

By putting a face on the policy debate, the story performed a service. Alabamians may disagree over whether the best use of limited funds is to fix failing public schools or to subsidize private-sector choices, but the status quo is unacceptable. Every child deserves a good education, and some public schools are failing to provide it.

An analysis of whether the Accountability Act will provide the lifeline the Montgomery mother expects was beyond the scope of the story, but is important in evaluating the law.

The first problem is that she probably will not be eligible for the tax credit.

The law that passed Monday gives parents a right to a tax credit “to reimburse the parent for costs associated with transferring the student from a failing school.” Another provision limits credits to those who were assigned or enrolled in a failing school, but “subsequently transferred” to a private school. These provisions have been highlighted frequently in the debate over whether students already enrolled in private schools are entitled to the tax credit.

The argument Gov. Robert Bentley makes — and the one relied upon by legislators in compiling the Education Trust Fund budget — is this means a student actually had to attend a failing school the previous year in order to be eligible for the tax credit.

The alternative interpretation of the law would require the state to provide tax credits to families of students who already are enrolled in private schools. Estimates vary, but this would deplete the Education Trust Fund by over $25 million for students who not only have the choice of attending a private school, but already are exercising that choice.

Bentley’s view, though, is that the law only allows the Revenue Department to issue tax credits to the families of students already in failing schools.

The problem for Angie Rus is that her child has never been enrolled in a failing school. Her son, therefore, cannot transfer from a failing school. Bentley’s interpretation — which he claims also is the Revenue Department’s interpretation — means no parent of a kindergartner is eligible for the credit, because no kindergartner transferred from a failing school. Also ineligible, in their first year, are any students who move into a failing-school zone. Indeed, no student is eligible for the credit in the first year his school is deemed failing, because he will not be transferring “from a failing school.” If a student’s school is not failing in first grade but is deemed failing in second, it will not be until third grade that the student can transfer from a failing school and claim the tax credit.

Other issues further complicate the Rus family’s feel-good story.

The law specifically states that no private school has any obligation to accept a transfer student. Many schools already have said they will not accept transfers because they are worried state oversight will come with the tax credit. While Angie Rus may find a private school she likes, the school may not accept her child.

If her autistic child needs special services, the benefits of the Accountability Act diminish even more. The law specifically provides that the public school system — which already lost funding because of the tax credit — remains obligated to provide all special services to students with disabilities after they transfer. Even if a private school accepts her child, therefore, Rus may be shuttling the child back to the public school every day for special services.

The broad dispute between Democrat and Republican legislators seems to be on the best method of improving educational opportunities for children. Most Democrats prefer improving public schools. Most Republicans prefer tax-subsidized alternatives to public schools, such as the tax-credit plan created by the Accountability Act or charter schools.

The Rus story is a reminder that either approach — investment in public education or school choice — could provide benefits to students who desperately need them.

It also is a story, however, that demonstrates the miserable failure of the Accountability Act in advancing either strategy. It drains tens of millions of dollars from an already underfunded public school system, undermining any effort to improve public education in the state. It does so, however, without providing meaningful school choice.

Republicans won a supermajority in both houses of the Legislature. They had a right to pursue their preferred strategy of school choice.

They also, however, had an obligation to pursue that strategy responsibly. Belatedly, several Republican lawmakers realized the Accountability Act managed to gut public schools without providing the promised benefit of school choice. Bentley — who signed the first version of the Accountability Act — recognized his mistake and tried to delay implementation for two years, which would have given the Legislature a chance to repair the damage. Several senators who initially voted for the law agreed with Bentley, including Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur.

The Legislature ignored the protests and overrode Bentley’s executive amendment.

Parents like Angie Rus were left with the worst possible result. The muddled law removes any possibility that the failing school to which her child was assigned will improve. It will likely decline, along with excellent public schools, as it cuts teachers and programs to pay for the Accountability Act. Yet Isaac Rus is unlikely to receive the promised benefit of school choice.

The problem with the Accountability Act is not that it promotes school choice. The problem is that it damages the public schools that almost all Alabama children attend, and does so without any meaningful benefit.

‘Republicans are making headlines’

As the final day of the Alabama legislative session wound down Monday, House Speaker Mike Hubbard sent out a mass e-mail with the subject line, “Republicans are making headlines.”

