Analyzing autism vouchers in Ohio

[Guest guest]

Analyzing autism vouchers in Ohio

Executive Summary

Ohio¡¯s Autism Scholarship Program allows parents whose children are

considered to have an autism

spectrum disorder to use public funds of up to $20,000 per year to

purchase education or treatment at

private schools or other approved facilities.

During fiscal year 2007, which ended June 30, approximately 734

children aged 3 to 21 were enrolled in

the program for at least part of the year. To pay for the vouchers

that year, the state deducted

$10,872,770 from state foundation funds flowing to the 209 Ohio

school districts with residents enrolled

in the program. The average voucher amount was just under $15,000.

Families of all income levels are eligible and can choose from a list

of providers approved by Ohio¡¯s

education department. In October, that list included some 200

providers in 32 of Ohio¡¯s 88 counties.

Findings

For this project, we interviewed parents seeking the best education

and services for their children,

district officials who said the program drains needed resources, and

private providers offering services

ranging from all-day academic programs to speech therapy. We also

consulted advocates with expertise

in the education of children with autism. This study is timely

because the Ohio legislature is working to

create a voucher for all special needs children and Ohio¡¯s autism

voucher is being viewed as a model for

other states. Policy Matters Ohio found the following:

Selective admission: All but three of the 40 private schools or

school-like providers with claims for

payment in the first quarter of fiscal year 2008 have criteria that

restrict or discourage enrollment. Only

15 accept children with more severe disabilities, while 14 charge

fees above the voucher cap. Many

require religious instruction, discouraging enrollment of eligible

children. Only 100 of the 880 firstquarter

claims were for school settings that did not exclude on the basis of

one of these criteria.

Majority of agencies don¡¯t offer school setting: The 87 other

providers with first-quarter claims ¨C twothirds

of active providers ¨C offered services such as tutoring or therapy

that are not comparable to class

time mandated in Ohio¡¯s public schools. Nearly 40 percent of first-

quarter claims were made for these

private providers that did not offer a classroom setting.

Greater use by wealthier Ohioans: Families from relatively affluent

Ohio communities are using the

autism voucher more than families from poorer communities, according

to a district-by-district

comparison of median resident income and deductions from state aid to

pay for the vouchers.

Few providers in rural areas: Approved providers in the program are

concentrated in Ohio¡¯s urban areas,

excluding many Ohioans not within reasonable driving distance. Last

year, 37 counties had no voucher

participants, while districts in Ohio's three largest counties

accounted for nearly half of all voucher

spending, despite enrolling only a quarter of the state¡¯s public

students.

Oversight and accountability lacking: The state provides minimal

oversight of services. Parents are

largely responsible for holding providers accountable for services

which they, as private entities with no

obligation to serve or enroll all children who apply, are not legally

required to provide.

Read the full report and learn more about an economy that works for

all:

www.policymattersohio.org

Voucher students in restrictive settings: Fully 75 percent of first-

quarter claims were made for

providers created to primarily or exclusively serve disabled

students. As a result, the program

undercuts decades of advocacy for the inclusion of disabled children

in the mainstream of education.

Education guarantee: Parents surrender the right to a free

appropriate public education when using the

voucher. Lack of oversight and contentious relationships between

voucher providers and districts can

weaken the protection ostensibly provided by a child¡¯s Individualized

Education Program.

Financial impact unclear: Many factors influence the voucher¡¯s impact

on public schools, including

costs to educate autistic children and district property wealth. ODE

maintains that only state funds are

used for the voucher; district officials say the program drains local

money from their coffers.

Disconnect between costs, disability: Children with more severe needs

may be shut out of the program

by the lack of a consistent relationship between costs for services

and severity of disability. This

disconnect also allows some providers to charge significantly higher

tuition to voucher students than

they charge non-disabled students. At least two private schools

charge children the full $20,000 covered

by the voucher, almost five times the tuition the same schools charge

non-disabled students.

Parental satisfaction: Despite the above issues, parents interviewed

for this study using the voucher

tended to express more satisfaction with services than parents in

district schools.

As state policy, this program is problematic particularly because it

excludes children based on severity

of disability, on ability to pay costs above the voucher amount, and

because of their religion. It is also

failing, in many cases, to provide an environment that allows

disabled children to interact with nondisabled

peers. This type of exclusion clashes with the idea of a public

education system that seeks to

draw a diverse group of children to learn together and to begin to

create a common civic culture.

For these reasons, Policy Matters considers the autism program a poor

model for a broader special

education voucher under consideration by the Ohio General Assembly;

it is not a model that should be

emulated by other states. At the same time, we recognize that many

families depend on the voucher,

and we do not advocate ending the program in a way that would disrupt

their education.

Recommendations

Rather than supporting a system that exacerbates inequity, public

resources should be directed toward

strengthening services for all. To this end, Policy Matters

recommends that policy makers:

¡ö Create incentives to serve autistic children through collaboration

among schools, other public

agencies, regional service centers, higher education institutions and

private providers;

¡ö Create new opportunities for job-embedded professional development

for teachers and aides

who regularly work with children on the autism spectrum;

¡ö Establish incentives for institutions of higher education to

develop programs and curricula that

lead to certification in the teaching of children with autism;

We recommend these concrete reforms to improve education for children

with autism. Broader reforms

include: ensuring that Ohio¡¯s special education funding formula for

school-age children and unit

funding for preschoolers are up-to-date and fully funded; and passing

the bill currently before the Ohio

legislature to prohibit health insurers from excluding coverage for

autism spectrum disorders, as 19

other states have done with similar legislation.

Policy Matters Ohio is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute

dedicated to researching

an economy that will work better for all in Ohio. Learn more about

Policy Matters Ohio at

www.policymattersohio.org. Policy Matters Ohio

3631 Perkins