Florida Tax Credit Scholarhip’s “Selective Robinhoodism”

Posted on November 24, 2012 

By Bob Sikes from http://bobsidlethoughtsandmusings.wordpress.com/page/3/

From  Orlando Sentinel reporter Dave Weber:

More than four out of every five low-income students receiving a Florida Tax Credit Scholarship are attending religious schools. The rapidly expanding state-scholarship program allows students to attend private schools at taxpayer expense, and 83 percent are choosing church schools.

Schools run by Baptist, Lutheran, Seventh-day Adventist, Catholic, Jewish and Islamic religious organizations are among those accepting scholarship students in Central Florida and across the state. The scholarships are paid with money that certain businesses can contribute to the scholarship organization instead of paying state taxes.

Participation in the program has exploded since it was set up by the Legislature in 2001, with about 50,000 students sharing the $229 million available for scholarships this year. Half of the state’s more than 2.6 million students could qualify for the program based on low family income, and the State Board of Education estimates 100,000 students will be getting scholarships within five years.

Herein lies the benevolence of “choice” which Jeb Bush’s privatization cabal spouts out every time their ideas are challenged. It for poor kids, you see. Nevermind that the playing fields aren’t even close to being level. While Bush’s two corporate financed foundations and his republican legislative lap dogs have shoved a costly, rigid and complicated school and teacher accountability systems, no such suffocating demands exist for an industry which is receiving a quarter of a billion from Florida taxpayers. Writes Weber:

The state prescribes what students learn in public schools — including, for example, instruction on evolution theory — and carefully measures results. Performance of students and schools has been appraised by student test scores for several years, and this year for the first time public-school teachers will be evaluated based in part on those test scores as well.

But the state has no control over the curriculum at private schools. Critics complain that the state is sending students to private religious schools at taxpayer expense without adequately assessing how students or schools perform.

The state requires that scholarship students in grades three to 10 take a standardized test each year but only takes a broad look at the results to see whether the scholarship students overall appear to be relatively on par with public-school students.

Weber points out that “the scholarship fund continues to grow as businesses such as Walgreens, Winn-Dixie and United Healthcare of Florida contribute in lieu of paying state taxes.” Politicians and executives get a wonderful photo-op every year when these contributions are announced. Remarkably, an alcohol distributorship, Southern Wine and Spirits are among those corporations who also dodge state taxes this way. Such subtle crony capitalism gets blurred by the benevolence that privatization advocates hide behind.  These corporations benefit from state services which are being cut, yet gain favor from legislators by signing over their tax check to Step Up for Students, the agency which administrates the program.

Sort of like selective Robinhoodism.

While Bush and Florida GOP legislators tell voters they are giving parents choices and creating competition, they are guilty of the same thing they accuse President Obama of doing. Choosing winners and losers by creating and controlling markets through legislative fiat, tax law manipulations and regulatory engineering sounds awfully like something a conservative commentator might be writing about Obamacare.

 From:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/04/18/supreme-court-affirms-arizona-tax-credit-scholarship-program

Supreme Court Affirms Arizona Tax Credit Scholarship Program

April 18, 2011

Sarah McIntosh

In a ruling hailed by school choice supporters across the country, the United States Supreme Court has ruled opponents of Arizona’s 14-year-old tax credit scholarship program may not challenge the program on grounds it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The Court ruled 5-4 in Garriott vs. Winn and Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization vs. Winn against a lawsuit by the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which contested a tax credit program giving Arizona parents choices other than their neighborhood public schools.
The April 4 ruling overturns a 2009 decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held the Arizona program promotes religion.
Clint Bolick, director of the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute’s Center for Constitutional Litigation, says the ruling is important and has ramifications beyond school choice. “It takes tax deductions and tax credits that can be used for religious purposes out of the realm of federal legal challenges, so long as they are not discriminatory,” he explained.

Not State Money
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority, which included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia.
“By helping students obtain scholarships to private schools, both religious and secular, the [student tuition organization] program might relieve the burden placed on Arizona’s public schools,” Kennedy wrote. “The result could be an immediate and permanent cost savings for the State.”
Later in the opinion, Kennedy explained: “The distinction between governmental expenditures and tax credits refutes respondents’ assertion of standing. When Arizona taxpayers choose to contribute to STOs, they spend their own money, not money the state has collected from respondents or from other taxpayers.”
Tim Keller, executive director of the Arizona chapter of the Institute for Justice, which helped represent the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, said the majority opinion “reflects the commonsense notion that private charitable donations to private nonprofit organizations involve private funds, not public funds.”
“The fact that the government reduces an individual's tax liability based on that donation does not transform those funds from private to public money,” he said.
“Sadly, the four dissenters appear to believe that all money is government money except that which the government deigns to let us keep,” Keller added.
Taxpayer Standing Was Focus
The court soundly rejected the ACLU’s argument that tax credits constitute state funds, in effect claiming all money is state money except what the state declines to collect.
“On standing, this was a genuinely close question,” said Bolick.
“Prior rulings indicated that unlike in other areas of the law, taxpayers have standing to challenge actions under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment,” Bolick said. “The court ruled that tax credits are not public funds, and therefore taxpayers have no standing to challenge them. If the Court [case] had reached the merits of the program, it should not have been a tough call.”
Keller agrees. “Even though the court ruled the plaintiffs did not have standing, the majority decision strongly suggests that if the court had reached the merits it would have upheld the program as perfectly consistent with the Establishment Clause,” he said.
“For example, the court recognized that the program was religiously neutral, neither favoring religion over non-religion or one religion over another, and that private decisions control every aspect of the program,” Keller explained. “The Supreme Court has never found a neutral program of private choice to be unconstitutional.”

