Rep. Scharnhorst discusses Bryce's Law

Missouri Education: In need of reform

The need for autism education reform in Missouri (Part 2)

The need for autism education reform in Missouri

Taking Giant Steps

From the St. Louis PD Letters 3/20/08

Ulterior motives

I am the parent of an autistic child, and I oppose the proposed tax credit programs for the parents of autistic children. I oppose this legislation because I believe some of the people behind it have ulterior motives.

The nonprofit group pushing this legislation, the Children's Education Council of Missouri, is just another of many "school choice" organizations that are political fronts for the religious right. Jason Crowell, who authored Senate Bill 993, and House Speaker Rod Jetton, who pushed House Bill 186, both have strong political ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, the Missouri Baptist Convention and other religious groups that are hostile to public education. Most informed people know that helping the families of autistic children has little to do with these bills.

Nora Kelleher, who wrote "Special needs students will benefit from new tax credit program" (March 11), a commentary supporting the legislation, was identified as a development officer for Giant Steps of St. Louis. Her job is to raise money for Giant Steps of St. Louis; but at least she's honest about her agenda.

David W. Johnson | Overland

The author of this op-ed demonstrates that many parents ARE well-served by their public schools. The idea that the movement for more school choice, especially for special needs children is either a front for the so-called “religious right” or that Giant Steps’ interest is money. It’s an easy enough subterfuge, but considering I’m a left-leaning Democrat who thinks HB 1886 makes sense and has an excellent chance of making a difference in the lives of many families whose children aren’t getting what they need.

I believe that Giant Steps’ priority is helping special needs children, not making money, or else their founders would have created Giant Steps Bank or Giant Steps Real Estate.

But what about the parents who use Giant Steps?

Shari Kaminsky’s child is at Giant Steps, and believes the tuition tax credit will help families like her, and why.

"I hope that because of hearings like this, more people will begin to take notice of what's happening to the children falling through the cracks of the school system," said Shari Kaminsky, a mother of two autistic children from Kirkwood who testified before the committee.

Kaminsky's older son has done well in the special public school district, a government entity organized to deliver educational services to special-needs students. But she removed her younger son when she observed the system was not serving his needs. Since enrolling him last autumn at the private program Giant Steps, she has witnessed marked progress in his verbal and social skills.

But the Kirkwood mother said Giant Steps faces declining enrollment as special school districts have stopped establishing new contracts with private providers.

"Unless there is some degree of choice here, it means there will be no Giant Steps," Kaminsky said.

Representatives Need to Be Educated

This week, I arranged a coffee date with my state representative and three other parents about special needs legislation for Missouri. Bryce's Law, as it is known as, is great legislation that has seen tremendous success in other states. Unfortunately, I have read some disturbing articles that do not tell the truth about it. The opponents of this bill either have been brainwashed, do not know about it, or have never been in the shoes of a parent like myself. I am a proud parent of a 5 year old little girl who has autism. She is very sweet and bright, but needs some extra guidance and services. She has an IEP, however, the school she goes to does not only not give her everything promised on her IEP; they also do not have the potential to give her what she needs. The school is just not equipped for it.

However, there are no other schools that we can afford. I can say all of this for many other parents across the state I have spoken with. This brings me to my meeting with our state rep. He seemed unsure of how he would vote on this matter, although at the end of the discussion, I think he had realized this legislation is needed, worthwhile, and would not only help the children but also the public schools. First off, he was afraid it would drain money from the public schools. Actually, it would help public schools because it could take a child who may be very expensive to educate and place them in a school that can do a better job. It will not cost anything as the scholarships are paid for by private donors. In fact, in Florida, they have seen savings of millions of dollars because of this program.

Secondly, he was afraid children without special needs could somehow sneak into the program. I explained to him this would not happen because only children with IEPs are eligible for the scholarships. As any parent knows who has been through the IEP process, it is not an easy task to get one.

Finally, he was concerned that if the state were somehow involved with paying for children to attend private schools, the government would be able to start controlling those private schools. I assured him this was not possible!

After the coffee, he told me he had learned so many things that he did not know before. He was quite grateful to have had the opportunity to speak with us and grateful he learned the truth. Then, he promised me a yes vote! Now, if any other parents can meet with your legislators, please do. The time is now to make sure this passes. Even if you do not have special needs children, show your support. This program will not cost taxpayers anything...unless they decide the donate to the program. It is a win-win situation!

What Missouri's constitution says

One thing I’ve been wondering about is the state’s language guaranteeing a “free and appropriate public education” for all Missouri elementary and secondary school-aged children.

Perhaps a constitutional scholar or lawyer will answer this for me. The language (that I find quite lyrical) is as follows:

A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law.

