School vouchers could aid autistic students

[Judi Lynn]

Posted on Fri, Nov. 25, 2005
School vouchers could aid autistic students

But critics say plan is just a way to expand vouchers at expense of public schools.
From The Associated Press

INDIANAPOLIS — Republican lawmakers want to create vouchers that would give autistic children public money to transfer to private schools.

The proposal comes after a broader voucher bill failed during the 2005 session of the General Assembly.

Voucher supporters say some private schools, hospitals and therapists are better equipped to meet the special needs of children with autism, a developmental brain disorder that affects a person’s ability to communicate and interact with others.

Indiana has at least three private schools for autistic children, but most of the state’s 5,500 children with the disorder attend public schools, The Indianapolis Star reported Thursday.
(snip/...)

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/local/13255927.htm

[enki23]

1. or, we could actually set up a system that truly helped the poor

who have higher rates of autism, after all. and for most of these, no good private school will be within their means, vouchers or no.

[Demeter]

16. Where Did You Find Anything Relating Autism to Income?

The families I know are solidly middle class lawyers and engineers, some Jewish, some not. It's not a nutritional or environmental illness, but a genetic one, caused by subtle reinforcement of brain development patterns in very systematic and logical people.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. I have heard that

autism rates are higher among low income families. One of my administrators mentioned this to me not long ago. I will look for some data.

[enki23]

27. link to one study, at least.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/161/10/916

[Demeter]

28. This Study States No Link Between Income and Autism

Rather, it emphasizes genetics.

[enki23]

29. sometimes i miss these things too. this isn't one of those times.

"In addition, low parental wealth was associated with an increased risk of autism, while no statistically significant association was found between autism and maternal education."

while they found that some other studies may have overestimated the link, they still found statistically significant evidence for it. nobody is claiming it's caused by poverty. there is, however, an increased risk for being poor. just like for damned near everything else.

[Demeter]

36. Read it Again

"Analyses showed no statistically significant association between risk of autism and weight for gestational age, parity, number of antenatal visits, parental age, or socioeconomic status."

That's from the abstract. The implications of increased mental illness among parents of children with autistic symptoms would be sufficient to ensure that the family wealth suffered, never mind the financial burden associated with raising a child with autistic characteristics (and those are considerable, believe me, starting with the necessity to quit work as daycare is not an option).

"The quality of information on risk factors is also considered high. The MBR suffers from changes in coding systems over time, but we found no indication of differences in distributions of the variables over time, and any small differences would be independent of the diagnosis of autism. The IDA is limited because it started in 1980, which might have led to overestimation of the risks of autism associated with socioeconomic status. It could be imagined that having a child with autism is detrimental to income and/or education. However, analyses stratified on birth years before and after 1980 indicated that the risks associated with the different wealth and education groups might have been overestimated, although the evidence was limited because of very few cases and also because only 16 cases were diagnosed with autism before 1980."

Basically an admission that their data isn't good enough to draw any conclusions.

There's also some discussion about birth trauma, a red herring if you ask me. With the brain structure differences already documented in other research, and the identification of several genes associated with families so afflicted, autism is most definitely a condition due to genetic variations in brain development, especially the more primitive structures.

[mmonk]

54. There is no link

I have an autistic child (now in college) and I'm not poor. We belonged to parent's groups and the local and national autism society and there seemed from its membership nothing to indicate such a link. It's true most republicans believe expenditures and rights for autistic people are a waste of money (like they believe it is with the poor) and seek to defund opportunities and seat rightwingers in the courts who see no real rights for them, but that's just their dark nature. Autism is neurologically based, not income based.

[vonslagle]

2. Or How About

If we just stop injecting our children with Mercury?

Oh, that's right, I forgot. The Corparations that own this country need to sell vaccines so they can but yachts and private planes.

[PatGund]

52. Sorry.....

The link still hasn't been proven in that regard.

And before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about my daughter's half-brother is a high-functioning autistic, as is my nephew. And three friends I know have autistic children. Some were vaccinated, some weren't.

I've seen a lot of autistic kids get helped on CFDF diets, but again, not all.

