Let’s debunk some falsehoods about school choice and special ed
As kids begin a new school year, it’s deeply unfortunate that some of the most disadvantaged students in Texas still lack access to a quality education. When the special session for the Texas Legislature abruptly ended, the move killed two bills that would have created a tax-credit scholarship program for students with special needs. This common-sense reform received bipartisan support and the backing of Gov. Greg Abbott.
Unfortunately, students and their families were no match for misinformation campaign waged by opponents of school choice and House leadership, which actively thwarted those bills.
To fight back, the Institute for Justice released a new report that rebuts the top myths about educational choice programs. When lawmakers were considering the bills, one of the most repeated myths was that granting parents the freedom to choose diverts money away from public schools.
But educational choice programs do not subsidize private schools. Instead, the funding follows the students themselves, just as public-school funding follows children who move to a different school district or enroll in a charter school. Schools don’t — and shouldn’t — receive funding for students not actually enrolled there.
Moreover, the fear that choice in education drains public finances simply isn’t borne out by volumes of academic research. Last year, Ed Choice surveyed 28 empirical studies that analyzed the fiscal impact school choice programs had on public schools. Of those studies, 25 found that school choice programs save money, three reported the programs were revenue neutral and not one found a negative fiscal impact.
In addition, opponents have claimed that educational choice would deprive children with special needs of a quality education. Tell that to my daughter Lexie, who inspired a landmark school-choice program in Arizona.
Ever since Lexie was an infant, she received professional therapies to treat her cerebral palsy, autism and mental retardation. At first, Lexie attended a traditional public school for two years, though she made very little improvement.
So, I found a private school with a unique play-based curriculum and was thrilled when they accepted Lexie. She started attending the school in August 2006, though I didn’t know how I would ever pay the tuition.
But in 2009, Arizona lawmakers enacted the nation’s very first tax-credit scholarship for students with special needs. They even called it “Lexie’s Law” after my daughter. The program was a godsend. Every dollar helped — and the scholarship allowed me to afford Lexie’s new school.
After Lexie’s Law was enacted, I joined with other parents and opened a new school named Beyond Autism. Our school provides not only an academic education but also valuable life skills. Lexie has undergone a radical transformation. Now the equivalent of a high school junior, she is thriving at Beyond Autism. Today, over 800 students with special needs participate in the program and receive nearly $4,450 in annual scholarships on average.
Following Arizona, eight more states enacted educational-choice scholarships to help students with special needs thrive. Lexie’s Law also inspired the two bills in Texas — House Bill 253 and Senate Bill 2 — that were debated in the special session. Under the proposal, parents could apply for scholarships to help pay for private school tuition, tutoring, textbooks and other school supplies. Funding for the program would depend on donations by businesses, which would be compensated by a tax credit.
Children with special needs deserve to have every possible option to succeed. But opposing educational choice hurts Texas children and only rewards politically connected insiders who lobby to preserve their lucrative monopoly on public school funding. In the next session, lawmakers must stand with students and their parents.
Re: Sept. 14 commentary, “Before Austin offers tax incentives, let’s see if they work.”
Kudos to Bill Aleshire for his column regarding local tax incentives to big companies.
He asks: “How have tax incentives and the resulting growth benefited common
The first question to ask any politician regarding climate change is: “Sir. Define aeolian processes.” The answer you will most likely get is: “Say, what?”
Aeolian processes were hard at work in the midsection of the U.S. during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s when, after the farmers raped the land by not using any soil conservation techniques, the land raped the farmers. Sounds like a perfect example of man-made “climate change.”