Oklahoma Capitol - (Commentary) I received an anonymous comment on a blog post recently implying the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Program lacks accountability. That’s news to me and to the parents and students using the program.
The writer complained the program “allows parents to take public dollars and remove their students to a private curriculum ... with no accountability.” They said this alleged lack of accountability has not been addressed in the debate surrounding this law.
The Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Act allows students with a disability on an individualized education program (IEP) to receive state-funded scholarships to attend private school. The scholarships are funded with money already designated for the child’s education.
The issue of accountability has been addressed innumerable times by me and other supporters of the program - including parents. The problem is not that supporters have failed to address the issue, but that opponents of the program don’t like the answer. What is the answer, and why don’t they like it?
In some respects, private schools are accountable just like public schools. Both public and private schools answer to boards. The anonymous writer, who posts under the pseudonym okeducationtruths, acknowledges that private schools, like public schools, must also be accredited by the State Department of Education.
State Department of Education rules require that the accreditation standards of private schools “must be comparable with the State Board of Education's standards for public schools in terms of the applicable quality indicators.” State requirements for private school accreditation, in part, are as follows:
“The program of the school shall be designed in the best interests of the students, and students are admitted only when it has been determined that there are reasonable expectations that the students' best interests can be served. The program, while appropriately adjusted to serve the best interest of its students and to be consistent with the school's philosophy and objectives, complies with applicable rules of the State Board of Education, especially in the following areas: (i) Length of the school day and school year; (ii) The basic skills subjects in the elementary curriculum including subjects which constitute a well-balanced elementary curriculum; instructional time requirements and essential elements which are comparable to those required in the like subjects at equivalent grade levels in the public school system; student academic records; and achievement levels required for promotion; and (iii) The appropriate subjects in the secondary curriculum, including sequencing of courses for which transferability of credit may be sought from the state; essential elements which are comparable to those required in the like subjects and courses at equivalent grade levels by the state; student academic records; and achievement levels necessary for the awarding of credits and diplomas.” Also, “Professional staff members must hold degrees and be qualified by preparation or experience for positions they hold and for the work to which they are assigned.”
Private schools are also accountable to parents in a way that public schools are not. If parents are unhappy with a private school, they can take their child and corresponding funds elsewhere.
Without the scholarship, parents who are dissatisfied with their child’s public education, and who don’t have the means to move to a different district or pay out-of-pocket for private school find their child stuck in a public school unwilling or unable to meet their educational needs.
Opponents complain private schools aren’t regulated exactly like public schools. The anonymous protest left on this blog says private schools “do not have to teach the state-legislated curriculum or take state-mandated tests.” To that charge I respond, yes, private schools are different from public schools.
The public school system is a government monopoly that can be unresponsive to the needs of some students. It is financially difficult, if not impossible, for most parents of children with special-needs who are dissatisfied with their child’s public education to leave their assigned public school. The Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship law provides a new option for special-needs students in such situations. As long as public schools are effectively a monopoly, they will need to be regulated.
Private schools are not a monopoly. Unhappy private school patrons can easily leave a poor performing private school. So, the need to regulate these schools is considerably less. Still, there are reasonable regulation and expectations placed on private schools that participate in the scholarship program. It is common sense to most people that when consumers have more choices there is less need for regulation.
When public schools fail students, they are given several years to attempt improvement. They also use this time to fill the Capitol with lobbyists to make excuses and delay intervention. Poor performing private schools simply lose paying students and go out of existence.
What really offends opponents of the program is the Henry Scholarship law empowers parents of special-needs students to hold schools accountable - a role the education establishment believes should be solely theirs.
Why don’t opponents of the program accept the answer?
Some opponents, including legislators, public school administrators and others, have been so bold as to publicly criticize parents who make use of the program as ignorant and not acting in the best interest of their children.
The website for Jenks Public Schools, one of two districts suing parents for participating in the program, states:
“[E]ducators are greatly concerned at the very real possibility that a student with special needs can be pulled out of a public school and placed in a private school that may not offer any Special Education services.”
It’s important to remember that parents are the decision makers in the scholarship program. If a student is “pulled out of a public school and placed in a private school” it is because the parents believe it is best for their child.
Julie Blake, the director of student programs at Jenks, is more direct in her opinion that parents should not be making important decision such as choosing where their child attends school.
"Parents, I'm afraid, are unaware what they are giving up. Our concern is that our students are out there without anyone watching over them."
It’s as if the children really belong to the public schools system and are simply lent to parents for the evening and summer break. Educators at Jenks evidently don’t think parents are the appropriate people to make such important decisions on behalf of the public school system’s children.
Union Public Schools’ Superintendent Cathy Burden echoes the concern about allowing parents to decide where their child attends school.
“[Parents] are giving up due process rights, continued IEP, auxiliary services, free and appropriate education, annual evaluations. ... There are a variety of things guaranteed to students and parents that would be lost."