[madfloridian]

3. Voucher money takes funding from public schools.

That is the bottom line. Florida is giving vouchers to private religious schools, though it was ruled against by judges. That takes money from public schools here, and it gives it to religious schools.

If we gripe they just ignore us.

I hate what is happening to our public schools, and someday we will regret it.

[dpbrown]

4. Republican nutballs want the Talibanization of education

So they can teach their failed version of fundamentalist hate on the public dollar.

[tsuki]

53. In my Florida county, we had a teacher arrested for abusing

autistic children. It was over a year long process, and finally took headlines and calls to the OCR to get HRS, the sheriff's department and school district off their collective buck-passing asses to get her out of the classroom.

It certainly takes money from the public school system if you provide the necessary trained personnel and materials to educate autistic children. But if you throw them in a classroom with nothing and an unqualified teacher, the district is in money.

Currently this county provides vouchers for blind, and/or deaf children to attend neighboring (larger) county schools that have the population to support a school. The voucher is equal to the FTE for the child. Private schools are not applying because the requirements are too stiff.

If the Lions had a school nearby for the blind, deaf and dumb like they do in south FL, I am sure that they could get voucher.

It is all about educating the child, not about government schools.

[TrogL]

5. Show me a private school that has a program for the autistic

...and explain how it works.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Beat me to it!

This is the new rw tactic. When they bring up vouchers, they now suggest them for kids with disabilities. And as a special ed teacher, this repulses me beyond description!

IF there were even ONE private school in this particular community that was even marginally successful, we would know about it. And I am willing to bet my future Powerball winnings that even those Powerball winnings would barely cover the tuition of any private school for autistic kids.

The parents of many kids with autism are desperate for help. How horrible for the rw to take advantage of them by tauniting them with the hope of vouchers.

Damn bastards.

[AX10]

9. This is just another damn low hit for the GOP.

Using the disabled to forward there extremist agenda..:argh:

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. And it continues

Here is their latest scam to undermine public education. It has far worse implications than vouchers for kids with disabilities. I have been reading up on this 65% solution for a couple weeks now. Scary!

Governor Blunt's proposed "65% Solution" is part of a national GOP political strategy to assist Republicans with their standing on public education and to help them create a climate favorable for anti-public school measures like vouchers and tax credits. In addition, the proponents of this measure are conspiring to evade campaign finance laws around the country through the use of a 501 (c)(4).

http://www.firedupmissouri.com/

[Demeter]

17. Some of the Families Are Asking For It

They are doing the whole deluge the Congress--stop the mercury---I'm a victim routine in the belief that a) there is a solution, or should be and 2) throwing money at it will help.

What has helped our family is intensive one-on-one training by very sensitive and compassionate specialists, some new SSRI drugs, and showing up daily to put in another day of trying to bring reality and the autistic into better relation. That's a lot more than money--that's patience, creativity, flexibility, oversight, and persistence.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Sounds like you have the right idea

I too had kids with disabilities and it got down to where I wanted to focus my energies. I chose my kids. I met so many parents whose kids actually suffered because the parents were so busy politicizing. It was sad; the parents believed they were doing the right thing.

You also illustrate a favorite talking point of mine - if the parent is not willing to be patient, creative, flexible, observant and persistent, then how can they expect someone else (like the school or the teacher) to do all that?

Good luck to you. Your child is fortunate indeed.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Agree

What I wish is that those that are supposed to be governing would spend their energies helping and encouraging districts to share resources to deliver the therapies that autistic kids need.

Vouchers won't do shit.

The therapy that our kids need is undeniably a large resource consumer for small districts. Each little district is unable to do it by themselves.

If elected officials had the slightest interest in our special needs kids, they would fix the IDEA law so that the supreme court could not impose a requirement on parents the burden of proof that their child's IEP is inadequate.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05322/608561.stm

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. That burden of proof policy is a change that just went into effect

this past July. And I support it because there are far too many lawsuits. Districts are spending money on lawyers instead of kids. Too many parents rush to hire an attorney and many of the lawsuits are incredibly frivolous.

