Using data from Michigan, the authors identify the effects of charter schools on special education students by comparing special education students who enroll in charter schools early with those who enroll in charter schools late. This research design addresses a common concern in charter school research: students who choose to enroll in charter schools may differ from those who remain in traditional public schools in unobservable ways. Simple comparisons between charter and traditional public school students can therefore be misleading.

To overcome this challenge, Imberman and Johnson compare early charter entrants to late entrants. Because both groups eventually attend charter schools, they are more comparable to one another than to students who never enroll. The effect of charter school attendance is identified by examining differences in outcomes before the late entrants make the switch.

In my view, the study’s two most important findings are:

• Charter schools use special education programs and service assignments that are less intensive and expen­sive than in traditional public schools.
• Charter schools improve special education students’ academic achievement and attendance.

The authors also conduct a parallel analysis of general education students. They show that the positive effects of charter schools on special education students are similar to the positive effects on general education students.

This study complements recent work by Elizabeth Setren, who examines special education students in Boston who randomly win or lose lotteries to attend charter schools. Because lottery outcomes are random, this design provides especially strong causal evidence that factors other than charter school attendance are highly unlikely to drive the results. Setren likewise finds that charter schools improve test scores for special education students.

Special education students are an important subpopulation. They account for nearly 15 percent of K-12 enrollment in the United States and receive disproportionate funding. Both of these studies find charter schools serve special education students more effectively, and contribute to the large and growing body of evidence showing that charter schools outperform traditional public schools.

The post Charter Schools Do Special Education Better appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But why has it been so difficult to pass open enrollment?

Apparently many legislators (particularly those in rural areas) are fearful that students would leave their school districts given the opportunity. It’s true that there are students who would change their schools. Some students will transfer out, and some students will transfer in. A mass exodus, however, is unlikely.

Parents often have sentimental attachments to the place they grew up in—they want their children to be able to experience all the same things they did. Strong attachments can help strengthen the community that supports the district. But these sentiments aren’t shared by everyone. Maybe someone is being bullied or struggling because the class size isn’t right for them. Or maybe families would prefer a five-day school week instead of four. Wouldn’t school districts improve if everyone who was there wanted to be there?

A professional advocate for “Rural School Advocates of Iowa” argued that open enrollment had bolstered rural districts in the state, as many students prefer smaller class sizes and sports programs that give them a better chance to get playing time. Perhaps additional studies on the effect of open enrollment on consolidation rates and enrollment trends could be useful in further addressing this concern.

There have also been reservations about the actual process of districts accepting students. Will districts only accept the best students from other districts? The best version of an open enrollment policy includes mandatory open enrollment. That means districts are not allowed to pick and choose students.

But what about special education students? If districts are required to accept all students, what if a district does not have special education staff on hand—will it be forced to make room?

There are already special education students in Missouri who live in districts without adequate resources to teach them. With open enrollment, I believe parents with special needs students would be more likely to choose a district with an adequate special education program.

As I was researching viewpoints on this issue, I came across an interesting story. A superintendent from a district in Minnesota was lamenting the lengths the district had to go to in order to retain students. The district created a new program that helps students with their post-graduation careers and allows them to earn certificates when they graduate.

Isn’t this what competition is supposed to do? Competition forced this district to create a new program that helps students with their careers after graduation. The desire to attract students to districts breeds innovation. Open enrollment can improve schools and increase options for students and families. Next year, I hope it finds the momentum it needs.

The post One Education Policy That Could Use Some Momentum for Next Year appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Stories about the teacher shortage conjure images of overwhelmed teachers across Missouri struggling to manage overflowing classrooms and a growing student population. If you never looked at the statewide numbers and only at media headlines, you might think the sky was falling. A few examples: “The Profession that Prepares People for all Other Professions is Diminishing (in Missouri),” “Teachers in Missouri are Not Returning to the Classroom,” and “A Look at the Local Impact of the Teacher Shortage Crisis (in Missouri).”

While the statewide trends are relatively minor, they still directly contradict the idea that teachers across the state are in short supply. The figures below depict statewide trends.