Kagan Dissents
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
“Cash grants and targeted tax breaks are means of accomplishing the same government objective—to provide financial support to select individuals or organizations,” Kagan wrote.
“Taxpayers who oppose state aid of religion have equal reason to protest whether that aid flows from one form of subsidy or the other,” Kagan argued. “Either way, the government has financed the religious activity.”
Andrew Coulson, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational, took issue with the dissenters’ claims.
“Justice Kagan seems to be claiming that taxpayers could never have standing to sue under credit programs, but she is mistaken on that point,” Coulson said. “She does seem to think that a parent who was unable to obtain a scholarship to a secular school would have standing, but I would argue that that would only be the case if it could be shown that parents seeking secular schooling were at a relative disadvantage in obtaining credits to parents seeking religious schooling.”
Coulson says that’s simply not the case.
“The share of private school scholarships available for secular schooling is actually larger than the share of families seeking secular private schooling, so secular families are not at a disadvantage, in practice,” he said.

Future Challenge Unlikely
Even if the facts were otherwise, Coulson says, a future plaintiff would lose on the merits because the allocation of scholarships is decided by independent scholarship organizations, not state officials.
“The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause applies only to state actions, not the actions of individuals, which is why tax deductions for donations to religious charities have long been found constitutional,” he said.
Arizona’s scholarship program offers individuals a 100 percent tax credit up to $500 (or $1,000 for couples filing jointly) for donations to state-authorized school tuition organizations. Those charitable groups then award scholarships for students to attend a private school of their parents’ choice. More than 27,000 students used scholarships averaging $1,889 in Arizona in 2009 under the program.
Although Arizona ACLU attorney Paul Bender told reporters the court’s ruling leaves a small opening for a future challenge to the program, Keller says he does not anticipate another attack.
“I believe that school choice opponents have exhausted their legal challenges to the Arizona program,” Keller said.
Sarah McIntosh (mcintosh.sarah@gmail.com ) is a constitutional scholar writing from Lawrence, Kansas.
Internet Info:
U.S. Supreme Court: Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization vs. Winn
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-987.pdf

Sarah McIntosh

Author bio:

Sarah McIntosh (mcintosh.sarah@gmail.com) is vice president at Missouri News Horizon and a lecturer at Wichita State University. She previously served as vice president at the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy, and a law clerk at Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. She received her BA from Wichita State and her JD from Georgetown Law Center.

As public schools face cuts, vouchers may get big boost Critics: Lack of private-school accountability makes program unfair

As public schools face cuts, vouchers may get big boost

Critics: Lack of private-school accountability makes program unfair

March 3, 2010|By Dave Weber, Orlando Sentinel

A state-financed program that gives tuition vouchers to thousands of low-income Florida students to attend religious schools may get a boost in funding while cash-strapped public schools face more cuts.

A bill being pushed in the legislative session that began this week would increase the amount paid to private schools for each student receiving a Florida Tax Credit Scholarship.

It also would change income guidelines for the program while allowing corporations to steer more money to the fund instead of paying state taxes.

School district officials complain that while public schools must meet increasingly tough demands from the Legislature, private schools receiving about $100 million in voucher cash this year do not. Teachers do not have to be certified, students do not have to meet state academic standards or take the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, schools are not graded and there is limited financial review of how the money is spent.

"Those students should have the same accountability as public school students," said Bill Vogel, superintendent of Seminole County Schools.

Seminole schools have taken a $41 million hit in state funding over the past couple of years and Orange County schools are out $88 million. Vogel anticipates up to $6 million more in cuts for Seminole next school year, based on declining state revenues.

Increases in tax breaks to encourage businesses to contribute to the voucher fund instead of paying state taxes would divert more cash from dwindling state coffers, district officials say.

While the law permits parents to choose any private school, 84 percent of the 27,700 students on Tax Credit Scholarships this year are enrolled in religious schools. Protestant, Catholic, Hebrew and Islamic schools account for four out of five of the state's 1,017 private schools accepting scholarship students. Many parents say they went with the scholarship because they want religious instruction in school.

The proposal before the Legislature includes new accountability measures as well, but they would affect only a handful of schools and a fraction of students. The Florida Department of Education acknowledges there have been problems with some schools, including 29 that were bounced from the program last year — two after claims of fraud.

Still, influential advocates including Gov. Charlie Crist, former Gov. Jeb Bush, NAACP leaders and powerful legislators back the heftier vouchers, which more often are used by minority students. They say the voucher does not cover costs at many private schools, discouraging enrollment.

The voucher, currently $3,950 per student, is considered a bargain because it's less than the cost of public schools and would remain so. The scholarship would jump to about $4,460 next year and gradually rise to approximately $5,500 — 80 percent of the per pupil cost for public schools — by 2013.

"And we are not using state dollars. It is a tax credit," said Rep. Will Weatherford, a Pasco County Republican sponsoring the bill to make the changes in the scholarship program.

While the Florida Constitution prohibits giving state money to religious institutions, Weatherford and other backers argue the state is not funding religious schools because "the state never touches the money." Instead, corporate donors who agree to contribute to the scholarship fund operated by Step Up For Students, an independent Tampa–based agency, get state tax credits. Step Up For Students writes checks to parents who endorse them to schools to cover tuition.

Weatherford agrees, though, that state tax dollars are diverted into the fund. Since the program began eight years ago nearly $600 million in tax credits have been handed out.

Supporters say vouchers give low-income parents the opportunity to escape poorly performing public schools, an argument that many parents echo.

Michelle Smith of Orlando chose to send her daughter Desiree, 8, to Agape Christian Academy to avoid enrolling her in Pine Hills Elementary, which has had Cs and Ds in state grading over the past 11 years. Desiree, now in third grade, attended pre-school at Agape and stayed on through the state scholarship.

"We wanted her to go to a Christian school that taught her not only academics but the Bible as well," Smith said.

With half of Agape's 425 students on scholarship, the steady income from the state has helped the school cope with a drop in paid enrollment. If the state increases the scholarship amount, the money could go toward a library and other needs, said director Michel-Ang Bertrand, whose school is among more than 180 in the state where half or more of students get the Tax Credit Scholarship.

At Treasure of Knowledge Christian Academy in the Meadow Woods area of South Orange, 70 of about 100 students in its k-8 program run by the El Shaddai Christian Church are on the scholarship.

