Rep. Zwiefel's Missouri Education Promise

I had a dream the other night that I had a special needs child. He was the light of my life, but even as a young child he was not “typical” and did things that other kids and parent thought were strange. I completely understood in my dream that it was about his special personality, and not about what other people expected him to be like. I also took to heart the idea that I was his advocate, and that was going to require all of my effort to help him get through life safely—but that it would be a joyful experience and completely worth it.

I don’t have kids yet, but when I do, I think that having a special needs child would be a great blessing. I think the idea that I could have that responsibility is exciting. I know that is would be challenging: a much more real and permanent responsibility than one evening’s dream. I’m sure it will be frustrating at times, and probably the most frustrating part would be when others didn’t understand.

Having that dream made me all the more aware of how important it is that Missouri pass HB 1886. This tuition tax credit would be the difference between finding the right place for a special needs child, where his or her proclivities and needs are understood, and being trapped somewhere where that child doesn’t have the help they need, a place where they are not understood. I read recently on Rep. Clint Zweifel’s (Florissant) website about his plan to give state-funded grants for preschoolers in poverty, and he seemed very proud of the opportunity to do that. He saw there was a need there, a need for extra financial support, and made a commitment in his place of authority to help. And, with the Missouri Education Promise Act he introduced, he makes a commitment to financially assist students in college.

HB 1886 seems like just the kind of legislation that aligns with his priorities. I hope that before this vote, he takes a look at the needs of the children this would help, and sees what their parents see: a child full of potential and deserving of full-fledged support.

The Glass Slipper Principle

I remember watching Cinderella with the kids I babysat for, and the enchantment of a glass slipper—one that would have to fit its bearer perfectly, since it couldn’t stretch to accommodate any other foot. Remember the ladies of the town trying to make their feet fit into that tiny shoe?



The glass slipper principle comes into play when we’re talking about something as precious as our children with Autism. Missouri needs to ensure that the programs available to them are the right ones for them. Children falling along a spectrum as diverse as Autism cannot be served by a broad, catch-all kind of education—it would leave too many behind.

That’s the impetus behind several new types of schools that AutismVox outlines in a great article:

One Size Does Not Fit All: Three Different Autism Schools
by Kristina Chew, PhD on May 25th, 2007
New schools for autistic children are opening in Arizona (in the Prescott area; see story) and in British Columbia (see story). The schools are quite different and suggest how, as we learn more about how best to educate autistic children and foster learning, new school models, different curricula, and teaching methodologies must be considered.
Parents of autistic children—Angela Levin in Arizona and Nicole Kaler and Dale Petersen in British Columbia—are the forces behind the two schools, both of which seek to serve different age groups: In Arizona, ASCEND, or Autism Spectrum Center for Educational and Neurological Development, will base its curriculum on ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) and will teach both children diagnosed with autism and also children diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome. In British Columbia, Harmony House will first house a preschool and then an elementary school for autistic children and non-autistic children; the preschool now has four spaces reserved for autistic children, out of fourteen total spaces, and the elementary school will have spaces for 10 autistic children (that is, it seems that the majority of the children in Harmony House will not be autistic).
As both schools are private, there is tuition, $23,000 per year for autistic children and $16,000 for per year for children with Asperger Syndrome at ASCEND, and $450 per month for three days of instruction per week at the Harmony House preschool. As a comparison, the new public autism center, the Developmental Learning Center, that is opening in New Jersey in June, costs $67,000 per year for a 42 week program for 37 hours a week. (And, I should also note, many private autism schools in New Jersey have even higher tuitions.) I am not sure if it is really possible to compare these tuition figures, as the three schools are very different, intend to serve different populations of children, and are of different sizes.
One thing that can be gained from the comparison is to note that there is more than one way to set up an autism school. I have a sense of the kind of training and supervision that aides, teachers, and other personnel receive here in New Jersey, and also of the work needed to make materials and keep records of students’ learning: It is no small effort. Even within New Jersey, there are many different autism schools based on different teaching methodologies, with different teacher to student ratios, and a parent has to make a lot of school visits, do their research, and carefully discern just where a child is, in order to choose the right kind of school. And when a parent has found such a school, a parent most definitely will work—like the Winkelmans against the Parma School District—-to get their child into the school placement that seems the best suited to foster a child’s learning.
One more question remains to be asked: Is your preference regarding autism education for a public program or for a private school (that a public school district pays for)? And what about home-schooling?

This principle is at the core of MO SB 993 and HB 1886, like a decree from a prince asking the one who fits this amazing shoe to come out of the shadows. The price tags on these services are hefty, but their value to our children is priceless.