I am not saying parents should NEVER go the lawsuit route, but (at least where I work) they have gotten way out of hand.

At least once a year, I have to go to an all day legal workshop. I am a teacher. Don't take me away from my kids for an entire day when what I am learning does NOTHING to help improve what I do for my kids.

I am sick of districts spending more on legal fees than on programs for children. This reform was long overdue.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. We have a different perspective on the topic

As a parent of a special-needs child, I do not have the resources, nor the expertise to assure that my child is receiving the education that law guarantees. I especially don't have the expertise to prove it in court.

My school district receives $4700 for each student in basic education. They receive an ADDITIONAL $4300 for each student in special ed. http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/rep/app/0506/14066app.pdf

School districts have earned a reputation for using this $4300 to supplement strained budgets for basic education. That is illegal. The $4300 is intended to provide the therapies for special needs kids. If the $4300 is insufficient, and they can demonstrate that they've spent all of it for the education of the child in question, the district has the right to ask for more.

The burden of proof ruling allows unscrupulous school districts to warehouse special needs kids enabling the district to use them as a financial resource to pay for football teams. This is wrong.

It is also wrong if they're using those funds on lawyers.

I'm sure that you know this, but many readers of DU dont: Each school district is paid by the federal government for each special needs kid. A special ed student is not a financial burden on the local school district.

I am opposed to vouchers, but for different reasons than the district. The school districts' objection is largely related to the financial loss. From a financial perspective, they'd rather give up 10 general education students to vouchers than 10 special ed students.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. I am a parent too

So I sit on BOTH sides of this fence. Both my kids are disabled and were in special ed in school.

If you have PROOF that any school district is actually using OSEP (federal special ed) funding to pay for football teams, you need to file a complaint with your state OSEP. That is a huge violation. Reporting it is free. You don't need an attorney; a letter or phone call will suffice. I will be glad to help you find the contact info.

Funding from the feds does not come directly to schools or school districts. It is funneled to the states first who then skim quite a bit of it for their own administrative costs.

Special ed programs are NOT money makers for any school district. They are currently funded at less than 20% of what they actually cost. When the original special ed law was passed in 1974, Congress promised to fund it nationwide at 40% but has NEVER done so. Special ed is a HUGE unfunded mandate, far worse than NCLB. Recent revisions in IDEA call for an increase in the fed's share but I can't remember exactly when this goes into effect or how much it will be. (I will be glad to look it up if you want details.) It is an improvement, but not by much. The important point is that Congress made a promise they have never kept. And since 1974, I have written hundreds of letters and signed dozens of petitions to my representatives asking Congress to keep its promise. I have spent 30 years studying this funding situation. So I am 100& positive that special ed kids ARE NOT money makers for any local school districts. But these programs, unlike general ed programs, are mandated by federal law so they cannot be reduced or cut just because there isn't enough money. So in spite of the cost, special ed programs will always be there for the children who need them.

My point is that the school district is not profiting from any special needs child or program. Please study the facts and educate yourself - you will be furious by how your child is getting the short end of the stick.

I agree with you about vouchers. School districts do fear the financial loss which would result. We are seeing this now with charter schools in my district. We have lost 20% of our kids districtwide to charters. That is a huge cut in state funding. It has been disastrous.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. My experience with my local district is good...

...but volunteering for ARC has taught me that my experience is not universal among neighboring districts.

It may very well be that $4300 stipend over the the cost of general ed is insufficient. Does it cost twice as much to educate an autistic child? Three times? I don't know, but your claim that it costs $20,000 in addition to general ed funding to educate the average special needs kid is counterintuitive.

I have had a number of conversations with both the district student services director as well as one of the people who wrote the funding formula.

The district person believes much as you do. The person who wrote the funding formula (and the ones that preceeded it) is very much of the opinion that blaming school district budget shortfalls on the special ed students is wrong. I lean strongly to the latter viewpoint.

It's interesting that in the subthread in which I disagree with the obligation to prove that my child's IEP is inadequate, you point out that I am obligated to prove that the school is spending special ed money inappropriately.

If I'm required to do that, I need more information than that which is contained in the districts reports.