Student enrollment numbers have bounced back a bit from the COVID-19 dip and currently sit at 863,000. Nevertheless, prior to the pandemic, enrollment had been falling every year since 2013, and the 2022 number is still not close to the 2020 enrollment figure of 879,000. Conversely, teacher FTE (full-time equivalent) rose during the pandemic, and actually increased by a greater percentage (0.78%) than enrollment (0.41%) in 2022.

Even with the first positive enrollment growth since 2013, the student enrolled to teacher ratio still decreased from 12.29 to 12.26. The national student enrolled to teacher ratio has been decreasing for a long time, from 27 in 1951, to 20 in 1976, and to 16 in 2000. In 2020, the national ratio was 15.2, almost 3 whole students higher than Missouri’s total.

If the student-to-teacher ratio is so low, why are schools feeling the heat? The answer: there is a shortage of teachers to fill specific positions, not a shortage of teachers in general.

Five districts account for 50 percent of teacher vacancies in Missouri, and many of these vacancies are in a few subject areas—including special education, English-language learning (ELL), and mathematics. Allowing school districts to pay teachers more to fill these high-need vacancies—pay differentiation—is something I have discussed before, and could help solve this problem. Luckily, House Bill (HB) 190 is currently progressing through the Missouri Legislature, and it would allow for pay differentiation in our state.

There are districts in Missouri with needs for specific teachers. But that does not mean the whole state has a teacher crisis, and the data make it clear that Missouri is not facing any systemic teacher crisis. It is unfortunate that some Missourians may be getting the wrong impression from some inaccurate headlines, and one would hope that going forward we can have a debate that takes the actual facts into consideration.

The post Statewide Trends and the “Teacher Shortage” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If a school has more than a 5% teacher vacancy or is filled with non-fully certified teachers, then it qualifies as a “high-need school.” “High-need subject areas” are defined as subjects in which a district had to leave a position vacant or filled the position with non-fully certified teachers in the previous year. Missouri uses a “single salary schedule,” which sets a salary floor for teachers with a bonus for master’s degree holders. Currently, a district cannot pay a science teacher more than an English teacher with similar experience and degree level—a master’s degree in physics is equivalent to a master’s degree in English.

As an example: under HB 190, a district could offer a new special education teacher (a high-need position in many districts) a salary above the current salary floor to recruit the teacher. Districts are also allowed to raise the salaries of current teachers in high-need subject areas in order to retain them. There are some limitations—HB 190 does not allow a district to demote a different teacher in order to use this enhanced flexibility to recruit or retain a teacher. Districts are limited by their own budgets, they can choose to offer these high salaries, but they must make space to do so without lowering other teachers’ salaries.

The broader debate on this topic is about an alleged teacher shortage in Missouri. But the problem is not quite that simple, or quite that broad. Missouri is having trouble recruiting teachers in specific subject areas, such as special education and mathematics. The problem is also highly concentrated; 5 school districts accounted for almost 50 percent of school vacancies in 2022. Given that Missouri is having trouble attracting teachers for certain high-need areas and schools, it makes sense to allow districts to pay certain teachers more in order to persuade candidates to fill those jobs.

Despite the logic of HB 190, several lawmakers voiced their opposition in a recent committee hearing, claiming it would “pit teacher against teacher” and that the bill would end up “doing a lot more harm to the culture of the district and the staff and schools than good.” These complaints don’t add up. There’s already significant pay differentiation in schools among teachers—veteran teachers make more money, and so do teachers with advanced degrees. Paying teachers in certain subject areas more money is just one additional variable.

This policy might also encourage Missouri teachers to gain additional skills and certifications in order to qualify for higher-paying positions. An English teacher might spend time learning about special education reading to become a teacher in a high-need subject area and receive the corresponding pay increase. This could potentially help schools fill vacancies faster, as it may be easier to promote from within instead of embarking on an external search.

We have a narrow problem in Missouri with hiring specific teachers, and that means we need a targeted solution. Pay differentiation is an idea worth strongly considering, and the objections from critics, at least so far, don’t have much merit. I’m glad to see that the legislature appears to be taking this idea seriously.