Not asking for a hand-out

I am a divorced Mother living in a rural Missouri that has very limited ability to help teach my special needs child. Though services may be recommended to me, and even recommended for my son's IEP, they are not available out here in rural MO. I fight tooth-and-nail to get support in the classroom or an aid or sign-language instruction. But the fact of the matter is I will never win some of those battles and get necessary support services written into my boy's IEP because the services required by my son are simply not available through the public school and to get them in place would be extremely costly to the didstrict. I get it.

I support the tuition tax credit bills being reviewed by our MO senate and house right now. I call upon other Missourians to do the same. I couldn't take off work to go to the capitol on 2-13. I fight sleep in order just to write these few words. I made calls to my representatives and I am writing to my local papers. I am not asking for a hand-out. I am asking for unnecessary obstacles be removed. My son's future is at stake.

The bills being discussed right now in the Senate (SB 770 and SB993) and House (HB 1886) would not remove public dollars from the tax base nor would they harm public schools. They are insightful legislation written by people affected by special needs like myself. They would NOT destroy the public school nor are they any different from other tax credit bills. They simply allow non-for-profit agencies to exist to collect private donations and distribute the money on a first-come, first-serve basis to people like me. Though they are not perfect, they are certainly a step in the right direction in state that is known to be one of the worst in this country at serving special needs education. The success of my son will NOT be a threat to other Missourians.

Catch-Up

In my regular surfing and researching, I found this statement in an article "Few Tenn. teachers have autism training" :

"School districts are trying desperately to get people trained," said Linda Copas, director of behavioral and autism services for the state Department of Education. "We haven't had a curriculum addressing this disability in universities and colleges. There's been no legislation how to deal with this certain disability. This disability is so common, but school systems don't have guidance on this. It's taking a long time to catch up."
This is what's going on in our state and all across the country. It's scary to think what will happen if we don't take a direct preventative approach. We need legislation and we need educators who can help these children learn. We are learning soooo much about children with autism. It's possible that Mozart and Einstein had autism~think of the possibilities of liberating the potential of some of these brilliant little minds. Think of the tragedy if we don't too. And all the while time passes and more and more children enter society with this particular disability.

At the top of the wish list for helping families dealing with autism should be parents' rights to choose their child's education. That means we have to make some allowances~in the public education system and in our public policies~see the 2 posts just before this one for more on that. Truly, the societal benefits would be great!

Opponents' Reasoning is Invalid for Special Needs Scholarship Program

There is no surprise several teachers unions and school boards are against the bills that would allow for scholarships for special needs children. To me, it is a no-brainer! Special needs children require a variety of special services and there is no way every district can provide those services in the public schools. Therefore, those children will be left without getting the education, services, and attention they need. The Scholarship Tax Credit Program would provide scholarships to special needs children to use at other public schools or accepting private schools. The money will all be collected privately, and donors will have added incentives to give from tax credits for up to 80% of their donation. Public funds will not be given to these students so the old argument of using public money for religious schools is invalid.
The Special School District (SSD) in St. Louis was present at the hearings in Jefferson City last week testifying against the bills. While they were discussing the several points they had about how they could educate these students, one senator strongly pointed out the special school district does not cover all of Missouri. Even if they could provide for every special needs child in St. Louis (which they cannot), it still would not help the other children around the state. I felt as though they were only concerned with their district and were not even trying to look outside the box. I am not trying to say I feel they are entirely bad, I just think they need to be open to the idea, an idea that has the potential to help many more students.
The SSD has a few other arguments I would like to confront. According to their http://www.ssd.k12.mo.us/sb993.html website:
“Private schools accepting scholarship money would not be required to guarantee that the quality of educational and related services to be provided to students would exceed the quality provided by the public schools and would not be subject to the strict accreditation standards of Missouri's public schools."
As I read the rest of the complaints, this one was repeated many times in various ways. First off, the program only allows for choice. The parents are in no way forced to use these options, or even consider them. If they are happy with their current school, then they would have no reason to leave. Secondly, if there are such strong standards for special education programs, why did we hear parents from all around the state crying, begging, and pleading for choice? Why were they so unhappy with the education their children were getting? Obviously, not every public school is doing that great of a job. Additionally, if a parent chose to use this program and decided it was not any better, or was worse, they can easily put their child back where they were.