When districts become adversarial with parents, by simultaneously obfuscating practices, opaque finances, lobbying to limit their options (vouchers) and placing the burden to prove that the district is behaving inappropriately (as opposed to the districts burden to prove they are behaving appropriately) education suffers and those who would eliminate public education get traction.

I ask for a few simple things:
1) special ed funding should be adequate as a percentage of total education expenses,
2) my district needs to use their collected expertise to develop an IEP that works for my child - it should not be incumbent upon me (and my high school education) to prove that it is inadequate.
3) special ed students must not be blamed for systemic underfunding of education in general. If it really costs $25,000 to educate the average special needs kid, then it should be funded at that level. That said, if it really doesn't cost that much, then it is grossly irresponsible to use hyperbole to place blame inappropriately
FWIW, the school superintendents who have sued washington state to change the funding formula say that it costs $10,000 per kid. In other words, Washington districts receive 88% of what districts say special ed costs.
http://schoolcenter.nsd.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=37880&sc_id=1132442463
4) districts need to be accountable for the special ed funding going to the students, it should not be incumbent on parents to audit their books.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. I never said anything about an additional cost of $20,000

per student. Where did you get that? In fact, it would be impossible to compute the actual cost (as a national or state average) as it varies widely from one part of the country to another and from large districts to smaller ones. There are a lot of factors involved - teacher pay, transportation costs, administrative costs, etc and each of those amounts is not the same from one district to another. So I would NEVER make a claim or even try to research how much extra each child costs.

I worked on a task force designing special ed services for a charter school and so I know first hand how hard it is to determine how much each special ed kid costs a school.

I also never said the burden is yours to prove the district is spending special ed moneys appropriately. If you believe your child's IEP is not being honored or that it is inappropriate, THAT burden of proof is now the parent's. Funding is a completely different issue.

I think I explained why this change was implemented - too many frivolous lawsuits. And the revision in the law actually makes the burden of proof a much easier process for parents. Most disputes will now be able to be settled out of court. Previously, there was a limited mediation process and most parents just hired attorneys and filed lawsuits. Now there is a mediation process that involves the state. I have sat through a couple of disputes brought to the state (BTW, I sided with the parent in both of these cases) and I can't imagine a courtroom being much more unpleasant for a school district. I do know at least one administrator who is disappointed and told me she would much rather face parents in court than in front of a state compliance officer.

I like this new mediation process. As a parent, I filed a complaint with the feds concerning my own child's lack of appropriate services. I chose not to hire an attorney and found the complaint process complicated and frustrating. We eventually 'won' our case but it was a long nightmare. Anything to make this simpler is a big improvement, IMO.

Do you mean a person who wrote your STATE funding formula? Because that is a task that is the responsibility of each state, not local school districts. School districts are not given much freedom in HOW they spend their OSEP funding. The regs are very strict.

As for your final points,

1) I don't think it can be that simple to set funding levels at particular percentages. The level of services dictates the expense of each child's program. For example, a student receiving sped academic services and speech services has a more expensive program than one receiving only speech services. Yet both students are considered special ed.

Now if you want to set standards for funding at a district level, that is a bit more realistic but still not always possible for a state to set statewide standards. Transportation costs alone vary widely from one district to another, based on the geographic size of each district. I was shocked when I learned how much my district pays for special ed transportation.

I do think however, it is entirely reasonable to set minimum funding standards. But I think these are already in place. (But I will admit I don't know for sure.)

2) I agree. But please remember a simple phone call to your state compliance officer can not only answer a lot of your questions but also straighten up many district wrongs. Trust me, the state JUMPS when parents call. You can also get an advocate if you don't already have one. In my state, parents do not have to pay for advocates. They just make one local phone call. We have a network of them serving every community of the state. I think this is true in many states. EVERY state is mandated to spend a certain amount of their funding on parent education and support. Or for that matter, feel free to PM me with specific questions about your child's program and I will do my best to answer them or at least lead you in the direction of the answer you need.

3) I agree. But like I have said, it is hard to come up with a true 'average cost'. I also remind you that funding shortages are to be blamed on the feds. That's where the money comes from.