They assume that parents aren’t familiar with these “guaranteed” services. These public school services are required by the federal special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA was necessary to protect special-needs students in public schools. The goal has been to ensure children with special-needs get the education they deserve because historically they had not.
Former State Rep. Neil Brannon, D-Arkoma, said during his debate against the program on the House floor, “[Parents] may think they know what’s best, but do they?”
Have we drifted so far as a society that parents aren’t considered capable of making important decisions for their children? Are parents incapable of holding a school accountable if they are economically empowered to choose the school their child attends?
I know parents who choose to use the program love their children more than the public school system does and parents are perfectly capable of making big decisions based on the best interests of their child.
A few parents have used the scholarship to transfer their child to a private school only to later transfer back to the public school. Is the decision by these parents to send their child back to public school also suspect?
There is a definite lack of accountability in special education programs in public schools - or at least a discernible lack of interest. Of the eight school boards that originally voted to ignore the law, including the two boards currently suing parents, I am aware of only two school board members who have wondered why parents and students would want to leave and attempted to look into the matter. This is very troubling. There is no apparent interest among these school boards to investigate the reasons some parents are dissatisfied. The Board for Tulsa Public Schools, at the request of the two board members I mentioned, said they would look into parents’ concerns. I’m not aware of any reports resulting from this promise.
Privates schools participating in the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program Act are held accountable through the accreditation process, oversight from their boards and ultimately the parents who choose the school for their child. There is accountability - opponents just don’t like the program.
Who better than parents to ultimately make these decisions and hold schools accountable?
This may be a futile attempt on my part- but I believe we will only solve differences via open dialog so I'm going to post. I oppose vouchers for several reasons, but your blog is about accountability, so I will stick with that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that parents in this state are capable of making big decisions and determining accountability. However, my Legislature does not agree with me. I'm a public school parent, which means: I am told that I can't possibly know how my school is doing without a letter grade (by the way, did you show your confidence in parents, or did you vote for A-F?). I am told that unless my child sits though weeks of standardized tests the taxpayers will never know their tax dollars are being used effectively. I am even told that my child's grades and transcript do not matter in receiving a diploma. We need high-stakes tests to tell me that if he's ready for college, career, or to be a good citizen.
But, if I move my child to a private school....I am suddenly wise, and must know what's best? We no longer need to account to the tax payers? State tests? No longer necessary, because now we acknowledge the parents ability to determine their child's progress and accountability to taxpayers.
I know you respect the responsibility you have with tax-payer funds. Surely you can see the importance of a consistent application of that accountability?
Lastly, even parents who don't use the program love their children more than the public school system does. I'm also 100% certain I love my children more than the Legislature does.
Thank you for taking time to write a substantial comment focused on accountability. I think it is always better to focus on one point or idea at a time. I grouped your points by issue so I could address each one and keep the discussion organized.
DeleteYour comment - I agree with you that parents in this state are capable of making big decisions and determining accountability. However, my Legislature does not agree with me.
DeleteMy reply - We certainly agree on the first sentence but I don't understand the second.
Your comment - I'm a public school parent, which means: I am told that I can't possibly know how my school is doing without a letter grade. [B]y the way, did you show your confidence in parents, or did you vote for A-F?
DeleteMy reply - I voted for and strongly supported the A-F grading legislation as an important tool for parents. I have confidence that parents will make good decision and I want them to have good information. I did not support the legislation because it was impossible for parents to get information about their schools. I supported the law because it is often difficult to get relevant and complete information about the performance of public schools in one location that is simple to understand.
I, too, am a parent of children who attend excellent public schools. I have found it difficult at times to find and interpret information about public school performance. I have talked to numerous school board members from around the state who tell me they have the same problem. I think parents can and should do more to hold schools accountable and tools like school choice and the A-F law will help.
Your comment - I am even told that my child's grades and transcript do not matter in receiving a diploma. We need high-stakes tests to tell me that if he's ready for college, career, or to be a good citizen. But, if I move my child to a private school....I am suddenly wise, and must know what's best?
DeleteMy reply - The scholarship does not bestow wisdom or knowledge. It’s not about the intellectual capacity of parents to make decisions for their children. We both agree parents are capable. It’s about their financial capacity to execute their decision if that means leaving a poor performing school. I believe all parents, if given usable information and choices, use that knowledge to make wise decision for their children.
The several mandates you mention are in place to hold public schools accountable because the public school system is effectively a government monopoly. The public school system is a monopoly in that it receives and controls the more than $4.3 billion from federal, state and local revenue sources. Public schools have not faced any competition for these public funds from any outside institutions providing the same service until the Henry Scholarship Program. The public school system controls the money limiting the ability of most parents to make the best choice for their children.
This has made it impossible for any private school or group of private schools to compete financially with the public system in a meaningful way. As long as the public school system is effectively a monopoly and the vast majority of parents in the state can’t afford school choice without financial help the public system will need a higher level of accountability. As I’ve mentioned countless times, public schools are different from private schools in their need for accountability. Opponents of school choice simply choose to ignore, discount or dismiss this self-evident fact.
