I have introduced legislation in the Ohio House that will improve school choice for Ohio’s disabled students. House Bill 431 , if enacted, would expand the Autism Scholarship Program (ASP), which currently benefits 450 children in Ohio by providing scholarships worth up to $20,000 for educational services, either public or private, to include all disabled children.
In the Buckeye State, special education funding is based upon a weighted formula that takes into account the cost of providing special education services to students in six categories of disability based on the severity of the disability. The new choice program outlined in House Bill 431 would provide the base cost formula amount in addition to the weighted amount that a student may apply toward educational services in an alternative venue.
This new approach draws upon Florida’s successful McKay Scholarship Program, which began in 1999. Utah has copied the Sunshine State’s model, and Ohio would be the third to offer a comprehensive school choice program for children with disabilities if the bill passes.
Specifically, the Special Education Scholarship Program would provide scholarships for handicapped children to attend special education programs other than those offered by their school districts. The amount of the scholarship will be limited to the lesser of (1) the total fees charged by the alternative provider of special education services to the child or (2) the sum of (a) the base-cost formula amount ($5,283 for FY 2006) times the cost-of-doing-business factor of the school district in which the child is entitled to attend school and (b) the base-cost formula amount times the applicable special education weight for the child’s disability. In other words, the scholarship will be equal to the lesser of what the alternative provider charges or what otherwise would be calculated for state and local funding for providing special education services to the child.
This approach to providing educational services for our special education children acknowledges that one size doesn’t fit all and that there are effective alternative programs beyond the traditional classroom. Private providers are, in many cases, able to tailor programs to fit the individual needs of students. In addition, their class sizes are frequently smaller, which means more individual attention for each child.
This alternative approach also recognizes that disabled students face important and significant non-academic challenges. Behavior problems are one such challenge. Parents participating in the McKay Scholarship Program report significantly fewer behavior problems. Another challenge is non-special-needs students bullying special ed students. Results from Florida program suggest that private schools are able to develop more effective and flexible discipline policies than public schools, and they are better prepared to protect these vulnerable children.
The legislature should be prepared to investigate the possibility there may be alternative models of educating our students which are as effective, or more effective, than those currently in place. Academic and non-academic considerations are important. While the provisions advanced in House Bill 431 are controversial, that fact should not detract from the importance of the debate in regard to school choice for some of our most vulnerable students.