The New York Times reported on a Supreme Court decision that could help disabled students obtain needed services and cost school districts millions of dollars, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that parents of special-education students may seek government reimbursement for private school tuition, even if they have never received special-education services in public school!
The case involved a struggling Oregon high school student, identified in only as T. A., had been evaluated for learning disabilities but he was found ineligible for special-education services.
According to the Hoover Institute, as of 2004, private schools served, at public expense, a total of 88,156 students with disabilities of the 5,963,129 students with disabilities nationally, which amounts to 1.48 percent.
This court decision is ground-breaking because previously only students who received special-education services in public school were eligible to receive private school tuition assistance for those services.
The court’s dissent opinion discussed the high costs of private-school placements. “Special education can be immensely expensive, amounting to tens of billions of dollars annually and as much as 20 percent of public schools’ general operating budgets,” Justice Souter wrote.
I understand the child’s parents wanting to place him in a private school for all of the special amenities private offer, but I don’t agree that special education services is any better in private schools than it is in public schools. In fact, in my school district it is exactly the same. The speech pathologists, the LD teachers, reading teachers, and other specialists use part of their day to provide service to students enrolled in our parochial schools in town. They are required by law to do this. How then, can the special education be better? I see it as just being more expensive! The issue of the quality of private vs. public school is one that I am sensitive about. I think private education is a wonderful option for many, but I don’t think public money should be diverted from public education to provide it. Along this same line, among the many rules of NCLB is one that states that if your school is on school improvement the district must pay for tutoring services at places such as Sylvan Learning Centers.
The sad part about this rule is twofold: the teachers at these tutoring centers are not required to be highly qualified in their subject areas as defined by the law; and any student in a school on an improvement plan can receive tutoring services paid for by the district, not just the ones who didn’t score at the proficient level. This means that a student can score at the proficient level (or above) and still go to private tutoring paid for with public funds. Most likely the kids that need it the most (those below proficiency) still won’t receive tutoring because their parents won’t invest the time to get them there. Much like we see with public school extended year programs; the students who really don’t need the extra help show up, but those that desperately need extra instructional time do not.
I am a very strong proponent of RTI so we can help students like T.A., before he and his family feel the need to label him as special ed and remove him from a great public education system.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don’t think that public funds should be used for private school either. I know that parents have a million different reasons for choosing private school, some of them are absolutely justified. But I can’t help but feeling a little offended when someone chooses that route. When I started teaching in Alaska, those who taught at some of the private schools didn’t even have to have an education degree. (Substitutes –in the public schools-didn’t need an education degree either.) I don’t believe that private schools are any better than public schools as far as education is concerned. They each come with their own set of problems.
ReplyDeleteAren't unfunded mandates wonderful? I just love when the government or courts decide what schools should do and then force them to do it no matter the cost or problems it causes. That would be bad enough but then what happens? Either the school eats the cost and must cut elsewhere, making all of the other parents angry (and rightly so) or the school gets more money, taxes go up, and all of the tax payers are angry. Talk about your rock and a hard place.
ReplyDeleteHere is what really bothers me, and I will tell you before hand this isn't going to be terribly politically correct. The law or emphasis or whatever you want to call it has swung so far to the drive to help the learning disabled and less able that we are hurting or penalizing the vast majority of the students. Because let's be honest - when rulings like this are made or laws put in place and schools must spend enormous amounts of money to help or benefit a very small number of children, where does that money come from? It doesn't simply appear, taxpayers don't just shovel it at schools voluntarily, and despite what the current federal government seems to think, schools can't simply spend money on everything in sight on the backs of future generations. Schools have budgets and they have school boards and superintendants who watch every dime. More than likely the money will come at the expense of something else - new text books will not be purchased, classes will be enlarged and a teacher fired, extracurriculars will be trimmed, or some other cut will be made. Again, the end effect is one or few kids are served in a grossly disproportional manner and the majority are cheated. For example, when I was subbing, I worked in a special ed room that took up a space the size of a small gym, had 4 teachers or paras, and served 4 or 5 kids during the entire day, and even these kids were only there part of the day. Meanwhile, teachers had little or no help and had classes with 24 to 30 kids. Is that fair? Is that good for our educational system over all? Is it fair to the majority of the kids who through no fault of their own get shorted so others can be served?
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not for shipping these kids off somewhere or cutting them off, but the system is skewed especially when we have court ruling such as the one described in this post where schools become responsible for kids that never have received services there. Again, this is fair? There has to be a better way to do this.
Using public fund for private school to me is not good. Some parents just think it is better than public schools because they are not paying from there pockets, but to me I do not think so. When it comes to disciple I will agree with you but not with qualified personnel. We are not being fair to the majority of our kids who we call “able” if the disable can get that type of treatment why can’t we make it open for all kids. The system is favoring some kids and that is not right. What is wrong with our public system? We need to channel our money into doing some thing very good. I believe every student can go and benefit from public school disable or not disable.
ReplyDelete