Manufacturing Failure: How Florida’s Senate Bill 2510 Weaponized Poverty Against Public Schools

ABSTRACT: In a single academic year, Florida’s list of “persistently low-performing schools” exploded from 51 to 267 institutions, a 423.5% increase. This investigation reveals that Senate Bill 2510 (2025) fundamentally altered the criteria for school failure, creating a manufactured crisis that disproportionately targets schools serving economically disadvantaged communities. Our analysis shows that 92.1% of designated schools serve student populations that are 90-100% economically disadvantaged, with an average poverty rate of 97.5%. Remarkably, zero charter schools appear on either year’s list, while 47 traditional public schools currently earning A or B grades are labeled as “failing.” This data exposes a systematic weaponization of poverty statistics against traditional public education, raising critical questions about accountability, equity, and the true motives behind Florida’s education reform agenda.

I. INTRODUCTION: THE OVERNIGHT CRISIS

The Florida Department of Education released a document that would forever change the landscape of public education in the state. The 2024-25 Persistently Low-Performing Schools list contained 267 schools, a number so shocking that it demands our immediate attention and investigation.

The evidence presented in this investigation supports a troubling conclusion: Florida has manufactured an education crisis through Senate Bill 2510 (2025), systematically targeting schools that serve the state’s most vulnerable populations while exempting charter schools from the same accountability measures. This is not a story of school failure. It is a story of policy failure designed to undermine confidence in traditional public education.

Through rigorous data analysis, this article will demonstrate that:

• The 423.5% increase in “failing” schools is mathematically impossible through organic decline
• Poverty rates predict school designation with 92% accuracy
• Charter schools are systematically exempt from these accountability measures
• Schools currently earning A and B grades are simultaneously labeled as “persistently low-performing”
• The new criteria create a permanent underclass of “failing” schools by mathematical design

II. METHODOLOGY: THE RECEIPTS

This analysis is built on official data from the Florida Department of Education’s Persistently Low-Performing Schools lists for academic years 2023-24 and 2024-25. These documents represent the state’s official designation of schools that meet statutory criteria under Florida Statutes § 1002.333(1)(c), as amended by Senate Bill 2510 (2025).

Data Sources:

• Florida Department of Education. (2024). 2023-24 Persistently Low-Performing Schools [Excel file]
• Florida Department of Education. (2025). 2024-25 Persistently Low-Performing Schools [Excel file]
• Florida Department of Education. (2025). Florida School Grades [Excel file]

Legislative Context: Senate Bill 2510 (2025) expanded the definition of “persistently low-performing schools” to include institutions where Grade 3 ELA or Grade 4 Mathematics achievement scores fall in the bottom 10% statewide for at least two of the previous three years, in addition to the existing grade-based criteria.

Analysis Methods: This investigation employs comparative statistical analysis, demographic correlation studies, and policy impact assessment to examine the relationship between legislative changes and school designation patterns.

III. FINDINGS: THE DATA SPEAKS

A. The 5x Explosion: A Statistical Impossibility

The raw numbers tell an impossible story of educational collapse:

What changed was not the performance of these schools, but the definition of failure itself. Senate Bill 2510 introduced Grade 3 ELA and Grade 4 Mathematics bottom-10% criteria that captured an additional 98.1% of schools now on the list.

B. The Poverty Trap: When Economics Determines Educational “Failure”

The most damning evidence of systematic targeting lies in the economic demographics of designated schools:

“The average economically disadvantaged rate across all designated schools is 97.5%. The median is 100%. This is not educational accountability—this is poverty mapping.”

C. Elementary Education Under Siege

The assault on public education begins with our youngest learners. Of the 267 designated schools, 224 (83.9%) serve elementary students—the critical foundation years when children develop literacy and numeracy skills.

The new SB 2510 criteria specifically target early elementary performance:

• 181 schools (67.8%) designated due to Grade 3 ELA scores in the bottom 10% for 2+ of 3 years
• 144 schools (53.9%) designated due to Grade 4 Mathematics scores in the bottom 10% for 2+ of 3 years
• 63 schools (23.6%) meet both criteria

D. The Charter School Exemption: Accountability for Thee, But Not for Me

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of this data is what it excludes: charter schools.

This exemption raises fundamental questions about accountability equity:

• Do charter schools serving similar populations achieve universally superior outcomes?
• Are charter schools subject to different accountability standards?
• How do charter school Grade 3 ELA and Grade 4 Mathematics scores compare to designated traditional schools?

The absence of charter schools from these lists suggests a two-tiered accountability system that holds traditional public schools to standards from which charter schools are mysteriously exempt.

E. The Grading Paradox: When Success Means Failure

The most surreal aspect of Florida’s designation system is the disconnect between current school grades and “failure” status:

“Forty-seven schools currently earning A or B grades are simultaneously labeled as ‘persistently low-performing.’ This paradox exposes the arbitrary nature of failure designations and calls into question the integrity of both grading systems.”

