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.