4) I agree. No argument at all. And I do think those books should always be available to parents and district patrons when requested.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. $4300 is "20%" of $21,500

The average cost to educate a special needs child cited by the plaintiffs in the 11-district suit against the state of Washington was $10,000 - a 12% shortfall between what districts get and what they spend.

If the average cost is also $10,000 where you teach, then your district must receive $2000 in basic ed + special ed revenue per special needs student for your 20% stat to be accurate.

Maybe I'm taking the wrong tack. To what are you referring when you say that state funding only takes care of 20% of your students needs?

I've heard so much of the "special-ed students are a huge unfunded burden on school district" rhetoric that I've become sensitive to the topic. "States reimburse only 20% of the cost" is intended to pressure state legislatures to live up to their education responsibility, but the unintended consequence is to place the blame for poorly-funded schools directly on sped kids. Legislator: "Holy crap! We have to spend 5x more than we currently do?! We can't afford that! Damn them crippled kids. What about vouchers? We can throw a few C-notes at each of those parents and they'll go away happy, right?"

Do you mean a person who wrote your STATE funding formula? Because that is a task that is the responsibility of each state, not local school districts. School districts are not given much freedom in HOW they spend their OSEP funding. The regs are very strict.

Yes. She was one of the original group of parents who petitioned the state legislature, and later the us congress to get the 1974 law passed.

Statewide standards are necessary for two reasons:
1) it's not good policy to write a blank check for any program, even one as important as special education, and,
2) it provides an expectation for districts of a minimum sped program level.

I agree that the feds are not providing the states the revenue that they have promised them, but in Washington, this has not resulted in a loss of revenue to the districts. The state fully funds the formula as it exists.

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. In 1974,

when 94-142 was passed initially (now called IDEA), Congress said the federal govt would pay 40% of the cost of educating special ed kids. The remaining 60% was to be the responsibility of the state and the local districts. Until just a few months ago, the feds never funded more than 17%. Now it is up somewhere around 20%, although I do think they created a timeline for eventually reaching their 40% commitment. I got a letter from my congressman 6 months ago saying that there was a plan in place to meet the 40% commitment. So I am referring to federal funding, not state, when I talk about the 20% funding.

These figures and percentages are probably national averages. So it could be that some states, like Washington, have a lower cost than others. I do know that in my state, the larger urban districts spend more than the smaller rural districts. And not just on special ed. It is just more expensive to educate kids in urban areas.

The state formula that assigns revenue to school district is probably based on current funding levels, so yes, that would make sense that the state fully funds its formula.

BUT the feds have never kept their end of the deal, which was to pay 40% of the total cost. As costs have risen in the last 30 years, this has become more of a problem for school districts. So any discussion about costs of special ed needs to include the funding dilemna.

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. I'm still unclear about something... well, many things.

In my state, the federal government does not deliver the funding that they promised, but the state makes up the shortfall to districts. Maybe it's unfair to the state, but that doesn't imply an unfunded mandate to the school districts.

That fact does not deter Washington's school administrators from using the broken federal promise in misleading (and damaging) ways to articulate a crisis in school funding, blamed on special education.

Reading between the lines, it sounds as if in your state the district gets some reduced figure that deducts for a limited federal contribution, is this true?

Special ed programs are NOT money makers for any school district. They are currently funded at less than 20% of what they actually cost.

Sorry, but this is misleading, and it's misleading in a damaging way. It leaves the implication with readers that (at best) the average special ed student requires more than 5x the resources that the average general ed student requires.

Using figures that are valid for Washington state, (and assuming that the state doesn't cover the longstanding federal "promise gap") a 20% federal government share equals $880. The state's 60% share equals $2580. The general ed funding provided to every kid - special needs kids included, equals $4300. Therefore the grand total is about $8000 to meet (what the state formula indicates) is a total cost of about $8800.

No mathematical scenario exists in which the cost to educate the average special needs child is funded at less than 90% of the apportionment formula as a result of the federal shortfall.

