Youngkin (tries to) take the money and run

The federal tax-credit scholarship program isn't open yet, but Virginia's already in line

Republican Glenn Youngkin will leave office as governor of Virginia later this month. To his credit, he spent a lot of his tenure pushing for higher standards for public education. He revised the state’s accountability system to bring more transparency and urgency to school ratings. And he raised the state’s cut scores in the name of closing the “Honesty Gap” between state tests and true content proficiency.

Photo by Alexander Grey on Unsplash

But on January 1st, Youngkin did one more thing: He attempted to make Virginia the first state to opt in to the new federal tax-credit scholarship program created in last year’s tax bill. I use the word “attempted” here though, because his letter to the U.S. Treasury Department is not binding. In fact, the Treasury is currently in the midst of a regulatory process to define the parameters of the new program.

Why did Youngkin’s team decide to do this on their way out the door? My hunch is it was a political move to try to trap incoming Democrat Abigail Spanberger into eventually joining the program. But I don’t think it will work, and it could even backfire.

How so? Well, Youngkin has just given Spanberger a clear talking point. If she was at all leaning against participating, she can now point to Youngkin and blame him for politicizing the process and jumping the gun before the regulations are even finalized. There’s not even anything she has to do or withdraw—Youngkin’s letter is clear it’s not a formal submission. By my read of where things stand, Spanberger could just… not submit anything when the actual submission window opens later this year.

What would I do if I were in Spanberger’s shoes? Personally, I would issue a statement decrying Youngkin’s political move and make clear that it’s simply too early to decide. We all need to wait and see how the Treasury Department ultimately crafts the program.

I’ve been on the record urging Democrats to look closely at the details of the program and see if there’s a way to use it to pursue their goals. The law was written so vaguely that it left open the possibility that governors could limit eligible Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs) to ones that provided tutoring services for kids who are struggling in reading or math, or personalized services for students with disabilities, or dual enrollment or CTE or other advanced high school courses, or summer enrichment programs. The law also said nothing prohibiting states from adding their own requirements to ensure SGOs did not discriminate based on race, sex, religion, gender, etc.

But I’m worried that the Treasury Department is reading the law differently. Their vision for the program does not appear to allow states any discretion over the types of programs that are allowed to participate, how they spend their money, or whether they have to comply with state anti-discrimination laws.

Brookings senior fellow Jon Valant seems to agree with me. In comments he submitted on the draft regulations, he noted that the program, as constructed by Congress, “is silent on many issues we would expect any major education policy to address, including accountability for academic performance, anti-discrimination measures, and safeguards against waste, fraud, and abuse.” He argues:

The Trump administration has repeatedly called for the Federal government to “return” control of education decision-making to the States. For example, in an Executive Order titled “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities,” the President directed the Secretary of Education to “return authority over education to the States and local communities.”

In this case, we should heed that call. It is critically important that the Treasury Department and IRS treat the rules for SGOs as guardrails within which the States can operate—and then provide States with the discretion to make this program work for their residents. Otherwise, the program risks becoming an extraordinary source of waste, fraud, and abuse, while undermining opportunities for America’s students.

I hope the Treasury Department listens to Valant. It will let state leaders provide appropriate oversight of the programs operating within their borders. Politically, it would also allow Democrats to shape the programs as they see fit and make it more viable for more politicians of both parties to opt in.

What if they don’t? If the Treasury tries to stipulate that states cannot set rules on the types of SGOs operating in their states, that makes it a more complicated question. I personally might still say yes, but it’s a harder call. Any governor could still try to promote SGOs that did fit their vision. For example, if an SGO wanted to provide summer or afterschool programs on Uncle Sam’s dime, they could still do that. A state just couldn’t prevent bad actors from also getting money. I happen to think that trade is worth it, but I imagine a lot of progressives would make a different calculation, and the lack of accountability and civil rights protections give Democrats like Spanberger a relatively easy out.

Accountability for thee but not for me

For Youngkin specifically, he has now given his critics another quiver in their arrows. He spent four years working to impose tougher standards on public schools. Then, one of his last acts as governor will be trying to send more money to unaccountable private schools.

I worked as a consultant on the accountability project, conducted a lot of initial modeling, and presented the first draft of the system to the State Board of Education. During that effort, we had to fend off concerns that it was all just a smokescreen to make public schools look bad. I, at least, was never motivated by that. I sincerely believe in public school accountability as a tool for improvement. I believed then, and continue to believe, that any school that takes taxpayer funding should be accountable to voters. But you can’t be an accountability hawk for public schools and then turn a blind eye when it comes to private schools receiving government funding. That’s not principled leadership; that’s just hypocrisy.

Reading List

From yours truly: What can public schools learn from a $40,000-a-year private school?

Zach Groshell @Learning Science Design on student motivation and mastery learning

Lauren Wagner: Schools that receive a poor accountability ranking implement policies that improve students’ futures

Jill Barshay: One state made preschool free. Then dozens of child care centers closed

Sarah Mervosh: How Mississippi Transformed Its Schools From Worst to Best

Jed Wallace: “If you had said a generation ago that reading levels in Mississippi would exceed those in Vermont, most people would have thought you out of your mind. And yet, here we are.”