Your comment - I am told that unless my child sits though weeks of standardized tests the taxpayers will never know their tax dollars are being used effectively. But, if I move my child to a private school .... We no longer need to account to the tax payers? ... No longer necessary, because now we acknowledge the parents ability to determine ... accountability to taxpayers.
DeleteMy reply - The Henry Scholarship Program is accountable to taxpayers. Scholarships are always paid after education services are provided to protect taxpayers. This allows the state to confirm attendance of scholarship students before issuing the scholarship. If I’m not mistaken there is a similar program in another state where scholarships are paid upfront putting public money at risk.
The law requires scholarships to be mailed to the private school and parents to restrictively endorse the scholarship to the private school. This is a common provision in similar laws in other states. This provision prevents parents from misusing the scholarship money by requiring the private school to hold the scholarship. Parents must go to the private school and restrictively endorse the scholarship. The provision also prevents the private school from being able to receive and deposit the scholarship without involvement by parents.
The State Superintendent also has the authority to revoke the participation of private schools in the program if they fail to comply with accountability provisions in the law.
Your comment - But, if I move my child to a private school .... We no longer need [s]tate tests? No longer necessary, because now we acknowledge the parents ability to determine their child's progress ....
DeleteMy reply - Yes.
Your comment - I know you respect the responsibility you have with tax-payer funds. Surely you can see the importance of a consistent application of that accountability?
DeleteMy reply - Thank you. I do take my fiduciary responsibilities as a legislator very seriously. The Henry Scholarship Program saves the public school system money. The Henry Scholarship is a cost effective way to help children with special-needs who, for what ever reason, are falling through the cracks.
Accountability with Henry Scholarships is consistent with state scholarships for higher education and dozens of other state programs. Robert Henry has requested permission from the Oklahoma Supreme Court to file a brief making this point in the HB3393 appeal. As you know, Robert Henry is the President of Oklahoma City University (OCU) and a retired U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge.
Robert Henry writes in his request - “[Oklahoma City University] meets the accreditation standards set both by the State Regents of Higher Education ... and the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, the University is eligible to participate in the Oklahoma Tuition Equalization Grant program ... . The purpose of the OTEG scholarship, as stated in the OTEG Act, ‘is to maximize the use of existing educational resources and facilities within this state, both public and private.’” and
“According to the Oklahoma Independent Colleges and Universities ... OTEG scholarships ‘frequently make the difference in whether these Oklahoma students can enroll’ in [private] colleges and universities.” and
“[I am] deeply interested in the outcome of this litigation because the structure of the OTEG program is nearly identical to that of the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Program for Students With Disabilities. Both programs provide state-funded scholarships to eligible students who attend private institutions, a substantial majority of which are religiously-affiliated institutions. The central purpose of both programs is to provide essential services to students by facilitating, in a world of scarce resources, the use of all appropriate state educational institutions, public or private, to provide students the services they require. Both programs rely on students and parents to choose the institution the student will attend and then apply to the state for scholarships to be applied to the tuition charges at the institutions they have chosen.”
I understand that some people will never support school choice. But the fact is, the Henry Scholarship Program is not a new, unique or unaccountable idea. It is a sound program based on other successful state aid programs that save the state money, provide more options to Oklahoma citizens and further public purposes - in this case the education of children with special-needs.
Your comment - Lastly, even parents who don't use the program love their children more than the public school system does. I'm also 100% certain I love my children more than the Legislature does.
DeleteMy reply - I agree completely!
A final note - You also know from our earlier visits that I support less and smarter regulations for public schools as school choice is expanded. I will continue my push for deregulation next session and hope you will continue to support that effort.
Delete"There is a definite lack of accountability in special education programs in public schools."
ReplyDeleteWow. That stung a bit. As someone who actually IS a special education teacher, I wish you would've considered a different choice of words. I understand you are trying to make a point, but I do not agree with that statement. If that statement WERE true, I would suspect there would have been more than just 150 students across the state actually using the program.
Personally I am all for choice. However ONLY TWO choices on the private school list are not affiliated with religion (and one of those ONLY accepts children on the autism spectrum disorder). So essentially the choices parents are given in this situation are to send their child to a public school or to a religious one which IS unconstitutional.
If public schools are in such poor shape, then I find it discerning that the legislature would instead divert state funds rather than attempt to help us do better. (It's feels like 'offshoring' to me.) There IS a public education system in place, and we can ONLY be as good as the laws we are governed by and support we get. Public schools HAVE to enroll and provide an educate to everyone that walks through our doors, whereas private schools are not bound by that responsibility. How do you say this creates competition to motivate us to do better when you tie our hands and feet up during a race?
As a final note, I WOULD like to mention that while we may not agree on this, I do appreciate where your heart is on the matter. At the end of the day, we BOTH just want what's best for the kids in this state. And that is the bottom line.