Special ed programs in Washington are funded at 100% of the (state estimated) costs. Whether the apportionment formula is realistic is another discussion. Given the small number of districts that apply for safety net funding, I doubt that it's dramatically deficient. I've been told that few districts apply for the supplmentary funds because they would first have to demonstrate that they'd spent all their special ed funding on special ed programs.

A parent who is told that their normally developing children aren't getting schoolbooks because my autistic child is getting speech therapy, would justifiably be pissed. It concerns me (and should concern you too imho) that this viewpoint is becoming conventional wisdom.

[proud2BlibKansan]

55. The feds only pay 20% of the cost;

they promised to pay 40%.

Do the math. Write your reps in Congress.

It's an underfunded mandate. Just like NCLB.

Yes, our kids are getting screwed. Yes, it's not fair.

Where I teach, the funds are separate. I have never heard talk of regular ed getting less money because of special ed mandates. If that is happening, it is indeed unfortunate. That would make me angry.

I do think that with the full 40% funding, we would have better programs for our kids with disabilities. It only makes sense. Maybe I would have that para I have asked for for 12+ years now. Maybe we could have reduced class sizes. That always makes a difference. Maybe I would have more than $100 a year to spend on supplies for my classroom.

The bottom line is the feds have not kept their word. They have never changed the law, they have just failed to abide by it. Now that we have NCLB and its underfunded mandates, general ed folks are experiencing what we have lived for 30+ years now. We are building support for our battle with the feds to keep their part of the bargain.

In D.C., once you see the massive kingdom of the US Dept of Ed, it is hard not to be furious at the $$ being spent at the federal level which should be coming to our local districts for our kids. The waste is enormous. Many Congress reps agree. Mine has taken this issue on and has run with it.

I honestly believe this is our most important battle in special ed.

[MountainLaurel]

14. A few

There actually many private schools that do nothing but work with disabled children.

http://www.drbarbercenter.org/programs/services_for_children/autisum.html

http://www.thebayschool.org/home.html

http://members.tripod.com/RSaffran/schools.html

http://www.fa-ct.org/

[msongs]

21. there are many such schools.......and

they are not what you think regarding "private" schools like catholic or other church type of schools. Catholic schools run away from special ed kids or bad behaviors or low grade kids because they want to skim the top of the classes only.

the private schools for autistic kids are more in the line of clinical psychology type settings.

in our area, each county has public school sites for specialty children such as those with autistic conditions. In riverside county there is a special school named after actor rob reiner. this school has few students per class, many staff members, and serves young children only, the theory being that giving these kids maximum attention at a young age will benefit them immensely.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Ilsa]

26. As the mother of an autistic child, I wish I could send him to a

special school, but the closest is over 100 miles away. And I can't imagine sending my son away for a boarding school-type of setup.

I doubt the vouchers alone would be enough to pay for the cost of the school. It is very expensive, like an additional house payment. And that doesn't cover meds, etc.

There are different teaching methods and behavior management challenges that go into parenting and teaching an autistic student, and each one needs an individualized plan which addresses their strengths and weaknesses.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. If you live in Washington State

Your local school district gets $8,800 from the state for your child's education. ($4500 basic ed + $4300 special ed)

Every state has a similar setup. A voucher system that is intended to provide a better education for your kid (and not just save a buck) would be at least that much.

I'm not advocating vouchers, but enough money is dedicated to public education of autistic students to pay for the vouchers.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. It's not that simple

and not true in every state. The highest voucher proposal in my state was for $2000 per student. But the legislation failed. Another representative proposed $4000 but never submitted a bill to support that idea.

Until there is a federal mandate for vouchers, (and I don't see any on the horizon) there is no way anyone can say exactly how much vouchers would be. Currently, vouchers are being left up to individual states to create. It is a hot button issue that the feds have no plans on touching in the immediate future.

[Ilsa]

38. You can't reallocate the money that way so easily in TX.

A school district doesn't have to give up their stipend for a cild unless their program is inadequate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. My understanding...

... is that a kid who's family gets a voucher is no longer a student of the district for funding purposes.

IOW, if the state is "saving" $8800 by not sending the money to the district, they have $8800 available to pay for a voucher.

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. What state?

