Stop Special Education Voucher

OFT oppose SB 57. OFT believe strongly in our public education system in Ohio and we do not support the use of vouchers as an alternative for special education students or for any education program.

OFT understand that supporters of SB 57 and vouchers in general, want to offer more options for parents and students with the hope that all students’ needs will be met. In this case, however, we believe that the current system meets the individual needs of students. Furthermore, we believe that SB 57 could result in undermining services for some children. It is our position that the best way to serve special education students is to maintain and strengthen the current public system of education as it relates to special needs.

It is important that we all understand the way special education students are currently served. Parents and students already have options under current law, and ways to obtain relief when they believe the system is not meeting their needs.

All school districts are required to meet the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) provisions in serving special education students. Each school district must find ways to serve every qualified student; either by providing the service themselves or by contracting with another provider.

Sample Letter for Campaign

Subject: Make the public choice, say no to SB 57.

Dear [ Decision Maker ] ,

I oppose SB 57, bill to create a special education voucher. I believe strongly in our public education system in Ohio and do not support the use of vouchers as an alternative for special education students or for any education program.

I understand that supporters of SB 57 and vouchers in general, want to offer more options for parents and students with the hope that all students? needs will be met. In this case, however, the current system meets the individual needs of students. Furthermore, SB 57 could result in undermining services for some children. It is our position that the best way to serve special education students is to maintain and strengthen the current public system of education as it relates to special needs.

In addition, ODE has launched a facilitated IEP meeting program, which was implemented statewide in the 2007-2008 school year. Since the program's implementation in August 2007, 95% of the facilitated IEP meetings have been successful, with both parents and the school districts accepting the IEPs. Over 30 states have similar programs, which seek to resolve potential disputes at the earliest possible opportunity. Additional information on these programs from the Ohio School Psychologists Association is attached.

In addition to these highly effective processes to alleviate parental concerns, Ohio already has a variety of parental choices for meeting the needs of their special education student within the current system.

1.Programs and choices through educational service centers 2.Career-technical schools 3.Intra- and inter-district open enrollment opportunities 4.Community schools, and 5.Home Instruction

If SB 57 passes, there will be negative consequences. I have concerns about accountability for the dollars spent with private providers through vouchers. It will be difficult to maintain proper monitoring of the expenditures as well as the qualifications of the providers.

Under the current system when school districts contract with another provider, be it another school district or a private entity, the school district has the ability to negotiate the terms of the contract and a price for services. The voucher amounts as set in SB 57 may or may not be the same as the actual costs for services provided by an outside source. The current negotiation process for fees, etc., allows for a free market approach to securing the services. SB 57 undermines that approach in addition to eliminating the opportunity for contract oversight.

I urge you to vote no on SB 57 and support public choice.

Sincerely,

Campaign Launched:
April 15, 2008

Background Information

If SB 57 passes, there will be negative consequences. We have concerns about accountability for the dollars spent with private providers through vouchers. It will be difficult to maintain proper monitoring of the expenditures as well as the qualifications of the providers.
Parents should be wary as well. If they choose to accept a voucher under the provisions in SB 57, they relinquish their rights under IDEIA for due process hearings. School districts, in compliance with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and IDEIA, must provide services in the least restrictive environment and provide access to the same general education curriculum taught by highly qualified teachers. Private providers are not subject to these requirements.
OFT oppose the deduction of the voucher amount from state payments made to traditional public schools. While there are some exceptions, generally, the way the school funding formula and the special education voucher system would work, causes school districts to lose local revenue.
This discussion is different than voucher and charter school deductions for other students. Unlike funding for basic aid where the local share stays the same regardless of the number of students in the district, the local share for special education students is calculated on a student-by-student basis. Depending on the wealth of the district, traditional public schools are required to provide a local share of funding for each special education student. That means that the full weighted amount is not provided by the State. The $20,000 voucher cap in SB 57 notwithstanding, when the voucher amount is deducted from school district state aid, the local share is included in the voucher amount. This is unacceptable.