.

The 2008 Florida Statutes

Title XIV TAXATION AND FINANCE Chapter 220  INCOME TAX CODE 220.187  Credits for contributions to nonprofit scholarship-funding organizations.-- (1)  FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.-- (a)  The Legislature finds that: 1.  It has the inherent power to determine subjects of taxation for general or particular public purposes. 2.  Expanding educational opportunities and improving the quality of educational services within the state are valid public purposes that the Legislature may promote using its sovereign power to determine subjects of taxation and exemptions from taxation. 3.  Ensuring that all parents, regardless of means, may exercise and enjoy their basic right to educate their children as they see fit is a valid public purpose that the Legislature may promote using its sovereign power to determine subjects of taxation and exemptions from taxation. 4.  Expanding educational opportunities and the healthy competition they promote are critical to improving the quality of education in the state and to ensuring that all children receive the high-quality education to which they are entitled. (b)  The purpose of this section is to: 1.  Enable taxpayers to make private, voluntary contributions to nonprofit scholarship-funding organizations in order to promote the general welfare. 2.  Provide taxpayers who wish to help parents with limited resources exercise their basic right to educate their children as they see fit with a means to do so. 3.  Promote the general welfare by expanding educational opportunities for children of families that have limited financial resources. 4.  Enable children in this state to achieve a greater level of excellence in their education. 5.  Improve the quality of education in this state, both by expanding educational opportunities for children and by creating incentives for schools to achieve excellence. (2)  DEFINITIONS.--As used in this section, the term: (a)  "Department" means the Department of Revenue. (b)  "Eligible contribution" means a monetary contribution from a taxpayer, subject to the restrictions provided in this section, to an eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization. The taxpayer making the contribution may not designate a specific child as the beneficiary of the contribution. (c)  "Eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization" means a charitable organization that: 1.  Is exempt from federal income tax pursuant to s. 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; 2.  Is a Florida entity formed under chapter 607, chapter 608, or chapter 617 and whose principal office is located in the state; and 3.  Complies with the provisions of subsection (6). (d)  "Eligible private school" means a private school, as defined in s. 1002.01(2), located in Florida which offers an education to students in any grades K-12 and that meets the requirements in subsection (8). (e)  "Owner or operator" includes: 1.  An owner, president, officer, or director of an eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization or a person with equivalent decisionmaking authority over an eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization. 2.  An owner, operator, superintendent, or principal of an eligible private school or a person with equivalent decisionmaking authority over an eligible private school. (3)  PROGRAM; SCHOLARSHIP ELIGIBILITY.--The Corporate Income Tax Credit Scholarship Program is established. A student is eligible for a corporate income tax credit scholarship if the student qualifies for free or reduced-price school lunches under the National School Lunch Act and: (a)  Was counted as a full-time equivalent student during the previous state fiscal year for purposes of state per-student funding; (b)  Received a scholarship from an eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization or from the State of Florida during the previous school year; (c)  Is eligible to enter kindergarten or first grade; or (d)  Is currently placed, or during the previous state fiscal year was placed, in foster care as defined in s. 39.01. Contingent upon available funds, a student may continue in the scholarship program as long as the student's household income level does not exceed 200 percent of the federal poverty level. A sibling of a student who is continuing in the program and resides in the same household as the student shall also be eligible as a first-time corporate income tax credit scholarship recipient as long as the student's and sibling's household income level does not exceed 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Household income for purposes of a student who is currently in foster care as defined in s.39.01 shall consist only of the income that may be considered in determining whether he or she qualifies for free or reduced-price school lunches under the National School Lunch Act. (4)  SCHOLARSHIP PROHIBITIONS.--A student is not eligible for a scholarship while he or she is: (a)  Enrolled in a school operating for the purpose of providing educational services to youth in Department of Juvenile Justice commitment programs; (b)  Receiving a scholarship from another eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization under this section; (c)  Receiving an educational scholarship pursuant to chapter 1002; (d)  Participating in a home education program as defined in s. 1002.01(1); (e)  Participating in a private tutoring program pursuant to s. 1002.43; (f)  Participating in a virtual school, correspondence school, or distance learning program that receives state funding pursuant to the student's participation unless the participation is limited to no more than two courses per school year; or (g)  Enrolled in the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind. (5)  AUTHORIZATION TO GRANT SCHOLARSHIP FUNDING TAX CREDITS; LIMITATIONS ON INDIVIDUAL AND TOTAL CREDITS.-- (a)  There is allowed a credit of 100 percent of an eligible contribution against any tax due for a taxable year under this chapter. However, such a credit may not exceed 75 percent of the tax due under this chapter for the taxable year, after the application of any other allowable credits by the taxpayer. The credit granted by this section shall be reduced by the difference between the amount of federal corporate income tax taking into account the credit granted by this section and the amount of federal corporate income tax without application of the credit granted by this section. (b)  The total amount of tax credits and carryforward of tax credits which may be granted each state fiscal year under this section is: 1.  Through June 30, 2008, $88 million. 2.  Beginning July 1, 2008, and thereafter, $118 million. (c)  A taxpayer who files a Florida consolidated return as a member of an affiliated group pursuant to s. 220.131(1) may be allowed the credit on a consolidated return basis; however, the total credit taken by the affiliated group is subject to the limitation established under paragraph (a). (d)  Effective for tax years beginning January 1, 2006, a taxpayer may rescind all or part of its allocated tax credit under this section. The amount rescinded shall become available for purposes of the cap for that state fiscal year under this section to an eligible taxpayer as approved by the department if the taxpayer receives notice from the department that the rescindment has been accepted by the department and the taxpayer has not previously rescinded any or all of its tax credit allocation under this section more than once in the previous 3 tax years. Any amount rescinded under this paragraph shall become available to an eligible taxpayer on a first-come, first-served basis based on tax credit applications received after the date the rescindment is accepted by the department. (6)  OBLIGATIONS OF ELIGIBLE NONPROFIT SCHOLARSHIP-FUNDING ORGANIZATIONS.--An eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization: (a)  Must comply with the antidiscrimination provisions of 42 U.S.C. s. 2000d. (b)  Must comply with the following background check requirements: 1.  All owners and operators as defined in subparagraph (2)(e)1. are, upon employment or engagement to provide services, subject to level 2 background screening as provided under chapter 435. The fingerprints for the background screening must be electronically submitted to the Department of Law Enforcement and can be taken by an authorized law enforcement agency or by an employee of the eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization or a private company who is trained to take fingerprints. However, the complete set of fingerprints of an owner or operator may not be taken by the owner or operator. The results of the state and national criminal history check shall be provided to the Department of Education for screening under chapter 435. The cost of the background screening may be borne by the eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization or the owner or operator. 