They are indeed, something they were unable to do as a minority party.

The Alabama GOP has an absolute lock on state government. It has a supermajority in both houses. Republicans hold every statewide office.

This is, of course, a relatively new state of affairs. For 136 years, Democrats had complete control. Republican lawmakers, as a minority, could sponsor crazy bills and nobody cared. Like Alabama Democrats today, they had the luxury of irrelevance.

Republican legislators chafed at their invisibility, as do all lawmakers with the inability to exert control. What makes this group unique is that it continues to crave headlines, spurning the less glamorous work of governing.

They have too often failed to recognize their responsibilities changed when they became the majority. This failure has harmed the state and disappointed the solid conservatives who voted them into office.

Republican legislators made headlines by passing a law that forces employers to allow employees to bring guns into employee parking lots, removes almost all limits on where people can carry guns and limits the authority of sheriffs in denying handgun permits.

How will the next mass layoff go over, when all those who receive pink slips — some despondent and some angry — potentially have guns in nearby cars?

How will employers balance their moral obligation to protect employees and customers against the legal requirement that they allow guns on their property?

Legislators made headlines by passing a law that claimed to give students trapped in failing public schools a way out. But the law cuts $25 million from all public schools to give unlimited scholarships to students who transfer from public schools that are not failing. It shifts tax money for public schools to private schools, financing student transfers even when they are not trapped by low income.

They made headlines with the same law by subsidizing religious schools with money from the Education Trust Fund, despite a state constitution provision stating, “No money raised for the support of the public schools shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian or denominational school.”

Before 2010, a Republican minority’s support for these measures would not have made headlines because they would not have become law.

They made headlines this session because it seems inconceivable that a party with complete control over a state could pass such reckless laws.

They made headlines because, three years after becoming the majority, Republican legislators continue to rule as if they are a minority.

For the good of a state that is desperate for leaders who place a higher priority on governance than headlines, the Republicans in Montgomery need to accept the responsibility that comes with power.

Bentley tries to undo Accountability fiasco

Gov. Robert Bentley made a mistake, owned up to it and now is trying to correct it.

Lawmakers, who made the same mistake, should follow his lead.

Bentley’s mistake was signing the Accountability Act into law. Along with other lawmakers, he deliberately hid the bill from the public and from educators who could have pointed out its obvious flaws. In the space of less than two hours, a good bill providing flexibility to school districts became an enormously expensive law purporting to provide school choice to students in failing schools.

The law defines “failing” so broadly that it includes excellent schools with disadvantaged populations — including Decatur Developmental — and leaves 10 percent of Alabama schools on a perpetual failing list. The 80,000 students in these “failing” schools can transfer to private schools. The parents of all who elect to transfer will receive a voucher worth about $3,500 to apply to tuition. Another part of the law sets up a $25 million scholarship fund, payable to private schools.

All of the money for the program comes from the Education Trust Fund, which already has shrunk by 22 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since 2008.

The law is riddled with inconsistencies. One portion, for example, suggests families of students already enrolled in private schools — regardless of their income — can receive the tax credits, while another part suggests the opposite. The Department of Revenue has yet to make a decision on an issue which could end up in the courts. The answer to this one question could drain $42 million from the ETF.

The numerous flaws in the Accountability Act led to the passage last week of a replacement, House Bill 658. The bill narrows the list of failing schools, but it does not address the question of whether families of students already enrolled in private schools can claim the tax credits. It broadens the ETF-funded scholarship program, making it available to students in schools that are not failing.
Cost estimates range from $40 million to $110 million.

On Wednesday, Bentley finally stepped in. With one day — Monday — left in the legislative session, Bentley filed an executive amendment. The amendment would preserve the flexibility portion of the law, but delay for two years implementation of the portions of the law that subsidize private schools.

The two-year delay provides the time needed to correct the numerous drafting errors, this time with input from educators and tax experts.

The delay also gives the flexibility portions of the law time to work.

Both versions of the Accountability Act go into effect immediately. Neither the Revenue Department nor the Education Department have written regulations on how to implement the confusing law.

