Rep. Scharnhorst discusses Bryce's Law

Missouri Education: In need of reform

The need for autism education reform in Missouri

Experiencing limitations should offer clues

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports on community leaders participating in simulated poverty and the frustrations even when days are only 15 minutes long. The Missouri Ozarks Community Action Agency prepares this exercise to give decision-makers and shapers the insight into what their communities offer for the least fortunate, and what it feels like to be part of the percentage that aren’t benefiting.

One participant looked for daycare vouchers for her child so she could go to school.

Understanding the roadblocks that families run into when they are trying to make ends meet is important as we try to make policies that help. Right now, Missouri is looking at passing Bryce’s Law: tuition tax credit scholarships for families of special needs children that would allow children to transfer to a school that will meet their specific needs—even if their parents can’t afford it. It’s no different from a day care voucher except that taxpayers wouldn’t pay for it: private donations would.

Many have criticized Bryce’s Law as parents seeking some sort of entitlement, which has raised my hackles. Giving parents the option to choose where their special needs child will be best served is their right, but currently that right is being filtered through a local IEP team. I believe that parents are qualified to have the final say about their child’s education. We place the responsibility of feeding them before school, getting them to and from school, and paying for all of the help they cannot find in public schools. The least we can do is give them access to a scholarship to offset costs and give them the flexibility to seek out an education that will really improve their child’s skills.

Some say that tax credits decrease general revenue, and with that funds for public education. The fact is that the program would be revenue neutral, akin to moving a savings account into another bank. It’s still being invested, but it’s been moved because the investor believes they’ll see a better return on their investment in the new bank. And it is that individual’s prerogative to choose the best account. You’ll notice we have many different types of investment options that offer choices to all kinds of needs, and that even the choice to switch banks comes after lots of research and comparison—how much more important is seeing a non-verbal child learn to speak, read, go to college and start their own savings account?

Furthermore, most of Missouri’s tax credits are not revenue-neutral, and no one is calling for their repeal because as much as we need funds for education, we also understand that redevelopment in struggling communities is right, and giving young mothers daycare so they can work or go to school is right, and helping small farmers stay in business is right. So, is providing assistance for families with disabled children right? Unequivocally YES.

A good man--and thorough! Clint Zweifel's hat in ring for Treasurer

So far, Rep. Clint Zweifel’s bid for Treasurer sounds like something I can get behind. He’s talking about studying the effects of policy, rather than just keeping the budget in check. I think that kind of initiative is much needed in the treasury—an oft-overlooked but very key office. It seems to me that Missouri has been in need of that kind of leadership as we consider the policies and programs that Missouri pays for and benefits from. If we have expenditures that aren’t seeing results, and our treasurer can mete these areas out, I see three main benefits: 1) We have more money in the budget for priorities that have been cut, like healthcare. 2) We can begin to work on ways to improve programs that aren’t financially viable to make them work for taxpayers and for beneficiaries. 3) Legislators will have an impetus to create laws that follow a close ratio of fiscal responsibility and maximum benefit.

One program that Rep. Zweifel will vote on in the legislature this year is Bryce’s Law, the scholarship tax credit program for special needs students to transfer to a private institution if their current public school isn’t meeting their needs.

Aside from the obvious social benefits, this makes budget sense as well. The program would set up an 80% tax credit for businesses or individuals who donate into a scholarship fund, and that money would go to IEP students (capped at 10% of all IEPs in Missouri) who aren’t benefiting from their local public school. While critics might argue that a tax credit decreases the amount of revenue collected (as a reason not to pass this bill), there are other ways in which the state saves.

First of all, taxpayers are no longer paying for a child who isn’t achieving, and the school district is relieved of the responsibility of trying to accommodate a child who is developmentally outside their capabilities. Moreover, most scholarships of this nature are far less than what the state pays per pupil, especially for students with an IEP—so what the state doesn’t collect in revenue from the tax credit is substantially less than what it saves, and states like Florida, Arizona and Ohio have seen substantial savings. Those savings can go back into public education.

The cost of caring for severe developmental disabilities and autism over a lifetime can run into the millions. With early intervention, however, many students are able to get back into mainstream education or learn to hold jobs and support themselves—and there is literally no price for that.