2.  Every 5 years following employment or engagement to provide services or association with an eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization, each owner or operator must meet level 2 screening standards as described in s. 435.04, at which time the nonprofit scholarship-funding organization shall request the Department of Law Enforcement to forward the fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for level 2 screening. If the fingerprints of an owner or operator are not retained by the Department of Law Enforcement under subparagraph 3., the owner or operator must electronically file a complete set of fingerprints with the Department of Law Enforcement. Upon submission of fingerprints for this purpose, the eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization shall request that the Department of Law Enforcement forward the fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for level 2 screening, and the fingerprints shall be retained by the Department of Law Enforcement under subparagraph 3. 3.  Beginning July 1, 2007, all fingerprints submitted to the Department of Law Enforcement as required by this paragraph must be retained by the Department of Law Enforcement in a manner approved by rule and entered in the statewide automated fingerprint identification system authorized by s. 943.05(2)(b). The fingerprints must thereafter be available for all purposes and uses authorized for arrest fingerprint cards entered in the statewide automated fingerprint identification system pursuant to s. 943.051. 4.  Beginning July 1, 2007, the Department of Law Enforcement shall search all arrest fingerprint cards received under s. 943.051 against the fingerprints retained in the statewide automated fingerprint identification system under subparagraph 3. Any arrest record that is identified with an owner's or operator's fingerprints must be reported to the Department of Education. The Department of Education shall participate in this search process by paying an annual fee to the Department of Law Enforcement and by informing the Department of Law Enforcement of any change in the employment, engagement, or association status of the owners or operators whose fingerprints are retained under subparagraph 3. The Department of Law Enforcement shall adopt a rule setting the amount of the annual fee to be imposed upon the Department of Education for performing these services and establishing the procedures for the retention of owner and operator fingerprints and the dissemination of search results. The fee may be borne by the owner or operator of the nonprofit scholarship-funding organization. 5.  A nonprofit scholarship-funding organization whose owner or operator fails the level 2 background screening shall not be eligible to provide scholarships under this section. 6.  A nonprofit scholarship-funding organization whose owner or operator in the last 7 years has filed for personal bankruptcy or corporate bankruptcy in a corporation of which he or she owned more than 20 percent shall not be eligible to provide scholarships under this section. (c)  Must not have an owner or operator who owns or operates an eligible private school that is participating in the scholarship program. (d)  Must provide scholarships, from eligible contributions, to eligible students for the cost of: 1.  Tuition and fees for an eligible private school; or 2.  Transportation to a Florida public school that is located outside the district in which the student resides or to a lab school as defined in s. 1002.32. (e)  Must give priority to eligible students who received a scholarship from an eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization or from the State of Florida during the previous school year. (f)  Must provide a scholarship to an eligible student on a first-come, first-served basis unless the student qualifies for priority pursuant to paragraph (e). (g)  May not restrict or reserve scholarships for use at a particular private school or provide scholarships to a child of an owner or operator. (h)  Must allow an eligible student to attend any eligible private school and must allow a parent to transfer a scholarship during a school year to any other eligible private school of the parent's choice. (i)1.  May use up to 3 percent of eligible contributions received during the state fiscal year in which such contributions are collected for administrative expenses if the organization has operated under this section for at least 3 state fiscal years and did not have any negative financial findings in its most recent audit under paragraph (l). Such administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary for the organization's management and distribution of eligible contributions under this section. No more than one-third of the funds authorized for administrative expenses under this subparagraph may be used for expenses related to the recruitment of contributions from corporate taxpayers. 2.  Must expend for annual or partial-year scholarships an amount equal to or greater than 75 percent of the net eligible contributions remaining after administrative expenses during the state fiscal year in which such contributions are collected. No more than 25 percent of such net eligible contributions may be carried forward to the following state fiscal year. Any amounts carried forward shall be expended for annual or partial-year scholarships in the following state fiscal year. Net eligible contributions remaining on June 30 of each year that are in excess of the 25 percent that may be carried forward shall be returned to the State Treasury for deposit in the General Revenue Fund. 3.  Must, before granting a scholarship for an academic year, document each scholarship student's eligibility for that academic year. A scholarship-funding organization may not grant multiyear scholarships in one approval process. (j)  Must maintain separate accounts for scholarship funds and operating funds. (k)  With the prior approval of the Department of Education, may transfer funds to another eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization if additional funds are required to meet scholarship demand at the receiving nonprofit scholarship-funding organization. A transfer shall be limited to the greater of $500,000 or 20 percent of the total contributions received by the nonprofit scholarship-funding organization making the transfer. All transferred funds must be deposited by the receiving nonprofit scholarship-funding organization into its scholarship accounts. All transferred amounts received by any nonprofit scholarship-funding organization must be separately disclosed in the annual financial and compliance audit required in this section. (l)  Must provide to the Auditor General and the Department of Education an annual financial and compliance audit of its accounts and records conducted by an independent certified public accountant and in accordance with rules adopted by the Auditor General. The audit must be conducted in compliance with generally accepted auditing standards and must include a report on financial statements presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles set forth by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants for not-for-profit organizations and a determination of compliance with the statutory eligibility and expenditure requirements set forth in this section. Audits must be provided to the Auditor General and the Department of Education within 180 days after completion of the eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization's fiscal year. (m)  Must prepare and submit quarterly reports to the Department of Education pursuant to paragraph (9)(m). In addition, an eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization must submit in a timely manner any information requested by the Department of Education relating to the scholarship program. Any and all information and documentation provided to the Department of Education and the Auditor General relating to the identity of a taxpayer that provides an eligible contribution under this section shall remain confidential at all times in accordance with s. 213.053. (7)  PARENT AND STUDENT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROGRAM PARTICIPATION.