Local school districts must send notices to families of children in failing schools before school starts in August. Without regulations, however, they do not know which of their schools are failing. The notices must give instructions on how to claim tax credits, but the Revenue Department does not know who is entitled to the credits.

Bentley deserves plenty of criticism for signing the Accountability Act. Finally, though, he has recognized the mistake and has offered a solution.

He needs support from legislators of both parties. On Monday, they should provide it.

A response to Senate Pro Tem Del Marsh on Accountability Act

Senate Pro Tem Del Marsh lashed out Thursday at a proposal by Gov. Robert Bentley to delay portions of HB658, a replacement bill aimed at fixing some of the flaws in the Accountability Act that Bentley signed into law in March.

Bentley’s amendment (which he defends here) would preserve the portion of the bill providing flexibility to local school districts that provide a plan to improve outcomes for their students. This portion of the law had bipartisan support. It was the only section that received input from educators before Feb. 28, when GOP legislators passed a substitute bill renamed the Accountability Act. Bentley’s proposal would delay for two years the implementation of the tax-credit portions of HB658, a bill the House and Senate passed last week replacing the Accountability Act.

Marsh, who has considerable control over whether the Senate even votes on Bentley’s executive amendments, has threatened to kill HB658, leaving the Accountability Act as law.

Marsh’s statements from Thursday’s press release are below, followed by my comments.

“We only have one constituency when it comes to education in Alabama and that’s the children.”

This should be a truism. In fact there are at least two other constituencies, one relevant and one not.

The relevant constituency is corporate contributors who will benefit from tax dollars flowing to private schools. For the most part, this constituency does not include existing private schools, most of whom have said they have no interest in accepting transfer students.

The relevant constituency does include education corporations that can reduce the number of teachers through educational games, untrained teachers and webcasts. Such techniques — consistently unsuccessful in other states — are the only way to generate a profit while keeping costs close to the $3,500 tax credit to which most transfer students would be limited. These are for-profit corporations who contribute heavily to Alabama politicians.

The irrelevant constituency is the Alabama Education Association. It is, of course, the constituency to which Marsh is referring. The AEA is the bogeyman of GOP politics. Every attack on public education since the GOP took power in 2010 has been justified as an attack on the AEA.

The AEA has no power as an affirmative political force. It wedded itself so firmly with Democrats that the GOP’s ascendancy left it impotent. Indeed, because public school teachers generally match the demographics of the state, their loyalty to AEA is limited and does not extend to party politics.

So why the veiled reference to AEA? Because elected representatives who are unwilling to go against the wishes of voters are more than happy to attack the AEA for both perceived and actual sins. If Marsh can stage the debate as one between the GOP and AEA, he wins.

While AEA has historically been the most vocal supporter of public education, Gov. Robert Bentley and other legislators have discovered the organization has little to do with disgust over the Accountability Act. Voters attended public schools. Their children and grandchildren attend them. They know teachers and principals, and generally find them far more sincere in their calling than are politicians. Attacks on public schools are attacks on communities.

“For too long, students in failing schools have been stuck with the status quo and denied the opportunities they deserve.”

As demonstrated by the Legislature’s miscues in trying to define which schools are “failing” — the definitions invariably rely on standardized test scores — this issue is not simple. What is clear, however, is that Alabama’s public schools are improving.

Alabama had the nation’s fourth-highest increase in graduation rates between 2002 and 2008. The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress ranked Alabama No. 2 in the nation in gains in fourth-grade reading scores.

Alabama is one of only four states to receive the National Council on Teacher Quality’s highest rating on teacher preparedness programs. The state ranked No. 1 in the nation in the percentage increase in students passing Advanced Placement exams in math, science and English.

These advances have been made despite the fact that — thanks in part to legislative budgeting prorities — inflation-adjusted K-12 education funding has dropped more than 22 percent since 2008.

They have been made despite the fact that, since 2010, the Legislature has been on a relentless and successful mission to force the Education Trust Fund to cover noneducational expenses historically covered by the General Fund.

While Alabama’s public schools are improving, many are far from where they need to be. In studying the schools with unacceptable outcomes, what becomes obvious is that they have a single trait in common: high poverty rates.

The number of homeless students in Alabama public schools rose by 49.3 percent between the 2006-07 and 2009-10 school years.