I didn't know any state has authorized turning over state funding to parents in the form of vouchers.

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. I stand corrected.

You undoubtedly have more understanding of voucher systems than I.

That said, what is the allure of vouchers if it increases state and/or federal education expenses? For that matter, why would public schools object to them if it means the same money for fewer students?

I think I understand what you're saying... a federal voucher system would only redirect federal funding, and a state program would only redirect state funding. True?

[proud2BlibKansan]

56. Yes that is right

No matter how you look at it, it means less money for public schools. That is the bottom line.

We are seeing a great drain on our resources here with charter schools. They have enrolled 20% of our kids. The resulting budget cuts have been devastating. Vouchers would kill us.

Vouchers will also NEVER cover the total cost of private schools. Many families could still not afford private schools. One of the best Catholic high schools in my area is around $4000 - $5000 a year. A $2000 voucher will make no difference to a single parent making minimum wage. But those middle and upper middle class families will run with it. We can't afford to turn our public schools into lower class only institutions.

It all feeds into the two class society we are becoming.

[Ilsa]

30. This is the closest to me:

http://www.westviewschool.org/index.html


THE WESTVIEW SCHOOL
The Westview School is a private, non-profit school founded in 1981 to provide a structured, stimulating learning environment. The school is specifically designed for young children with learning differences which prevent them from being successful in regular programs. Today, the school's student body is mostly comprised of children who have been diagnosed with communication disorders, autism or related conditions generally known as Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD). The program is unique in its ability to meet the needs of high-functioning children with autism. Research has shown that early intervention is the key to engaging these children with the world, and with other people to fully develop their capabilities. These studies are borne out by the successful experiences of Westview School graduates, about 50 percent of who enter mainstream classes.

Early intervention is essential. We understand the importance of children getting the treatment at the earliest possible age. The Westview School is one of a handful of schools in the country with an early intervention program especially designed for children with PDD/high functioning autism. It is the only such school in the greater Houston area.

Every child who is admitted must have a completed medical examination and most children come to us with detailed pediatric evaluations as well as hearing assessments and other related tests.

OUR MISSION

"The Westview School provides a stimulating, specialized learning environment where children with PDD/autism and other language and interaction disorders can reach their potential. The School utilizes a multi-sensory curriculum that maximizes each child’s unique strengths, while also addressing areas of weakness. This is accomplished through teaching methods designed to meet the child’s individual learning style. Westview children grow and learn in a nurturing, positive, happy environment that enhances their self-esteem."

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Don't knock vouchers for the disabled

until you have a disabled child and have tried to deal with the 'system'.

My son is on a McKay scholarship and I have been able to structure a program for him that is far better then anything I could have done in a regular public school.

So what do I get with my voucher. A school that offers small classes to all students. There are no more then 16 kids in a middle school class. I also get a personal aide to sit with him during reading and language arts to assist him. She also tutors him after school, 4 days a week.

What did my son get? All A and B's and he earned them. Since my son's school does not have to teach to the FCAT, he is getting a much more rounded and challenging education.

Show me a public school that can do this for me for the same money and I will consider going back. Until then, please don't take my voucher.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. Here where I teach,

private schools are woefully unable to meet the needs of kids with disabilities. These kids return to public schools all the time. It is sad. I think it's close to criminal. Giving them tax dollars is the dumbest idea I have heard in a long time.

I am glad you are having better luck where you live.

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. You have to have a very pro-active parent

who can put together something that meets the child's needs for this to work. However, at least in my area, there are no programs in the public schools for a child like mine, a gifted dyslexic and we've been in the public school system twice, both times were disasters.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. That is a relatively new disabled category

Not many states have yet addressed services to kids who fall under this definition. So it isn't surprising that you have had bad experiences in public schools. Keep in mind that gited ed is NOT mandated under IDEA so many special ed teachers have no training to prepare them to work with gifted kids. Even when it is recognized and included under the IDEA umbrella, it will be several years before adequately prepared teachers are in place in public schools.

However, that does NOT mean that kids with autism are better served in private schools. There are excellent programs in many public school districts. Anyway, I doubt the agenda of the politicians who promote these vouchers is really about helping kids with disabilities.