-- (a)  The parent must select an eligible private school and apply for the admission of his or her child. (b)  The parent must inform the child's school district when the parent withdraws his or her child to attend an eligible private school. (c)  Any student participating in the scholarship program must remain in attendance throughout the school year unless excused by the school for illness or other good cause. (d)  Each parent and each student has an obligation to the private school to comply with the private school's published policies. (e)  The parent shall ensure that the student participating in the scholarship program takes the norm-referenced assessment offered by the private school. The parent may also choose to have the student participate in the statewide assessments pursuant to s. 1008.22. If the parent requests that the student participating in the scholarship program take statewide assessments pursuant to s. 1008.22, the parent is responsible for transporting the student to the assessment site designated by the school district. (f)  Upon receipt of a scholarship warrant from the eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization, the parent to whom the warrant is made must restrictively endorse the warrant to the private school for deposit into the account of the private school. The parent may not designate any entity or individual associated with the participating private school as the parent's attorney in fact to endorse a scholarship warrant. A participant who fails to comply with this paragraph forfeits the scholarship. (8)  PRIVATE SCHOOL ELIGIBILITY AND OBLIGATIONS.--An eligible private school may be sectarian or nonsectarian and must: (a)  Comply with all requirements for private schools participating in state school choice scholarship programs pursuant to s. 1002.421. (b)  Provide to the eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization, upon request, all documentation required for the student's participation, including the private school's and student's fee schedules. (c)  Be academically accountable to the parent for meeting the educational needs of the student by: 1.  At a minimum, annually providing to the parent a written explanation of the student's progress. 2.  Annually administering or making provision for students participating in the scholarship program to take one of the nationally norm-referenced tests identified by the Department of Education. Students with disabilities for whom standardized testing is not appropriate are exempt from this requirement. A participating private school must report a student's scores to the parent and to the independent research organization selected by the Department of Education as described in paragraph (9)(j). 3.  Cooperating with the scholarship student whose parent chooses to have the student participate in the statewide assessments pursuant to s. 1008.22. (d)  Employ or contract with teachers who have regular and direct contact with each student receiving a scholarship under this section at the school's physical location. The inability of a private school to meet the requirements of this subsection shall constitute a basis for the ineligibility of the private school to participate in the scholarship program as determined by the Department of Education. (9)  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OBLIGATIONS.--The Department of Education shall: (a)  Annually submit to the department, by March 15, a list of eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organizations that meet the requirements of paragraph (2)(c). (b)  Annually verify the eligibility of nonprofit scholarship-funding organizations that meet the requirements of paragraph (2)(c). (c)  Annually verify the eligibility of private schools that meet the requirements of subsection (8). (d)  Annually verify the eligibility of expenditures as provided in paragraph (6)(d) using the audit required by paragraph (6)(l). (e)  Establish a toll-free hotline that provides parents and private schools with information on participation in the scholarship program. (f)  Establish a process by which individuals may notify the Department of Education of any violation by a parent, private school, or school district of state laws relating to program participation. The Department of Education shall conduct an inquiry of any written complaint of a violation of this section, or make a referral to the appropriate agency for an investigation, if the complaint is signed by the complainant and is legally sufficient. A complaint is legally sufficient if it contains ultimate facts that show that a violation of this section or any rule adopted by the State Board of Education has occurred. In order to determine legal sufficiency, the Department of Education may require supporting information or documentation from the complainant. A department inquiry is not subject to the requirements of chapter 120. (g)  Require an annual, notarized, sworn compliance statement by participating private schools certifying compliance with state laws and shall retain such records. (h)  Cross-check the list of participating scholarship students with the public school enrollment lists to avoid duplication. (i)  Maintain a list of nationally norm-referenced tests identified for purposes of satisfying the testing requirement in subparagraph (8)(c)2. The tests must meet industry standards of quality in accordance with State Board of Education rule. (j)  Select an independent research organization, which may be a public or private entity or university, to which participating private schools must report the scores of participating students on the nationally norm-referenced tests administered by the private school. The independent research organization must annually report to the Department of Education on the year-to-year improvements of participating students. The independent research organization must analyze and report student performance data in a manner that protects the rights of students and parents as mandated in 20 U.S.C. s. 1232g, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and must not disaggregate data to a level that will disclose the academic level of individual students or of individual schools. To the extent possible, the independent research organization must accumulate historical performance data on students from the Department of Education and private schools to describe baseline performance and to conduct longitudinal studies. To minimize costs and reduce time required for third-party analysis and evaluation, the Department of Education shall conduct analyses of matched students from public school assessment data and calculate control group learning gains using an agreed-upon methodology outlined in the contract with the third-party evaluator. The sharing of student data must be in accordance with requirements of 20 U.S.C. s. 1232g, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and shall be for the sole purpose of conducting the evaluation. All parties must preserve the confidentiality of such information as required by law. (k)  Notify an eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization of any of the organization's identified students who are receiving educational scholarships pursuant to chapter 1002. (l)  Notify an eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization of any of the organization's identified students who are receiving corporate income tax credit scholarships from other eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organizations. (m)  Require quarterly reports by an eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization regarding the number of students participating in the scholarship program, the private schools at which the students are enrolled, and other information deemed necessary by the Department of Education. (n)1.  Conduct random site visits to private schools participating in the Corporate Tax Credit Scholarship Program. The purpose of the site visits is solely to verify the information reported by the schools concerning the enrollment and attendance of students, the credentials of teachers, background screening of teachers, and teachers' fingerprinting results. The Department of Education may not make more than seven random site visits each year and may not make more than one random site visit each year to the same private school. 2.  Annually, by December 15, report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives the Department of Education's actions with respect to implementing accountability in the scholarship program under this section and s. 1002.421, any substantiated allegations or violations of law or rule by an eligible private school under this program concerning the enrollment and attendance of students, the credentials of teachers, background screening of teachers, and teachers' fingerprinting results and the corrective action taken by the Department of Education. (10)  COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS.