No Teacher Left Behind: Reforming the Educators Expense Deduction

Indiana Law Journal Volume 96 Issue 3 Article 6 Spring 2021 No Teacher Left Behind: Reforming the Educators Expense Deduction Mary Morris Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Education Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Morris, Mary (2021) "No Teacher Left Behind: Reforming the Educators Expense Deduction," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 96 : Iss. 3 , Article 6. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol96/iss3/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact . No Teacher Left Behind: Reforming the Educators Expense Deduction MARY MORRIS* American educators are notoriously overworked and underpaid. With high performance demands and near-stagnant pay, teachers tend to burn out quickly, which in turn negatively affects the quality of education that their students receive. This effect is most evident in Title I schools, public schools with low funding allocation and high concentrations of low-income students. One of the benefits that teachers do receive is the Educators Expense Deduction, a federal income tax deduction permitting teachers to write off up to $250 of unreimbursed supplies purchased for the classroom. This deduction was codified in 2002 and has not been amended since, in spite of major changes to how schools are funded and operated, such as the No Child Left Behind Act and the Great Recession, and the resulting increase in out-of-pocket money that teachers must spend on their own classrooms. In this Note, I explore the content and history of the Educators Expense Deduction, identify changes in the economy and curriculum content since the deduction’s inception, and discuss how teachers have responded to (and, at times, retaliated against) these changes. Finally, I propose two major changes to the Educators Expense Deduction, raising the deduction amount for all teachers and adding a further deduction for teachers working in Title I schools. * J.D. Candidate, 2021, Indiana University Maurer School of Law; B.A., 2014, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I would like to thank Professor David Gamage for his guidance and feedback during the seminar for which this Note was originally drafted, the entire staff of the Indiana Law Journal for their diligent work and thoughtful feedback throughout the editing process, and my friends and family for their steadfast support. Any errors are entirely my own. 912 INDIANA LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 96:911 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 912 I. THE EDUCATORS EXPENSE DEDUCTION ............................................................. 915 A. WHAT IS THE EDUCATORS EXPENSE DEDUCTION? .................................. 915 B. HISTORY OF THE DEDUCTION ................................................................... 916 II. HOW PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE FUNDED................................................................. 917 A. SCHOOL FUNDING & TITLE I SCHOOLS .................................................... 917 B. ECONOMIC CHANGES AND SCHOOL FUNDING .......................................... 919 1. THE GREAT RECESSION ................................................................... 919 2. PANDEMIC-ONOMICS ....................................................................... 920 III. THE TEACHING PROFESSION............................................................................. 921 A. TEACHER COMPENSATION ....................................................................... 922 B. HOW TEACHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THE ORIGINAL EDUCATORS EXPENSE DEDUCTION ................................................................................... 923 1. CHANGES IN ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ............................................. 923 2. CHANGES IN MATERIAL AND THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROFESSION 925 3. INCREASED NECESSITY FOR TEACHER INVESTMENT OF TIME AND MONEY RESULTING FROM THESE CHANGES ....................................... 926 C. HOW TEACHERS HAVE RESPONDED TO THESE CHANGES ........................ 927 1. TEACHER RETALIATION: PROTESTS AND POLITICS ......................... 927 2. TEACHER TURNOVER ...................................................................... 928 3. THE REPLACEMENTS (OR LACK THEREOF) ..................................... 929 IV. EVALUATING THE CURRENT DEDUCTION ........................................................ 931 A. PROMOTION OF FUTURE ECONOMIC RETURNS......................................... 931 B. A MATTER OF FAIRNESS .......................................................................... 933 V. PROPOSALS TO IMPROVE THE EDUCATORS EXPENSE DEDUCTION .................... 933 A. RAISING THE DEDUCTION TO $500 .......................................................... 934 B. CREATING AN ADDITIONAL DEDUCTION FOR TITLE I TEACHERS............. 935 C. POSSIBLE CHALLENGES AND DRAWBACKS .............................................. 935 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 936 INTRODUCTION America is at a reckoning point with its public school teachers. In the wake of No Child Left Behind, the Great Recession, and teacher shortages throughout the country,1 there is a growing sense that teachers are being asked to do significantly more work with exponentially less, both in terms of school resources and salary,2 a perception made all the more apparent by the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic. The importance of teachers in the educational system cannot be overstated. Studies have shown that students with quality teachers score significantly higher on standardized tests and have higher college attendance rates.3 The poverty rate among bachelor’s degree holders is 3.5 times less than that of those who only completed a 1. See infra Parts II & III. 2. See infra Part III. 3. For one of the most well-regarded publications supporting this conclusion, see Kevin Carey, The Real Value of Teachers: Using New Information About Teacher Effectiveness to Close the Achievement Gap, 8 THINKING K–16 3, 5–8 (2004). 2021] NO TEACHER LEFT BEHIND 913 high school education, and the difference in average lifetime earnings between the two groups exceeds $1 million.4 Additionally, college graduates benefit the American economy by providing higher tax revenue, increased business revenue, and lowered reliance on social services.5 In low-income schools, teachers are the most significant factor for student success in closing the “achievement gap,”6 which is the difference between test scores for students in under-resourced schools and their more affluent peers.7 The achieve (...truncated)