I’d take issue with the idea that intelligence can be diffused, or spread over the population, because intelligence is inherent (to an extent) and independent of learning. We can measure a child’s IQ at a very early age, and even though we may see that fluctuate throughout someone’s life it is not a thing that can be “imparted” to a child through a series of verifiable tactics. As I understand it, intelligence is just one of many characteristics that influence academic achievement, and the correlation is not necessarily strong!

Children with higher IQs tend to perform better on tests, but The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns says that IQ only accounts for 25% of a given variance in test scores, suggesting that there are other factors at work that are more significant. We see that phenomenon clearly with many autistic children who have very high IQs but aren’t able to retain new information or express themselves.

At any rate, I’ll concede that a “general diffusion of knowledge” is essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people. We have to know our rights in order to defend them, we have to be skilled and learn a body of knowledge to be able to pursue our life and our happiness as well. I’m sure there are cases where that isn’t true, but certainly to simply provide for one’s self a minimum amount of education is needed.

We talk about a “free and appropriate public education” as something that only public schools can offer, but I don’t think that is necessarily true. I think that the obligation to provide knowledge is paramount to the obligation to maintain public schools as we know them. We have, since the inception of the public school system, relied on it to provide that, and upon discovering time and time again that it does not, and that our efforts to improve it aren’t working and are leaving children behind, to camps emerged: those who feel our primary duty is to the public schools at any and all costs, and those who feel our primary duty is to educate and diffuse knowledge.

Tonight I’m watching Gattica, a Gore Vidal adaptation about genetic mapping and predestination—a very disturbing look at chance and editing out “bad” genes, and about the possibility of discrimination based on genetics more than race or social status. A scary thought, indeed, though the story is old—but the moral says that your possibilities are not limited by any definition, disability or restriction. We do have the opportunity to give every child a chance—and a bigger one even than they may be born with, but it will take a leap of faith, and a look at education as a general diffusion of opportunity. The more choices we offer our diverse and unique children, the more knowledge and skills we can offer to all.

Columbia: Cuts to Special Education Threatened

If you are in the Columbia Public School district, you can not miss the press the tax levy vote is receiving. The CPS Board is urging voters to approve a tax levy and threatening budget cuts if it is not approved. First off, they should have been more fiscally responsible and not put us in this place to being with. They have had surpluses from year to year and now they are saying they need more money? Did they think about that when they were using money to sue the state in the adequacy case? Nope! Although now they have pulled out, thank goodness. I find this interesting too. This is from the Columbia Missourian...They are threatening to cut special education programs.

Currently, special education is set up in a team model that includes 19 teams of 120 to 125 students and 19 paraprofessionals, each one assigned to a team. There are also professionals assigned to the individual students. This model is unique to the middle school level, DeSpain said. After the restructuring, the remaining paraprofessionals will be assigned to students.

“We’ll assign a paraprofessional when a student’s IEP, the individual education plan, calls for it,” Barnett said.

Another cut to special education in the district would be a 50 percent reduction in the budget of the special education summer program at Newton Middle School. That cut would save an additional $118,000.

I would like to add, I think many of their budget cut threats are scare tactics into voting for the tax levy. What Hank Waters, of the Columbia Tribune, thinks...

Recently the district released hundreds of detailed steps it could take to cut millions in spending. The list for a first round of cuts appeared in this newspaper Friday, and the district has made all its proposals available for public review.

Bureaucracies rarely do any such thing unless seriously threatened with loss of revenue. Such a threat now faces the school district, whose proposed 54-cent tax levy increase probably will fail in the April 8 election, leaving the district with a need to find cuts even beyond the initial list.

In a perverse way, the improper budget management the district did back in June is a blessing. The reckless use of reserve funds for projected ongoing operations costs put district managers in a budgetary tight spot forcing an unscheduled need to cut other costs.

A sad but true fact of public bureaucratic life is that periodic revenue squeezes are needed to bring serious cost control. You can understand why. As long as funding increases, bureau managers will look to expand operations. They believe they are doing a good job and steadily expanding budgets are needed to keep the valuable momentum going.

Trouble is, in such happy surroundings, restraint and accountability are lacking. No marketplace full of choice-making customers is on hand to tailor their activities. The most reliable restraint comes in the form of an unusual revenue challenge, something beyond the perennial revenue shortages officials habitually bemoan.

One of those rare cyclical moments is at hand for the Columbia school district. Many or most voters will want to send a message of disapproval for the district’s lack of openness, but the ancillary benefit of spending control is just as important.

The district will be able to trim millions from operations without damaging the quality of education. It never would have happened but for the rush of public disdain that threatens its cash flow.

While they are threatening to cut special education programs, I think it is even more crucial to Columbia special needs students that Bryce's Law passes. This would give those children a shot at a decent education when their schools cannot provide it. And if, the CPS do in fact, cut those programs, the children here will be even more lost in the system. Please, urge your representative to vote yes!