-- (a)  The Commissioner of Education shall deny, suspend, or revoke a private school's participation in the scholarship program if it is determined that the private school has failed to comply with the provisions of this section. However, in instances in which the noncompliance is correctable within a reasonable amount of time and in which the health, safety, or welfare of the students is not threatened, the commissioner may issue a notice of noncompliance that shall provide the private school with a timeframe within which to provide evidence of compliance prior to taking action to suspend or revoke the private school's participation in the scholarship program. (b)  The commissioner's determination is subject to the following: 1.  If the commissioner intends to deny, suspend, or revoke a private school's participation in the scholarship program, the Department of Education shall notify the private school of such proposed action in writing by certified mail and regular mail to the private school's address of record with the Department of Education. The notification shall include the reasons for the proposed action and notice of the timelines and procedures set forth in this paragraph. 2.  The private school that is adversely affected by the proposed action shall have 15 days from receipt of the notice of proposed action to file with the Department of Education's agency clerk a request for a proceeding pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57. If the private school is entitled to a hearing under s. 120.57(1), the Department of Education shall forward the request to the Division of Administrative Hearings. 3.  Upon receipt of a request referred pursuant to this paragraph, the director of the Division of Administrative Hearings shall expedite the hearing and assign an administrative law judge who shall commence a hearing within 30 days after the receipt of the formal written request by the division and enter a recommended order within 30 days after the hearing or within 30 days after receipt of the hearing transcript, whichever is later. Each party shall be allowed 10 days in which to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. A final order shall be entered by the agency within 30 days after the entry of a recommended order. The provisions of this subparagraph may be waived upon stipulation by all parties. (c)  The commissioner may immediately suspend payment of scholarship funds if it is determined that there is probable cause to believe that there is: 1.  An imminent threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the students; or 2.  Fraudulent activity on the part of the private school. Notwithstanding s. 1002.22(3), in incidents of alleged fraudulent activity pursuant to this section, the Department of Education's Office of Inspector General is authorized to release personally identifiable records or reports of students to the following persons or organizations: a.  A court of competent jurisdiction in compliance with an order of that court or the attorney of record in accordance with a lawfully issued subpoena, consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. s. 1232g. b.  A person or entity authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction in compliance with an order of that court or the attorney of record pursuant to a lawfully issued subpoena, consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. s. 1232g. c.  Any person, entity, or authority issuing a subpoena for law enforcement purposes when the court or other issuing agency has ordered that the existence or the contents of the subpoena or the information furnished in response to the subpoena not be disclosed, consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. s. 1232g, and 34 C.F.R. s. 99.31. The commissioner's order suspending payment pursuant to this paragraph may be appealed pursuant to the same procedures and timelines as the notice of proposed action set forth in paragraph (b). (11)  SCHOLARSHIP AMOUNT AND PAYMENT.-- (a)  The amount of a scholarship provided to any student for any single school year by an eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization from eligible contributions shall be for total costs authorized under paragraph (6)(d), not to exceed the following annual limits: 1.  Three thousand nine hundred fifty dollars for a scholarship awarded to a student enrolled in an eligible private school for the 2008-2009 state fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter. 2.  Five hundred dollars for a scholarship awarded to a student enrolled in a Florida public school that is located outside the district in which the student resides or in a lab school as defined in s. 1002.32. (b)  Payment of the scholarship by the eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization shall be by individual warrant made payable to the student's parent. If the parent chooses that his or her child attend an eligible private school, the warrant must be delivered by the eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization to the private school of the parent's choice, and the parent shall restrictively endorse the warrant to the private school. An eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization shall ensure that the parent to whom the warrant is made restrictively endorsed the warrant to the private school for deposit into the account of the private school. (c)  An eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization shall obtain verification from the private school of a student's continued attendance at the school for each period covered by a scholarship payment. (d)  Payment of the scholarship shall be made by the eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization no less frequently than on a quarterly basis. (12)  ADMINISTRATION; RULES.-- (a)  If the credit granted pursuant to this section is not fully used in any one year because of insufficient tax liability on the part of the corporation, the unused amount may be carried forward for a period not to exceed 3 years; however, any taxpayer that seeks to carry forward an unused amount of tax credit must submit an application for allocation of tax credits or carryforward credits as required in paragraph (d) in the year that the taxpayer intends to use the carryforward. This carryforward applies to all approved contributions made after January 1, 2002. A taxpayer may not convey, assign, or transfer the credit authorized by this section to another entity unless all of the assets of the taxpayer are conveyed, assigned, or transferred in the same transaction. (b)  An application for a tax credit pursuant to this section shall be submitted to the department on forms established by rule of the department. (c)  The department and the Department of Education shall develop a cooperative agreement to assist in the administration of this section. (d)  The department shall adopt rules necessary to administer this section, including rules establishing application forms and procedures and governing the allocation of tax credits and carryforward credits under this section on a first-come, first-served basis. (e)  The State Board of Education shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to administer this section as it relates to the roles of the Department of Education and the Commissioner of Education. (13)  DEPOSITS OF ELIGIBLE CONTRIBUTIONS.--All eligible contributions received by an eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization shall be deposited in a manner consistent with s. 17.57(2). (14)  PRESERVATION OF CREDIT.--If any provision or portion of subsection (5) or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held unconstitutional by any court or is otherwise declared invalid, the unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any credit earned under subsection (5) by any taxpayer with respect to any contribution paid to an eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization before the date of a determination of unconstitutionality or invalidity. Such credit shall be allowed at such time and in such a manner as if a determination of unconstitutionality or invalidity had not been made, provided that nothing in this subsection by itself or in combination with any other provision of law shall result in the allowance of any credit to any taxpayer in excess of one dollar of credit for each dollar paid to an eligible nonprofit scholarship-funding organization. History.--s. 5, ch. 2001-225; s. 42, ch. 2002-218; s. 258, ch. 2003-261; s. 9, ch. 2003-391; s. 16, ch. 2004-5; s. 2, ch. 2006-75; s. 2, ch. 2008-142; s. 2, ch. 2008-235; s. 1, ch. 2008-241.

