Autism Scholarship Program Testimony

By Beth Lear, posted April 9, 2008

I intend to specifically address the testimony offered by Policy Matters last week concerning both the existing Autism Scholarship and Senate Bill 57.

The most important finding in their research is the fact that 100% of the parents they interviewed who are currently using the Autism scholarship are more satisfied than parents whose children remain in the public system.

Dismissing the satisfaction of the parents, Policy Matters claims that the Autism program is poor public policy and that it has worsened existing inequities in Ohio’s public system.  The Buckeye Institute maintains that the opposite of this is true, since the Autism Scholarship increases options for all families, especially middle and lower income families who, prior to its existence, could not afford the same level of care and education that were previously available only to the wealthy.  Additionally, access continues to grow at a 50% a year rate, annually expanding opportunities and thus eliminating inequities inherent in the system.  Senate Bill 57 will likewise increase the options for all families with special needs students.

Policy Matters claims admission is selective in three areas:  cost, severity of disability and religious belief.  The bottom line for all these issues is this:  more families have access to educational alternatives than they did before the program.  Senate Bill 57 will multiply opportunities even more for special needs children who currently have no choice.

The Issue of Cost
Policy Matters full report reveals the average cost of the autistic scholarship to be $15,000.  The maximum available is $20,000.  So while some schools or services may charge in excess of $20,000, clearly with an average cost $5,000 less than the scholarship, most parents do not need to come up with any additional money.  And both the scholarship and the average cost are substantially less than the state pays to educate autistic children in the public setting, where costs can exceed $30,000 (according to ODE’s SF-3 reports).  In spite of more money being available at the local public school, parents are still choosing private schools and providers and are happy with their choices, according to the PMO study and many other independent reports on various voucher programs nationwide.  So taxpayers save money and parents are more satisfied.  

Similar savings have been seen in Florida with the McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program.  That program, like Senate Bill 57, serves all categories of special needs.  And also like SB 57, McKay scholarships are less than what the state currently pays to public schools to educate the same children.

The Issue of Severe Disability
Not all the private providers accepting scholarship money are able to provide services to all the autistic children.  This is the same in the public school system.  On page eight of their report, Policy Matters stated it this way:  “School districts sometimes have difficulty consistently providing effective services to children with autism and convincing parents that everything possible is being done. As one superintendent said: ‘A school district can’t be all things to all people.’ Parents of a particular child may want to try a teaching method highlighted by new research that differs from what other parents want. It can be hard to justify that effort for one student, said this superintendent. Even if a decision to proceed is made, it takes time for districts to train staff in new approaches.”

Many of the private schools specialize.  It is unrealistic to believe Ohio can afford to require all our public schools to provide services at the same level.  It’s not a one-size-fits-all system.  But again, the fact remains that even parents with severely autistic children have more choices with the scholarship than without.  Sixty-nine percent of the 2008 first-quarter claims from school-based providers were from those schools that accept more severely disabled children.

The Issue of Religion
Including religious schools is not exclusionary – these schools provide more options than families had before.  However, these schools are not the only option available – they are not the majority of options.  Most opponents to using public money for religious private schools believe the problem is constitutional, but that issue was resolved in Zelman v. Harris.  The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that giving state-funded scholarships to school children to attend private, religious schools was not unconstitutional.  No parent is required to send their child to a religious school, and the same is true under SB 57.

Wealthier Ohioans Benefit More
Policy Matters claims that the 10 wealthiest districts account for 35% of the voucher spending, while the 10 poorest only 7%.  The 10 schools districts that spend the most per pupil have 7 times the number of autistic students compared to the 10 poorest.  That means the wealthier districts have 7 times more category six children, but are only spending 5 times more than the poorest districts.

Few Providers in Rural Areas
This is Economics 101 – supply and demand.  Where demand for a good or service is low, the supply will also be low.  What’s truly amazing is that a scholarship program that serves less than 4% of the special needs children is being accessed in nearly 60% of our counties.  And with Senate Bill 57, the demand for services will grow as will the number of providers. The number of private providers in Florida started at 1 when the McKay scholarship was a pilot program in 1999.  It grew to 100 providers the first full year and now has over 800 private schools and service providers covering 85% of their counties.  Policy Matters pointed out another important factor – the “geographic disparity in the availability of services…predates the voucher program.”

Voucher Students in More Restrictive Settings
Thanks to organizations like the ARC, people with special needs are increasingly integrated into society where they can work, live and love with more freedom and acceptance than they have ever had before.  Respectfully, Senate Bill 57 is not a step backwards.  Instead, it is empowerment for parents.  Not every family needs or will want to move their child out of the public school.  Many families are generally satisfied.  But for those who are not, the special needs scholarship provides them with alternatives.  Every child is different, and our one-size-fits-all system cannot meet the needs of everyone.  It should be a parent’s right to decide what is best for their child.  And, it’s important to note, that most of the children who have been participating in Florida’s successful McKay program for nearly a decade have been completely mainstreamed within just a few years.  The majority of students complete their education with their non-disabled peers.

Policy Matters did not cover several issues that are extremely important to the overall discussion.  I will add one point.  Children with special needs are physically and emotionally bullied at a much higher rate than non-disabled students.  The facts are in from Florida, where half of all special needs students were bullied in the public school system, 25% of them physically assaulted.  Those who have benefited from the scholarship program report only 5% have been bullied in their new environments.  Also, behavioral problems with special needs students fell from 40% in the public system to 19% with scholarship recipients.

The evidence is mounting that scholarship programs are successful.  Those that benefit the most tend to be lower-income, minority children and their families.  While Policy Matters suggests putting more money into the existing system, which research has shown is not the answer and does not improve outcomes, you have an opportunity to make a real difference for thousands of Ohio schoolchildren with the passage of Senate Bill 57.  The question really is:  do you believe parents should be making the decisions about how best to educate their children, or should that responsibility be delegated to the state?

Thank you for your time.  I am happy to answer your questions.