The post House Bill 190 and the Teacher Shortage appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Parents who work outside the home and just found out their schools will be all virtual this fall know what it feels like to need another option for their own children. Parents who bought expensive homes in top-notch school districts who just found out their district is staying virtual for the fall are quickly getting up to speed on not getting the education they thought they had locked in. Parents who are scraping together funds with their neighbors to hire a teacher for in-person teaching are finding out the meaning of having to pay for school choice. Parents of children who can’t participate in their district’s in-person or hybrid plan are discovering the obstacles of enrolling their children in a virtual program of their choice. Parents of special needs children who haven’t received services for their disability in six months are desperate for school choice.

The term “school choice” has been around for decades. But parents who were able to move to the school district of their choice have tended to struggle with the concept. Letting children from other districts enroll in their district could water down the value of the house they bought. Letting children use public money to attend private schools hurts public education. Charter schools are fine for inner city children, but we don’t need them in our “good” suburban school districts.

School choice isn’t just for other children in the 2020–21 school year. It’s a palpable need for scores of Missouri children across the spectrum of community type and socio-economic status. Any parent who wants “A” for their child but lives in a  district only willing or able to offer “B” this fall needs school choice. It doesn’t matter how good your school is or how expensive your home is.

Parents in our lowest-performing districts have always known this. The “B” that their districts offer is a low-quality and sometimes even dangerous education experience. The “A” that they want and need is a safe space for their children to thrive. I would urge all parents to remember this shared experience. To remember the feeling of finally learning how your district’s hybrid plan was to work, only to have it thrown out the window for all-virtual. Remember the frustration of receiving long emails from your district about their plan, only to read “this is all subject to change” at the end. Remember finding a micro-school option for one of your children, but not the other. Remember hoping your boss will understand.

School choice is simple. It means making sure that no parent is stuck with only one option when that option is unacceptable.

The post This Is School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The study examined student’s academic growth on the state assessment in math and English for the 2014–15, 2015–16 and 2016–17 school years. CREDO compared traditional public school students in Kansas City to Kansas City charter school students, and then compared both of those groups to the state average.

In order to compare student growth, CREDO uses a “virtual twin” method, taking into account seven student characteristics such as previous academic achievement and income level. CREDO matches each charter student with several traditional public school students who are similar on the seven characteristics and averages the test scores of these students to create each charter student’s virtual twin. The traditional public school virtual twin for each charter school student differ in only one way— what type of school they attend.

Using this model, Credo found that Kansas City charter school students had more academic growth in both math and English than their traditional public school student twins in every year studied. And by the 2016–17 school year, charter school students had more growth than the state average in both subjects.

Although the results of the research are measured in standard deviations, the researchers converted these to days of learning. A typical school year has about 180 days. CREDO found that during the 2016–17 school year, Kansas City charter students received nearly 60 additional days of learning in math than Kansas City traditional public school students and about 30 more days than the state average. Charter school students also showed more growth in English, receiving about 90 extra days of learning compared to the traditional public school students and more than 30 extra days compared to the state average.

When CREDO researchers analyzed student subgroups, they found that Black, Hispanic, English language learner students, special education students and students in poverty all had more days of learning in charter schools than traditional public schools in both math and English. Notably, special education students in charter schools had more than 120 extra days of learning in English and over 90 extra days in math in one school year than special education students in traditional public schools.

While the evidence that charter schools are capable of producing great academic results continues to mount, Missouri remains steadfast in refusing to expand educational opportunity for students. Why doesn’t Missouri want to give kids all across the state the option to attend these high-performing schools?

The post Charter Schools Are Working in Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, students with disabilities here in Missouri don’t have the same options. Just a year after Mississippi’s program was passed, Missouri passed an ESA program called Bryce’s Law for students with disabilities. But the program was not properly designed, so not one student has benefitted from it. In Missouri, unless a family can afford a private education, students with disabilities must remain in their assigned schools.