Florida Corporate Income Tax Credit Scholarship

From Jacksonville.com:

By Abel Harding, Paul Pinkham

If the goal of Florida's Corporate Income Tax Credit Scholarship program is simply to reduce state spending on public education, it's graded an A.

If the goal of the program is to improve education for low-income students, it scores an incomplete.

But if the goal is to ensure the same educational accountability Florida politicians demand of public schools, then the program gets an F.

Since 2002, the program has funneled nearly $500 million in tax revenues to scholarships that allow low-income students to attend private Florida schools, many of them religious-based. In 10 years, the program could receive more than $1 billion a year.

The students can qualify for scholarships of up to $4,106, which covers tuition at private schools. In Northeast Florida, 3,316 students participated in the program last year, keeping as much as $23 million out of local public schools.

Comparing the program to public schools is all but impossible because the Legislature - for which public school accountability has been a hallmark - allows different standards for this program. It hasn't required scholarship students to take the FCAT or teachers to be certified - both requirements in public schools.

The program has accomplished many of the same goals as a voucher program that the Florida Supreme Court found unconstitutional. The major difference between the programs is the scholarship money flows from a nonprofit courtesy of tax revenue that never made it to state coffers.

The Legislature also set up specific laws to shield many details about the program, including which businesses participate, how much they give and how well schools are performing. However, two consecutive annual studies ordered by lawmakers showed the scholarship students are performing no better than public school students.

The program allows companies to divert up to 75 percent of corporate income taxes to one of two Florida nonprofits administering the program. The program's popularity resulted in the Legislature expanding it this year, authorizing it to grow annually by 25 percent.

A review of the program also found:

- Unlike vouchers, it isn't limited to students at failing schools. In fact, fewer than 10 percent of the students in the program came from D and F schools while nearly half were diverted from A schools.

- There are no educators on the program's oversight board. The board is primarily made up of lobbyists, including former U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney, a staunch voucher advocate.

- Lawmakers increased the administrative budget this year, making it possible for up to $4.5 million to be spent annually on marketing the program.

Accountability

The inability to adequately compare scholarship students' progress with their public school counterparts troubles even the most ardent voucher supporters. "It's a legitimate concern that students participating in these programs don't receive the same kind of review and accountability," said Joseph Viteritti, a member of the American Center for School Choice board and public policy professor at Hunter College in New York.

Viteritti, who has testified as an expert in school voucher cases, said he supports the concept because it empowers poor parents and gives them a voice in the education debate. "For the same reasons I think choice is good, I think choice needs to be accountable," he said.

Not that there haven't been attempts.

David Figlio, professor of social policy and economics at Northwestern University, oversaw a project required by Florida law that compared testing data at public schools and private schools that received scholarship funding. According to his report, there were no noticeable differences in testing gains between private school students in the program and public schools.

With no FCAT requirement, however, standardized tests at the private schools run the gamut. Figlio acknowledged the challenges of trying to do comparisons of different types of tests, but said he's simply looking at testing gains year-over-year, not measuring against standards required for public schools.

"The overlap between the tests is pretty high, especially in lower grades. But are they perfect? No," he said.

State Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, a strong supporter of the scholarship program, said he wouldn't be opposed to its students taking the FCAT but doesn't see the need to make that a requirement.

Thrasher said he doesn't see any inconsistency in that position and the major education reform bill he sponsored last session that would have tied public school teacher pay to test scores.

While acknowledging differences in accountability standards, Thrasher said the responsibility is with the parents. "They're the ultimate arbiters," he said. "... There are folks out there that need and deserve these scholarships."

And what about the fact that the program is pulling the majority of its kids from "A" and "B" schools?

Thrasher said that shouldn't matter. "The state can't discriminate against poor kids who happen to be at good schools," he said.

Thrasher's Democratic opponent in Tuesday's election said accountability is vital when money is diverted from the general fund to a scholarship program for children.

"I don't know how parents can make a comparison when there is no apples-to-apples comparison," said Deborah Gianoulis, who first discussed the issue when she was championing the cause of Save Duval Schools. "... I cannot for the life of me figure out why we don't demand the same level of accountability that we do for public schools."

No FCAT incentives

In 2008, the Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability asked representatives of private schools accepting scholarship money if there were any incentive strategies that would encourage them to participate in FCAT. There weren't.

In fact, some said they would stop taking scholarship money if forced to administer FCAT to participating students. They said doing so would single out those students as low-income and also noted that their curricula differs from public school curricula, which FCAT is designed to measure.

Clayton Lindstam, the administrator at Trinity Christian Academy on Jacksonville's Westside, said academic standards are of the utmost importance for parents to consider. At Trinity, where enrollment tops 1,700, teachers are certified and the school is accredited by The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the same agency that accredits public schools in Northeast Florida.

"I'm an advocate of accreditation and accountability," he said.

At Al Furqan Academy on Jacksonville's Southside, Principal Rola El Qirem said she'd have no problem with future reforms. "Our teachers are already certified and we are pursuing accreditation," she said. "If the Legislature wanted scholarship students to take the FCAT, we'd comply."

But scores of schools in the program aren't accredited and don't meet teacher certification requirements like those required of public schools. And some, like Bible Baptist Academy and Jacksonville Christian Academy, both of which have received more than $300,000 in funding, are certified by Accelerated Christian Education, a curriculum provider not recognized as an accrediting agency and one that has come under criticism from educational researchers.