A toolbox-full

Last week, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran this story about a daycare bill that has been approved by the Senate.

“— The Senate on Tuesday gave initial approval to a program aimed at providing preschool for children in the St. Louis Public Schools.

Sen. Jeff Smith, D-St. Louis, added the program to a bill that creates a quality rating system for day-care centers.

Smith's program would provide preschool for children in school districts that are not accredited by the state Board of Education, such as the St. Louis district.”

Approximately a thousand students would be served under this program, capped at $5 million a year. Half of the available funding would go to private organizations to contract with the public schools.

Legislators see this as a way to help turn the St. Louis school district around, and I think it sounds like a viable tool—one of many that have been proposed this legislative session now that three districts in Missouri are unaccredited (Wyaconda, Riverview Gardens and St. Louis City).

Studies have shown that students in day-care and pre-schools that focus on preparing them for school are much more likely to graduate and succeed. Unfortunately, I’ve also seen evidence that in poor-performing public schools that added benefit is lost when schools fail to build on those new skills.

Building from the ground up is a great idea, but there should be an equal focus on helping students currently behind, because they represent an entire generation that we can’t afford to lose.

One tool we need is the special needs legislation currently pending a vote in both the house and senate. Missouri families have little to no options if they can’t get the right response from their IEP teams. We’ve done a good job so far of responding to an historical lack of services for students with special needs, but with this legislation we can move that service from good to great.

By giving parents a choice about what education is appropriate for their child, we’ll be able to see the benefits of early intervention which is key in helping children with autism learn. We’ll see more students mainstreamed after targeted, short-term treatment, and countless other benefits in the lives of individual students. We can offer this aid to families with special needs children, and there is no reason good enough not to pass the scholarship tax credit.

Let’s add this tool to our educational toolbox!

Rep. Gayle Kingery: Education is an investment

Gayle Kingery (Representative from Poplar Bluffs) was quoted during a rally of students last year saying “Education is expensive, but it's a good investment for you, for your future, and it's wise for us to invest in you for our future because you are the future."

Missouri has been caught up with the sale of MOHELA loans (higher ed.), and a battle has ensued between those who think the sale was a good idea, and those who foresaw disaster. The difference in how we fund college education and how we fund K-12 has always been baffling to me. Our legislators commit every year to making college affordable—and nationally, it’s a huge component of the current presidential debates: no one who wants to go to college should be denied that American Dream because they don’t have the money to pay for it. We make state money available for state universities and colleges, but we also have a network of scholarships for any and every type of student. Some are for a particular degree, others for disabled students and still more for community involvement or redheads. My private college’s financial aid package, funded mainly by alumni, made my family’s out-of-pocket expenses cheaper than a community college.

We see college as a stepping stone to success, and no matter what career or college you choose, there are funds available from all kinds of institutions to offset the cost. And while college is more expensive than ever and critics abound, I still see it as a very American opportunity. Missouri legislators are working hard to make sure no one is left behind because their family doesn’t make enough to pay for rising college costs.

So why isn’t the same true for K-12? I think we can hardly say college is more important that K-12, but we apply different principles to the funding. Missouri is scared to death of offering a competition-based model to public school, even though it works for colleges where public colleges still get hefty state support and private foundations offset the cost of private or religious colleges.

Rep. Kingery and others have a chance to give opportunities to special needs students in Missouri by voting for Bryce’s Law that would create a tax credit scholarship program for students with an IEP to transfer to a private school that can meet their needs. The opportunities we afford our K-12 students should be no different than what we afford college students, because they are contingent upon one another. With the early intervention this scholarship program could afford families who need more services but cannot pay for them, we will be giving many students the chance to go to college, hold a job, live independently and succeed. It IS wise to invest in our future, and this is how we do it.

Post-Dispatch misspells Tuition Tax Credits

I was disappointed, to say the least, about today’s Post-Dispatch Editorial Page, and their treatment of the two tuition tax credit bills in the MO House and Senate. Right off the bat, the headline called it a “voucher bill”, and SB 993 and HB 1886 are simply not, in any way shape or form, vouchers.

A voucher, by its very definition used broadly in other social areas, is a form authorizing a disbursement of cash or a credit against a purchase or expense to be made in the future.

In education, that means that the state takes from its budget the exact amount usually paid for a student, and gives a parent freedom to then choose any school they want to put that money toward. Vouchers are public money, and all taxpayers pay for it involuntarily.

Tuition or Scholarship tax credits (spelled out in 993 and 1886) are entirely different. These bills authorize a scholarship granting organization to administer scholarships (just like any scholarship fund), and the tax credit part comes in when someone voluntarily donates into the scholarship fund--they get a tax credit on their next return for up to 80% of the amount they donated.

Scholarships via a tax credit are for the most part much smaller than the state amount paid per pupil.