Three specific examples illustrate the absurdity of this paradox—schools with strong historical performance and current success suddenly branded as “persistently low-performing” under SB 2510:

These case studies expose the manufactured nature of Florida’s education crisis. These schools demonstrate sustained quality education, neither has a history of failure, and currently earn grades indicating good performance. Yet SB 2510’s criteria designed to always capture 10% of schools by mathematical necessity brand them as failures. The law punishes schools not for educational inadequacy but for serving economically disadvantaged populations and falling into an arbitrarily defined bottom decile that must exist regardless of overall system improvement.

F. Geographic Patterns: Districts in Crisis

The geographic distribution of designated schools reveals targeted impact on specific districts:

These top five districts account for 143 schools (53.6%) of all designations, with poverty rates consistently above 93%.

IV. ANALYSIS: CONNECTING THE DOTS

A. The Bottom 10% Trap: Creating Permanent Failure

The most insidious aspect of SB 2510 is its mathematical guarantee of permanent failure. By definition, 10% of schools will always occupy the bottom decile in any performance distribution. This creates a systemic trap:

• Mathematical Certainty: Even if all schools improve, 10% must remain in the bottom 10%
• Improvement Impossibility: Schools can improve dramatically but still meet failure criteria
• Permanent Underclass: The system guarantees a consistent supply of “failing” schools regardless of actual performance gains

B. The Manufactured Crisis Playbook

The pattern is familiar in education policy circles:

1. Redefine Failure: Lower the bar for what constitutes a “failing” school
2. Create Crisis: Generate alarming statistics about educational decline
3. Propose Solutions: Introduce privatization, vouchers, and charter expansion as remedies
4. Transfer Resources: Redirect public funds to private entities

The beneficiaries of this manufactured crisis are clear: private education management companies, charter school operators, and voucher program administrators who profit from the dismantling of traditional public education.

C. Poverty as Policy Failure, Not School Failure

The data reveals an uncomfortable truth: these schools are not failing their communities—our policies are failing these schools. When 97.5% of students in designated schools live in economic disadvantage, we are witnessing the educational manifestation of systematic disinvestment in public institutions serving vulnerable populations.

“Schools don’t create poverty, they reflect it. When we label schools with 100% economically disadvantaged students as ‘failures,’ we’re criminalizing the impact of socioeconomic inequality rather than addressing its root causes.”

D. The Attack on Traditional Public Education

The systematic exclusion of charter schools from accountability measures while targeting traditional public schools reveals the true intent of SB 2510: weakening public confidence in traditional public education while positioning charter schools as superior alternatives.

This two-tiered system undermines the foundational principle of public education as a universal right and service, replacing it with a market-based model where traditional schools are set up to fail while charter alternatives are positioned as saviors.

V. DISCUSSION: WHAT THIS MEANS FOR FLORIDA

The implications of this manufactured crisis extend far beyond statistical designations:

Community Impact: 267 school communities now bear the stigma of “failure,” affecting property values, community pride, and local economic development. Students and families in these schools face decreased confidence in their educational institutions.

Educator Consequences: Teachers and administrators in designated schools face increased scrutiny, decreased morale, and potential career consequences. The state’s most challenging positions become less attractive, exacerbating staffing shortages in high-need schools.

Resource Allocation: Designated schools may face funding cuts, increased oversight, or forced restructuring—punitive measures that further disadvantage institutions serving vulnerable populations.

Long-term Trajectory: This systematic undermining of traditional public education creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where decreased confidence leads to decreased investment, further deteriorating conditions in schools serving economically disadvantaged students.

VI. CONCLUSION: A CALL TO RESISTANCE

The evidence is overwhelming and the conclusion inescapable: Florida has manufactured an education crisis through Senate Bill 2510, systematically targeting schools that serve the state’s most vulnerable populations while exempting charter institutions from equivalent accountability.

This is not a story of educational failure. It is a story of policy failure designed to undermine public confidence in traditional public education. When poverty predicts school “failure” with 92% accuracy, when schools with A and B grades are labeled as persistently low-performing, when zero charter schools face equivalent accountability, we are witnessing the systematic dismantling of public education under the guise of reform.

The path forward requires reframing this narrative from school failure to policy failure, from individual institutional inadequacy to systematic disinvestment.

We must demand that accountability measures actually serve accountability rather than privatization agendas. We must insist that charter schools face the same scrutiny as traditional public schools. We must recognize that when schools serving 100% economically disadvantaged students are labeled as failures, the failure lies not with the schools but with our collective commitment to educational equity.

People Lie. Receipts Don’t! These receipts demand accountability not for our schools, but for our policymakers who have weaponized poverty against public education. The children in these 267 schools deserve better than manufactured failure. They deserve authentic support, adequate resources, and a system designed for their success rather than their designation as casualties in an ideological war against public institutions.