Now, even some program supporters talk of a need for reforms.

State Sen. Stephen Wise, R-Jacksonville, said he is exploring ways to bring more public accountability to the program, including making the companies' contributions public record.

State Rep. Michael Weinstein, R-Jacksonville, said better data is needed to measure learning gains and student longevity.

"We've got that in our public schools, and there's no reason we shouldn't have it here," Weinstein said.

However, neither was willing to commit to pursuing reforms in the upcoming session.

Unfair comparisons

St. Johns County school Superintendent Joseph Joyner said the unlevel playing field created by the testing discrepancies is compounded by the secrecy shrouding the program.

"It's difficult to assess corporate vouchers because we're provided no data ... on who the kids are, where they come from or where they're going," Joyner said. "I'm not anti-voucher. I'm anti-not-everybody-on-the-same-playing-field."

Duval County schools Superintendent Ed Pratt-Dannals is sharply critical of the program.

"There's not really accountability with a common metric to determine if these students are getting a good education," he said.

To participate in the program, students must qualify for free or reduced lunches. At many schools the scholarship covers the amount of tuition, but in the cases were it does not, schools either cap tuition at that amount, provide scholarships for the remainder or parents pay the difference.

Last year, 2,926 students in Duval participated in the program at 106 private schools, more than double the 1,132 during the 2004-05 school year. Meanwhile, enrollment in public schools in the county remained relatively flat.

Pratt-Dannals said it's not just a difference in the type of testing used. Public schools, he pointed out, track performance on tests down to the individual school and can pinpoint gains in each teacher's classrooms.

In contrast, the testing gains publicized by Step Up For Students - one of two nonprofits that administer the program - are simply a statewide compilation.

"If accountability is good, if high-stakes testing is good, if slapping a grade on a school is good then why would you not do that for a school that's receiving public money?," said Pratt-Dannals. "... It's called being consistent."

Jon East of Step Up For Students said the program is attractive to some parents because many of the private schools are smaller than most public schools.

"It's not that these schools are better," said East, Step Up's research and communications director. "Some kids often need a different environment. This affords them that opportunity."

Pratt-Dannals laughed at that argument.

Schools exist to educate students, not make parents feel more comfortable, he said.

"Some may be doing a great job, but some may be failing miserably. How are parents supposed to know that?" he said. "To me, there ought to be a requirement to see if the public's getting its money's worth."

Tax dollars saved or lost?

Both Pratt-Dannals and Joyner said the program takes needed funds away from public schools.

In Duval, where the school system receives $6,981.90 per student under the state formula, the 2,926 students enrolled in the program last year could have meant $20 million in additional funding. In St. Johns, the 117 students enrolled in the program during the same time period could have meant an additional $804,155 in funding.

However, a study by the Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability determined the scholarship program actually saves Florida taxpayers money when it comes to per-student funding.

The study showed in the 2008-09 school year, $82.2 million in corporate tax dollars went to the program but ultimately saved the state $36.2 million. The savings were based on the $5,871.75 per-student amount given to public school vs. the maximum $3,950 given to private schools in the program during that year.

But those calculations don't account for fixed costs and mandates that school systems have no power to change, said Mark Pudlow, spokesman for the Florida Education Association.

"We still have to turn the lights on in the school every day. The buses still have to run every day. Teachers have to be paid," he said.

The problem, said Pratt-Dannals, is that removing a handful of students from certain schools creates a loss of revenue but the population loss per school isn't enough to allow the district to close schools or cut staff. The impact on the district, he said, is significant.

Public relations bonanza

Many of the program's funders are quick to tout their participation, which costs them nothing more than the authorization of the diversion of their tax dollars.

"We understood the value of allowing parents the option of choosing a school," said Michelle Kersch, senior vice president of marketing and corporate communications for Lender Processing Services, a Jacksonville-based Fortune 1000 company.

LPS directed $1.5 million from its 2010 taxes to Step Up For Students last month, just one of a number of Jacksonville companies in the program.

Local corporate giants Fidelity National Financial, PSS World Medical and EverBank all have reaped positive press participating in the program, as have Jacksonville Bank, CVS, Lowe's and ABC Liquors.

While some companies choose to trumpet their participation, others don't. Those who aren't eager to reap the positive media coverage can allocate funds in secret, all under the anonymity provided by state law.

That's something Sen. Wise said he found ridiculous, despite his support last session for expanding the program.

"When you're talking about state money," Wise said, "there needs to be accountability."

THE SCHOOLS
Here are the schools that received the most money from the Corporate Income Tax Credit Scholarship program. They are all in Jacksonville.
The Potter's House Christian Academy
1150 S. Lane Ave.
Funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10 school years: $5.56 million Number of scholarship students last year: 220
Trinity Christian Academy
800 Hammond Blvd.
Funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10 school years: $2.38 million Number of scholarship students last year: 169
Joshua Christian Academy
924 St. Clair St.
Funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10 school years: $2.22 million Number of scholarship students last year: 141
University Christian School
5520 University Blvd. W.
Funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10 school years: $1.57 million Number of scholarship students last year: 92
Shekinah Christian Academy Inc.
10551 Beach Blvd.
Funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10 school years: $1.44 million Number of scholarship students last year: 55~~~WHAT THE CANDIDATES SAY
Florida's gubernatorial candidates have differed sharply on the program, with one opposed to any changes and the other urging more accountability.
Rick Scott
- The program is "an essential part of a new definition of public education."
- No need for additional requirements with the program, whether it be school accreditation, teacher certifications or FCATs.
- Has proposed eliminating the primary source of funding for the program - the state's corporate income tax - but has assured supporters he would find a new source of funding.
Alex Sink
- Opposes further expansion until public schools are adequately funded.
- Supports tightening academic standards around the program.
- "If taxpayer dollars are being spent, these schools should be held to the same standard any public school in the state is held to. We deserve to know the results we are getting."

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-10-31/story/concerns-raised-over-scholarship-program#ixzz2BD1jQIhH