The difference between Missouri and Mississippi in educational freedom for students with disabilities grew even starker this year. The Mississippi state legislature recently approved an additional two million dollars of scholarship funding for the next school year. This funding will support scholarships for students who have been on the program’s wait list.  

Students with disabilities face unique obstacles. Finding a school with the right programs, services and resources is vital. States like Mississippi are supporting their students with disabilities through ESAs. Meanwhile, Missouri has a scholarship program with no scholarship money. Bryce’s Law will sunset at the end of this year, giving the legislature an opportunity to pass a properly funded scholarship program next year. Isn’t it time for Missouri to support students with disabilities by allowing them greater opportunities to get the education they need?  

The post Mississippi Does What Missouri Won’t for Students with Disabilities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Imagine the feeling of having your eleven-year-old son receive “The Most Annoying Male Award” from his teacher—who he spends 6 or 7 hours a day with for most of the year—knowing that his social skills are compromised by autism. My heart hurts for that child and his parents. I can’t imagine they’re excited about sending him back to that school in the fall.

This didn’t happen in Missouri; it happened in Gary, Indiana. I guess there’s some silver lining in that because almost half of the public school students in Gary have chosen a charter school. Hopefully his parents can find a better fit—a school that celebrates his strengths instead of making fun of him.

But what if this happened in Missouri? The parents’ choices would be to move, pay private school tuition, or to send their son back to the school that humiliated him. The Missouri legislature has consistently denied parents in the state any option other than their assigned public school. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) tries to reassure themselves and everyone else by claiming 99 percent of districts in the state are “fine.” But fine as defined by DESE is not the same as fine as defined by every parent. Shouldn’t there be options available for parents who want, or more importantly need them?

The post Missouri Families Deserve Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Haven’t heard of it? Don’t worry, few have—and even fewer have benefitted from it.

Bryce’s Law was passed in 2013. It was intended to provide scholarships to students with special needs so they could get the educational services they need from specialized private institutions such as the Judevine Center for Autism. As Mike McShane, Susan Pendergrass, and I point out in our recent essay, “Bryce’s Law Revisited: Serving Missouri’s Neediest Students through Targeted Scholarships,” not a single student has benefited from Bryce’s Law.

Join Mike on November 13 in Kansas City or Susan in St. Louis on November 15 as they share how Bryce’s Law could be revised to do what it was meant to do—serve students with special needs.

If you have a child with special needs or know someone who does, or even if you just want to find out more, I highly recommend you attend one of these events. Unlike some political issues that generate millions of dollars in backing from organized interest groups, scholarships for students with special needs are not likely to receive that kind of substantial support. You won’t see any television adds. You won’t see yard signs. And if people are not educated on this issue, we won’t see any special needs students benefitting from Bryce’s Law.

The post How Can Missouri Support Students with Special Needs? Find Out. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

To read the essay, click on the link below. For a brief video on the topic, click here.

The post Bryce’s Law Revisited: Serving Missouri’s Neediest Students through Targeted Scholarships appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Parents of children with special needs face especially daunting challenges. Upon finding out that they will be raising a child with a disability, they must immediately learn as much as they can about their child’s condition. As the child approaches school age, the parents have to think about so much more than just a classroom and a teacher. It’s not surprising, therefore, that parents of students with disabilities have a particular need for more options regarding their child’s education.

Fortunately, four years ago the Missouri legislature recognized this need and passed Bryce’s Law, named for Rep. Dwight Scharnhorst’s grandson, who was born with severe autism. Bryce’s Law allows parents of children with autism, Down Syndrome, and several other disabilities to seek scholarships through certain scholarship-granting organizations to attend private schools.

Unfortunately, the legislative process resulted in a final bill that was materially different than the one Scharnhorst proposed. The final version of the law was structured in such a way that not a single child has received a scholarship. In fact, not even one of the contemplated scholarship-granting organizations has even materialized. Imagine the hundreds or thousands of children who have missed out on scholarships because elected officials in Jefferson City failed to draft an effective means for providing those scholarships.

The law will be up for renewal in 2019. Isn’t it time for the state of Missouri to put real funding behind Bryce’s Law and ensure it is a functioning program that can help Missouri students with special needs?