So, like the 5 other states that have tuition tax credit programs, Missouri will likely see state savings in the millions.

In Missouri, we have MANY tax credits. Some already go to private companies, like the one that Gov. Blunt announced yesterday for $175,000 for a Catholic Charity. Public schools can (and do) also partner with a private org. to provide services at public expense as long as it is approved by DESE and the school's IEP team. This bill simply gives that choice to parents, and keeps them from having to resort to litigation if they feel their needs are not being met (another area in which the state may save money).

So, we've got ways in which the state will save money, we've got parents testifying for it, we have many other examples of tax credits and public-private partnerships within public schools. This article is incorrect and even juvenile in its analysis, and serves only to illustrate why parents of special needs children need more options, if this is the condescending response they receive when they voice their opinion.

The conclusion I’ve come to through serious study of the issue is that the benefit is probably even greater than I can imagine. If I feel this strongly about it, how must those parents with special needs children feel? We can see that parents are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to getting services through an IEP. If they have serious problems that are not resolved, parents’ only option is litigation. Requiring a parent to become involved in a lawsuit against their school is an incredibly poor solution. Where will that child attend school while the lawsuit takes place? What happens if the issue takes a long time to resolve, or is not resolved? How practical is it to use a lawsuit, involving a special needs family and the public school they attend? Those parents need another option—this legislation gives it in an equitable, smart way.

Mary Kasten: empower special needs students

Mary Kasten is the state representative for district #158. It is her mission is to "Ensure that every Missouri student has the best educational opportunities possible". She has been on the school board for 20 years and is the past president of The Missouri School Board Association. Mary has a long, committed history of service to our community and our schools.

I live in Cape Girardeau and I love my community. However, I am not blind to critical issues we face that need real solutions~and I'm talking about education. Cape Girardeau public schools are currently struggling to get up to speed with the rest of the nation. No Child Left Behind, with all of its red tape has added a whole new level of complexity to our public edcucation system and highlighted at the same time some disturbing facts. You can get the full skinny in this update from an article from the seMissourian.com: "Five schools in Cape, two in Jackson fail to meet testing standards". We have across the 'board' issues to address. In just one of the 7 schools mentioned:

"Last year -- the first year that fifth- and sixth-graders took the state tests -- the middle school failed to meet target goals among black, special-needs and low-income students."

I have particular concern for special needs children who have limited options in schools that already have difficulty serving 'typical' kids, much less those with specialized needs. Early intervention with properly trained teachers can have tremendous long-term impact on a child with special needs. Proper educational alternatives can actually return many special needs children back to mainstream school environments that many parents would prefer, within as few as just a couple of years of specialized instruction.

LeVota's Vote--we hope that it's yes!

I am hopeful about Paul LeVota’s vote on HB 1886. Special needs children require more help, and should have access to a school that has experience with their disability, one that can offer the targeted, one-on-one assistance that many disabled students require? This is what HB 1886 offers, through a scholarship tax credit where donations are made to a fund and parents can use it to find the best education for their special needs child, even if it’s outside the district they happen to live in—even if it’s more than they can afford. It’s an opportunity to invest in children.

I'm confident LeVota will make the right choice when this bill comes to a vote.

Is Margaret Donnelly standing up for your kids?

I’ve been wondering about Rep. Margaret Donnelly’s run for AG lately. It seems to me that in the media at least, she piggybacks her opinions off of Jeff Harris’ campaign. If I were Jeff Harris, I wouldn’t like that, but then again, being in a gang is pretty cool.

In that article, Margaret Donnelly has sided with Harris in being staunchly anti-school choice, because that’s just “not what Democrats do”.

That attitude is sad and tired in my book, and in the book of the many parents across Missouri who have special needs children and are asking for the help they would receive through HB 1886, that Margaret Donnelly has come out against, calling those who support school choice “anti-public schools”.

I believe that this kind of political smear, Democrat-or-die has no place in today’s education reform efforts, and I believe that Margaret Donnelly is wrong to politicize an effort to help autistic and special needs kids in Missouri get access to the type of education they need.

On her website she has her views on a range of issues, but a few points caught my eye. She talks about costs of services falling to economically strapped Missourians. That’s something facing many special needs families trying to get the services their child needs to succeed—yet Donnelly is against that type of help for those types of families.

I am quite incensed that she and Harris keep telling Missourians that more money is their priority and answer to the myriad of problems facing public schools and the precious children inside of them—Missourians can see that’s not true. We pay more and more every year for education that is going down the tubes.

What can be so horrible about giving parents—who pay for public schools in their area that often cannot serve their child—a scholarship to help them pay for the extreme costs of educating a special needs child? That’s a question I’d like these Attorney General candidates to answer. If you’d like to ask her, just pass these and other questions on to Margaret.Donnelly@house.mo.gov.