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.

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.