There were concerns in the past with “public” funding going to “private” (often religious) schools, but the recent Supreme Court decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, from right in our back yard in Columbia, would seem to permit such funding so long as it was generally available to religious and nonreligious schools alike and that religious schools were neither favored nor disfavored in the application process.

If directly funding Bryce’s Law is a bridge too far, allowing the contributions to scholarship-granting organizations to be tax credits instead of tax deductions (as Rep. Scharnhorst had originally intended) is also a possibility. In that case, it would be the contributions of private citizens rather than money from the public treasury that would fund the scholarships. The state of Missouri already offers a raft of pro-social tax credits for everything from child advocacy and crisis pregnancy centers to food pantries to youth development and crime prevention programs. Scholarships for students with special needs are an equally worthy cause.

Note that families don’t have to attend private schools. If they are being well served by their assigned public school, they can stay there. If, however, that public school is not meeting their child’s needs, they would have a chance to give another school a try.

There is a bitter irony to having a law on the books that could do so much for children with special needs, but cannot deliver the promised benefits because it fails to provide a viable funding mechanism. The time is ripe for the Missouri Legislature to fix its past mistakes and put Bryce’s Law to work for the families it was intended to help.

The post Let Bryce’s Law Live Up to Its Potential appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

However, one line of criticism has irked me. The headline of this story encapsulates it well: “Indiana’s School Choice Program Often Underserves Special Needs Students.”

It is true that a smaller percentage of voucher-using students in Indiana are identified as having special needs. It is also true that the maximum voucher amount in the state is $4,800.

That $4,800 number was reached because opponents of vouchers argued that the program should not be able to access local property tax dollars or federal dollars for low-income students or students with special needs. The voucher is derived only from the funding that the state allocates to educate children. What’s more, it also leaves behind 10% of state funding so that traditional public schools have money for fixed costs like debt service and capital upgrades, because opponents also argued that even if students leave, traditional public schools still have to keep the lights on, the building heated, and the parking lot paved.

So opponents constrain the funding amount to a level that can barely pay to educate a student with zero special needs in an already efficient school and then complain when schools don’t take on harder (and more expensive to educate) children.

It’s heads we win, tails you lose. If you actually get the money you need to meet the needs of students with special needs, you are sucking the system dry. If you don’t, and thus don’t serve those kids, you’re discriminating. School choice programs can’t win.

We should be realistic about the tradeoffs in the design of school choice programs. Limiting the amount of money that follows each child will shape who gets served and who doesn’t. If you want voucher programs to serve more students with special needs, send more money with them. If you don’t want to send that money, how is it fair to cry “discrimination” when students aren’t served?

The post School Choice Criticism: Heads We Win, Tails You Lose appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Special thanks to:

http://www.kippstl.org/

https://www.ceamteam.org/

http://www.mocharterschools.org/

The post Charter Schools: A Mother’s Plea for Her Son appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Policy Study: Missouri’s Funding Formula for K-12 Public Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Now Unnerstall, cofounder of Decoding Dyslexia Missouri, is helping other families by working with the Missouri Legislature. This summer, Governor Jay Nixon signed a bill mandating that public schools screen students for dyslexia by the 2018–2019 school year. The legislative task force responsible for implementing this new law met for the first time earlier this month.

The goal is to develop a more detailed plan for screening students and training teachers to help students with dyslexia. Rep. Kathy Swan, R-Cape Girardeau, is now heading the dyslexia task force. During the first meeting, she pointed to tests used by other states like Mississippi that have helped detect dyslexia and get children closer to the help they need.

But what is the plan for students after they are diagnosed with dyslexia? Will extra training for teachers and some classroom accommodations be enough for these students who often fall behind?

To best help these students, Rep. Swan and the task force should consider taking another cue from Mississippi.

The Mississippi Dyslexia Therapy Scholarship is the only program in the nation that is tailored to help children with dyslexia by offering families a voucher for their children to attend private schools that offer dyslexia therapy programs. Mississippi also established an education savings account (ESA) program for children with special needs.