More than half of the students in the state’s K-12 schools receive free- or reduced-cost lunches because of their low household incomes. Numerous studies have concluded that poverty — not school strategies — is the greatest impediment to a student’s academic success.

“At this point there are two options: override the Governor’s executive amendment or not take the executive amendment out of the Senate basket, which unfortunately will kill this good piece of legislation but it would leave the Accountability Act as passed earlier this session intact.”

This, of course, is only true if Marsh is willing to pay the political cost of ignoring the wishes both of his caucus and his constituents. The other option is for the Legislature to adopt the governor’s amendments. In doing so, it would give schools a chance to use the flexibility provisions of the law to maximize the outcomes of their students. Providing flexibility while dramatically decreasing funding — which is what both versions of the Accountability Act do — is a recipe designed for failure. Some studies have shown benefits to public schools when they respond to private competition, but they need the resources to compete. The Accountability Act reduces funding for schools that already are operating on austerity budgets.

“Since the Accountability Act is already law, both of these options ensure that parents of children stuck in failing schools have school choice now, not in two years, and finally have the opportunity for a better education.”

The idea that the Accountability Act would provide students a way out of failing schools is one of the greatest fallacies perpetrated by Marsh and his colleagues.

The $3,500 tax credits pay less than half of typical private-school tuition. Since almost all of the students in schools deemed failing are from poor families, they are unlikely to have the money to go to a private school. Moreover, the tax credits are paid months after tuition is due and require documentation that the parents already have paid the tuition. The law specifies that private schools need not provide transportation.

All these factors suggest few students will have the financial ability to attend private schools. More to the point, however, most private schools don’t want them. While the very different demographics in “failing” schools and most private schools is likely to be a factor in this resistance, private schools also fear state efforts to ensure that tax dollars are being spent responsibly.

The $25 million scholarship fund — financed with ETF dollars — does little to alleviate the problem. Even if private schools were willing to undergo the enhanced state oversight that comes with such scholarship funds, it would cover the tuition of fewer than 10 percent of students in schools deemed failing. The Accountability Act allows 25 percent of the scholarship recipients to already be enrolled in private schools, and the poorly drafted law places no income limit on the recipients of the scholarships. The replacement bill, HB658, allows students in nonfailing schools to claim scholarships not taken by students in failing schools.

“We’ve worked too hard between both chambers of this Legislature to make school choice a reality and I refuse to kick the can down the road any longer. This is a good compromise bill and I’m disappointed that the Governor has proposed this executive amendment. Governor Bentley put it best after signing the Accountability Act into law when he said ‘All children deserve access to a quality education no matter they live and this provides a new option.’

Thanks to conservative budgeting practices like the Responsible Budgeting and Spending Act, we can implement this law now in a fiscally responsible manner while providing much-needed school choice to students trapped in perpetually failing schools.”

The Accountability Act is about as fiscally irresponsible as can be imagined.

Lawmakers agree it will cost the Education Trust Fund tens of millions of dollars — that was the idea — but poor drafting means they have no idea on a maximum cost. They cannot agree on which schools are “failing” under the law, and thus can not estimate how many families would have a right to claim ETF tax credits. They cannot agree on whether the language gives the families of students already enrolled in private schools a right to claim the tax credits, an issue that by itself could add $42 million to the law’s cost.

The replacement bill solved some problems, left most unresolved and made other problems worse. It gives no guidance on the cost of the legislation, which lawmakers estimate at anywhere between $35 million and $110 million.

The only thing known with certainty is that every dime will come from the Education Trust Fund, thus hurting all the students in nonfailing schools and those unable or unwilling to transfer from failing schools.

Gov. Bentley’s proposal is not perfect. Absent amendments, the tax-credit portions of the Accountability Act will be just as flawed and fiscally irresponsible in two years as they are now. In the course of those two years, however, legislators can do what they should have done before the rushed passage of the law. They can get input from educators and they can study similar programs in other states — most of which have been utter failures, but some of which have not — for effective strategies.

The governor is offering a politically feasible way out of deeply unpopular legislation that will become politically toxic when voters see how it impacts their schools. Instead of preparing for battle, Sen. Marsh should be looking at the vast majority of Alabama children who will be harmed, not helped, by the law that will be his legacy.