Good luck to you.

Peace.

[MichiganVote]

8. Private schools DO NOT have adequate programming or any

programming for autistic students. This is pathetic...just pathetic.

edit/typo

[MountainLaurel]

13. In my area

There are several private schools specifically for disabled children: from Down's syndrome, cerebal palsy, and autistic spectrum disorders to learning disabilities. I assume these are the sort of private schools that this sort of legislation is addressing.

http://www.stcoletta.org/

http://www.labschool.org/

[KamaAina]

20. Public school districts can already pay for private placements

for students with autism and other disabilities. They often find it cheaper to foot the private tuition bill for a few such students than to retool their whole system to educate those few students.

Thus, just as you probably suspected, this voucher nonsense is totally unnecessary and is a dastardly, underhanded attempt to use us as the thin end of a wedge to promote their agenda which ultimately includes destroying public education :grr: For one thing, the vouchers do nothing for students living outside Indy or maybe Bloomington where those three private schools are presumably located.

And yes, I meant 'us'; I was once just such a student (actually the state of Conn. picked up the tab rather than the town). As an activist I am surprised that the president of their Autism Society seems so clueless.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. Good point

and thanks for bringing this up.

You are right; this is a much better system where each child's individual needs are examined and the opportunity exists for a private school placement.

When this is thrown out as an opportunity for any child whose parent requests it, it will overwhelm the few good private schools for kids with disabilities.

[pinto]

25. Precisely. The public school can be reimbursed for private education,

if that serves the kids best, vouchers aren't necessary. The issue of education for autistic kids here seems to be a red herring in the voucher "debate". Pretty slimy, if you ask me.

[ulysses]

31. lessee...5500 kids...3 schools...

Those schools have room for all 1,833 kids they'd each have to take in order to serve all of Indiana's autistic kids? Big schools.

[trixie]

39. my experience with private schools...

is that they will "accept" your disabled child, cash the check then kick them out after the check has cleared. They have every legal right to do so and so your child is back in public school without the funding.

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. Darn why didn't I think of that?

Pretty smart of you to do the math here. :hi:

[ulysses]

46. that's one of my big things with vouchers.

You can't swing a cat in metro Atlanta without hitting a private school, but many (most?) of those were founded in response to desegregation. Where are all the private schools that are going to take the kids in my school, even the ones without disabilities?

They ain't there, folks.

[SoCalDem]

44. Here's an idea..

Instead of spending all the money dismantling public schools and offering vouchers, why not use the same money to just build more schools for autistic children?

[Hekate]

48. Because the real goal is to dismantle public education itself

At bottom, the ultra-right-wingers, both religous and secular, do not believe in the worth of public education and resent paying for it.

And that's the bottom line. The rest is commentary.

One comment: Vouchers are useless to just about anyone who can't already afford private school.
Final comment: Googling for info about Christian Reconstructionism and public education is very instructive -- they are very much behind the home-schooling movement; and obviously you don't have to pay mommies to be teachers.

Hekate
a profound believer in the value of public education

[MountainLaurel]

57. Because of the least restrictive doctrine

Public schools just for autistic children would probably be considered illegal.

[mmonk]

51. This is their way of saying autistic children need

to get out of public schools.

[proud2BlibKansan]

58. Could be

but I think their agenda is really just to downgrade public education. They see it as a huge drain on tax dollars. But since they can't abolish federal funding for education, they are just trying to redistribute the funds - to THEIR benefit.

The whole idea of putting kids first and providing them with the best possible education just doesn't enter the RW reality. They want the best for THEIR kids but fail to see a need to do anything to help poor kids or disabled kids or any kid who isn't one of theirs. They are the opposite of liberals - they have no sense of taking care of society or improvements that benefit us as a whole group.

It's almost racist. These are the same people who ran from the public schools when desegregation became a reality in their communities. They opened private schools for their own kids. Now they want govt money to pay for them. And to hell with the other kids.

I know this sounds extreme but I have watched this mentality evolve for a couple decades now. I am convinced these people are racist and selfish.