Along with Mississippi, Arizona and Florida have taken the additional step of creating ESAs for students with dyslexia and other disabilities. Ten other states have made significant progress by establishing school choice programs designed specifically for special-needs students.

Mandatory screenings to help identify children with dyslexia are a good start, but only a first step. Vouchers, tax credit scholarships, and ESAs are working for students in other states by giving their parents more control over their education and providing the financial means for additional therapy and tutoring. What is Missouri waiting for?

The post ESAs Can Help Missouri Students with Dyslexia appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

How did Malachi get the care he needed to begin walking? It took good luck, determination and love from his new parents, and a state-funded education savings account (ESA).

The Kuhns took a leap of faith when they adopted Malachi and took over his medical care, but when they got him to Florida, they realized there was yet another challenge: finding a school that would meet his needs. That’s when the Kuhns applied for the Gardiner Scholarship.

The Gardiner Scholarship, originally called the Personal Learning Scholarship Account, was established in 2014 to help students with intellectual or physical disabilities attend private schools in Florida. Scholarship amounts vary according to grade, county, and public school spending for special-needs students, but the state puts funds into a flexible-use spending account that can be used to pay for private school tuition, tutoring, therapy, and other state-approved services. To date, 5,844 students have benefitted from the program.

Missouri doesn’t have an ESA program to help special needs students (or any students, for that matter). Three states—Arizona, Florida, and Mississippi—operate ESA programs that are available to over 7,000 students. Nevada created an ESA program last year, but it has been suspended due to pending litigation. Tennessee is preparing to launch its program next January.

Although eligibility rules vary across these states—in Nevada, eligibility is (or would be) nearly universal—ESA programs allow parents to customize their child’s education and to access services they could not otherwise afford. For Malachi and the Kuhns, the Gardiner Scholarship funded important services to help him succeed in school. For the 13.4 percent of Missouri’s K-12 students with disabilities, an ESA could greatly improve their quality of education.

Creating an ESA program here in Missouri would maximize the effectiveness of public funds by allowing parents to decide what services their children need most. Whether the funds are used for therapy or tutoring, or even just saved for college, parents are the ones best equipped to determine how they should be spent.

The post Malachi’s School Choice Story appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is great news. The bill has passed the House with a wide majority and now is primed for the Senate as a whole.

I am a firm believer that we will be judged by how we treated the least among us. I cannot think of students in more need than those in our foster care system and those with special needs. Creating programs that expand their educational options is the right thing to do, and I’m glad to see support for it in both the house and senate.

As I submitted in my written testimony on HB 2307 (before the bills were combined):

Students with special needs are the perfect candidates for education savings accounts. After all, when we talk about what traditional public schools must do to design an education program for a student with special needs, we call it an “individualized education plan.”

We recognize that each of these students, even though they might be diagnosed with the same learning issue, is unique and will need an education customized directly for them. There is no better way to create that customized education than through an education savings account program.

There is also a pernicious belief that school choice programs will “skim” the top performing students or the children who are easiest to educate. Creating a program specifically for students with special refutes that notion. There are educational providers all across the state who want to help students, even those with learning needs that present serious challenges, and such a program would help them to do so.

Here’s hoping the ball keeps rolling!

The post School Choice Is on a Roll! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, otherwise known as Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), have the ability to change this. They allow parents to direct the funds toward the services that they believe will meet the needs of their children.

ESA bills have been introduced in both the Missouri House and Senate, but have yet to receive a hearing. In previous posts, Brittany Wagner explained how ESAs work and how parents could spend the funds. In numerous other posts, I and others have highlighted how school choice programs could improve educational options for students. Here I want to demonstrate how this type of program is a financial boon for Missouri.

In the proposed Senate Bill, which would cover special-needs students only, a tax credit of 75 percent would be granted to individuals who donate to a scholarship organization. That means a donation of $100 would count as a $75 payment towards your taxes. In other words, the scholarship organization is getting $100 from the donation and the state is still collecting $25 in taxes. As I explained in further detail in my paper, “Available Seats?,” this tax credit feature increases the amount of available funds for education.