IRS scandal is serious

While facts continue to seep out, the basic ones surrounding the Internal Revenue Service’s handling of applications for tax-exempt status are damning.

The agency — one that has access to the private financial information of all U.S. citizens — apparently targeted conservative groups when evaluating Section 501(c)(4) “social welfare organizations.” IRS workers gave extra scrutiny to organizations that had the terms “tea party,” “patriot” and other conservative catch words.

The effort to enjoy the tax-exempt status of becoming a 501(c)(4) organization is an obnoxious game that took off in 2009. Unlike most groups involved in political advocacy, donors to 501(c)(4)s can remain anonymous. They have been abused by both left-leaning and right-leaning groups.

Cracking down on the groups is long overdue. They impede the transparency that is so lacking in U.S. politics.

Whether through incredible stupidity or ideological malice, the IRS apparently focused its crackdown on conservatives.

President Barack Obama said all the right things in condemning the practice, but no one should ignore that he and other Democrats seeking office in 2012 were its primary beneficiaries. The investigation of the IRS practice should be thorough, independent and should include a focus on whether there was White House involvement.

Insurance exchanges are effective

Unlike Alabama, which is dragging its feet at every step, Oregon has been proactive in efforts to set up the online health insurance exchange contemplated by the Affordable Care Act.

The theory among officials at the Oregon Insurance Division is that competition is good. Insurance exchanges add market forces to an insurance industry that — especially in Alabama — has successfully avoided them. When consumers can compare the products offered by competing insurers, prices come down.

That’s the theory. Does it work?

Apparently so.

Last week, Oregon posted a preliminary version of its exchange, a web site called Cover Oregon. The site posted 2014 health premiums as proposed by various health insurers.

The proposed 2014 premiums for a 40-year-old non-smoker ranged from $169 a month to $422 a month for the same standardized plan.

The result was no surprise. Health insurers are scrambling to reduce their premiums before October, when the final version of Oregon’s insurance exchange takes effect.

The popular complaint is that “Obamacare” is somehow antithetical to the competitive forces that are at the core of a vibrant market. To the contrary, the insurance exchanges enhance competition in a health-insurance industry dominated by monopolistic control.

Gov. Robert Bentley — who supported the idea of insurance exchanges before politics forced him to disclaim anything associated with the Affordable Care Act — has refused to participate in setting up an insurance exchange in Alabama. Hopefully the federal government’s effort to set up an exchange will provide the same benefits to Alabama consumers that the Oregon exchange already is promising.

‘School choice’ repeal needed

“It has never been my goal to have a bill that supports private education,” Gov. Robert Bentley said Monday, two months after signing into law a bill that supports private education.

The governor announced he may seek amendments to a bill passed last week. The bill replaces the Alabama Accountability Act, which Bentley signed in March.

The most significant change in the replacement bill was to limit the number of schools that are deemed “failing.” Under both the Accountability Act and the replacement bill, students in failing schools can transfer to private schools. If the schools accept them, the parents would receive a tax credit to offset the tuition.

None of the changes in the replacement bill affect the fundamental outline of the Accountability Act, which is to subsidize private schools with tax dollars from the Education Trust Fund.

If Bentley’s concern is that the replacement bill benefits private schools while hurting underfunded public schools — which it certainly does — why did he sign the Accountability Act in March? That law does precisely the same thing. Indeed, the law Bentley signed would almost definitely drain more money from the ETF because of its broader definition of failing schools.

Two Republican senators also voted against the replacement bill despite joining their unanimous GOP colleagues in voting for the Accountability Act on Feb. 28. Like Bentley, the concerns they expressed about the replacement bill also applied to the Accountability Act that received their vote.

Even if Bentley manages to block the replacement bill, the even more reckless Accountability Act would remain on the books.

The political question, therefore, is whether a majority of legislators now recognize just how awful both the Accountability Act and the replacement bill are. The responsible move would be to preserve only that portion of the Accountability Act that received debate before the rushed Feb. 28 passage, a provision that provides more flexibility for local school districts.

The gamesmanship in passing the Accountability Act has been an embarrassment. If Bentley is trying to undo the damage, he deserves credit from voters and support from legislators.