“The Missouri Constitution prohibits using public money to support or maintain religious organizations or private schools.”
As I already mentioned, it will not be using public funds. Private donors will be the funders for this program.
“The fact that there is no deadline for notifying a public school that the student is leaving or that the student is transferring into another public school is troubling. It creates a significant hardship on the public schools, as it will be difficult to plan programs, hire staff, and maintain class sizes, without sufficient advance notice.
Shouldn't this be about the children getting an education not about what may or may not happen? I thought our main goal here was to educate the children not make every one's job easier.
The arguments against the bills are just not string enough to convince me the program is a bad idea. In fact, I think most of their arguments do not even make sense or apply to this situation. I hope these bills pass and we can give more hope to those parents who are fighting for their child!

Nourishment

Many people pass off autistic children as odd, having little or no potential of living any sort of ordinary, let alone extraordinary, life. When it comes to education, these people seem to think that only the most primordial needs should be met. Those that are educators make sure the children are “happy,” and “pass” from grade to grade with their peers, simply so that they might not feel different or, more often than not, so they can get them “out of their hair.”
I have worked as a teacher’s assistant at two different schools with autistic children.
I have worked with autistic children at a school where the educators, like those described above, did not care much for their jobs or their students, and have seen the first-hand result of a creative and wonderful child being deprived of the education she needed, her unmotivated teachers giving just enough of themselves for her to be pacified, “to pass.”
I have also worked at a school for children with autism, but also with potential; potential that was nourished by their engaged teachers. These educators genuinely cared for the students and their place in the world. The reciprocal relationship between teacher and child was visible throughout the school. Like rain and sun feeding seeds in a garden, these children blossomed and grew until what was once just potential, a seed, became realized in the numerous successes throughout the school. And though a seed, when nourished, may grow into a beautiful flower, it will never compare to the brilliance and splendor of any of these children.
"A skilled and imaginative teacher prepared to enjoy and be challenged by the child seems repeatedly to have been a deciding factor in the success and educational placement of high-functioning, autistic children.” Newson, E., Dawson, M., & Everard, P. (1982). The natural history of able autistic people: Their management and functioning in a social context. Nottingham, England: University of Nottingham Child Development Unit.

Tax Plan Could Aid Private Schools
By Virginia Young and David Hunn, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Feb. 14--JEFFERSON CITY -- Using tax credits for private schools -- a political lightning rod in Missouri for years -- gained a new group of supporters Wednesday: parents of autistic children.
The families are pushing bills that would provide scholarships for children with disabilities. The money would help cover tuition at private schools or public schools away from a family's home.

At a packed Senate hearing, several mothers recounted their efforts to find services for children diagnosed with autism or an associated disorder. Shari Kaminsky of Kirkwood said her 12-year-old severely autistic son is learning to read, thanks to a private school that costs the family dearly -- $32,000 a year.


There is a saying that the true test of a free society is not how it treats its richest citizens but how it treats its poorest. Now, many of the families who testified are not in poverty, but they have been severely economically burdened by the sheer cost associated with having a special needs child, anything from healthcare bills for a correct diagnosis (that is a requisite for an IEP or public schools) to the cost of getting an education. These families cannot walk into their neighborhood school and enroll their child as most parents do—the process is much more complicated for a student with disabilities of any kind, and it seems unreasonable to assume that every school district has the means to educate every kind of special needs student.

Many argue that the Cooperating school districts of St. Louis as meant to do just that: provide a broad range of services for special needs students. This is a great option for many parents, but not all. Having a son with severe autism caused Shari Kaminsky to seek out a private school that is truly able to work with him, and she pays for that level of expertise. For parents of children with autism, this expertise is the difference between a child stagnating or even regressing, and that child learning despite difficulties. What parent could deny a child that chance? What society could deny parents the right to make that choice?

That’s to say nothing of students outside of the special school district’s reach. This bill simply reaches out to those parents and says “Missouri supports you and your child”. By not passing this bill, as the special school district wants, we are, in effect, saying “Missouri cares more about status quo in our education system than actually serving your needs.”

Public school were made to serve all students, but it is a logical fallacy to assume that because they intend to, that they do serve all students. And they do a good job in many instances, but when we, as a state, offer only that option to parents whose children require a level of specialized treatment or care it says: since your child, because of his or her special needs, does not fit into our educational paradigm, it’s not our problem. The burden is on you, the parent, if your child needs something we can’t offer.

A tuition tax credit, detailed in this bill, gives that alternative to parents. Missouri should realize that this reflects on our values: it shows that we believe in educating all children. It’s time to admit that public education is not a perfect answer for every precious, important and deserving child that lives in this state, and that denying any of them the right to get the best education is denying them the right to succeed.