That is not the only way savings accrue. Special-needs students who are eligible for the program could receive an ESA worth the “State Adequacy Target.” For the 2016-2017 school year, this will be $6,808. This is roughly $2,500 less than the amount of local and state dollars spent per pupil in 2015, and I can assure you that this is less than most schools spend on special-needs students. 

Every special-needs student who uses an ESA in this program will essentially be giving Missouri taxpayers and public schools a cost-savings.

In total, more than 6,800 scholarships of the full amount could be awarded under the proposed bill.  If we assume that each of these students would have attended a public school (this is not a stretch, since it is stipulated in the bill), then the cost-savings could be in excess of $14 million.

 Special needs students may be difficult to educate, but it is not difficult to see that ESAs would be a boon for Missourians.  

The post Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Would Be a Boon to Missourians. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Five states have adopted ESA programs, and more than 7,000 students currently have access to ESAs in Arizona, Florida, and Mississippi. Similar to the programs in other states, Missouri’s program would allow parents to spend ESA funds on services like private school tuition, tutoring, online courses, textbooks, curriculum, and education therapies. The graphic above shows how parents wanting to customize a kindergarten year for a child with autism might choose to spend the ESA funds that would be available to them under the proposed program.

A parent might spend $150 on registration and application fees, $5,000 on a year’s worth of tuition, and $1,000 on therapies, namely behavioral interventions, or arts classes geared toward children with disabilities. In this case, that would leave $658 in the account. When the child graduated from high school, the $658 plus other accrued funds could be directed toward college or other post-secondary programs.

In our current public school system, parents must fight to access the educational services that fit their child’s needs. Organizations like Missouri Special Education Advocates and MPACT provide advocacy and parent training services that help children reach their full potential in the traditional public school system. An ESA program turns a system where parents must fight for a limited number of services into a child-centered system where services reflect a child’s unique abilities.

The post Empowerment Scholarship Accounts: How Parents Could Spend Funds appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Before Arizona adopted its ESA program, Salima’s parents were not in control of their daughter’s learning. They wanted a small but inclusive environment for Salima, who has Down syndrome.

“We didn’t feel as though the teacher in the classroom, as well as the administration, welcomed the idea of inclusion,” reflected Salima’s mom.

Arizona legislators recognized that parents know best, so the state adopted the first ESA program in 2011. Salima and 760 other Arizona children received customized educations in 2014. Now, nearly 2,500 Arizona children are enrolled in the state’s Empower Scholarship Account program.

The table below shows how many children are currently using ESAs in Arizona, Florida, and Mississippi. Nevada and Tennessee will launch their programs in January 2016 and 2017, respectively.

ESAs place a student’s funding into a flexible-use spending account, like a health savings account, that families can then use on qualifying educational purchases. Missouri’s ESA program would have a slight wrinkle, as the funding for the scholarships would actually come from private donations to scholarship-granting organizations for which donors would receive a tax credit, but the logic is the same. The graphic at the top of this post explains the process.

A taxpayer makes a donation to a nonprofit organization charged with managing ESAs. That organization then puts money equal to no more than the state adequacy target into a child’s account. For the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 school years, the state adequacy target has been set to $6,808. Parents can spend the account funds on resources like private school tuition and fees, tutoring, online courses, education therapies, and curricula. Upon graduation, leftover funds can be directed toward postsecondary tuition and fees. The state Department of Economic Development would offer up to $50 million in tax credits to taxpayers who make contributions.

Only qualified students would have access to the program. Qualified students include students:

• Who are identified as having a disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
• Who are identified by a district as having a disability
• Who receive services from a district under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
• Who are or have been wards of the juvenile court and have been placed with permanent guardians
• Who attended a public school for at least the first 100 days of the prior school year
• Who are eligible to begin kindergarten 

There are surely parents in Missouri who, like Salima’s, are frustrated with public schools that don’t meet their children’s needs. An ESA would give those parents a chance to customize their children’s educations. For more information about how ESAs work in other states, view the Friedman Foundation’s interactive map. 

The post Here’s How Missouri’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Would Work appeared first on Show-Me Institute.