Special Need Students in the Struggle for the Character of Schooling in America

Abstract

One of the most contentious issues over American educational reform is government sponsorship of school vouchers and tax credits in elementary and secondary education. Voucher advocates have long believed that public schools have little interest in education reform which diminishes its monopolistic position in the public education enterprise which effectuates a system of escalating cost, inefficiencies, and unacceptable student performance. Also, they claim that in a nation historically devoted to free enterprise and equal education opportunity, the expansion of school choice opportunity is a natural progression. Conversely, voucher opponents posit that such programs are not only unconstitutional, but would also redirect valuable resources away from schools serving students with the greatest need. They view voucher policy as highly divisive in that it fosters government entanglement with churches and serves as a catalyst for the re-segregation of public schools, further amplifying educational inequality. High-profile public battles over school vouchers in the United States have mainly focused on poor and minority children served by public schools in large urban areas. On the other hand, school choice for special need students, though expanding significantly, has not received as much attention. This article reviews the legal history of private contracting for special education services, describes the current choice programs for students with disabilities, recounts the legal challenges, discusses policy implications, and considers its formulation in the context of the largest levels of inequality in American History.

Keywords

school choice special needs students inequality IDEA accountability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arizona Rev. Stat. Title 15, ch. 8 § 1.

Ariz. Stat. Art. II, § 12.

Board of Education of Hyde Park Central School District v. Frank G. ex rel. Anthony G., 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006).

Burlington Sch. Comm. v. Dept. of Educ., et. al. 471 U.S. 359.

Carson Smith Special Needs Scholarship. Utah Code Sections 53A.1a.701-53A.1a.710.

Children and Youth with Disabilities. (n.d.). National Center for Education Statistics Retrieved March27, 2015. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp

C.M. v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade County, 437 F.3d 1085, 1098 (11th Cir. 2006).

Code of Federal Regulations United States (34 C.F.R.§ 300.452).

Complaint, Okla. Co. Dist. Ct., CV 2013–2072 (Oct. 1, 2013).

10.

Fla. stat 1002.39.

11.

Fla., stat. 1003.21.

12.

Fla. Stat. §1002.39 (9)(a)(1).

13.

Fla. Stat. §1002.39 (10)(b).

14.

Fla. stat 1002.39 § 10A 1–2.

15.

Florida Department of Education, “John M. McKay Scholarship Program: June Quarterly Report 2013.” http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/Information/McKay/quarterly_reports/mckay_report_june2013.pdf

16.

Florence County School District Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, (1993).

17.

Forest Grove School District v. T. A., 129 S.Ct. 2484 (2009).

18.

Frank G. ex rel. Anthony G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 376 (2d Cir. 2006).

19.

Friedman

(1955). The Role of Government in Education. Rutgers in Robert A. Solo, Economics and the Public Interest (New jersey: Rutgers University Press): 123–144.

20.

Georgia Code, 20-2-2110 through 20-2-2118.

21.

Georgia Code, 20-2-2110 through 20-2-2118.

22.

Georgia Special Needs Scholarship Program O.C.G.A. §§ 20-2-2110 (6) (D).

23.

Greenland School District v. Amy N., 358 F.3d 150, 159–60 (1st Cir. 2004).

24.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5) (2005).

25.

Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 5 of Tulsa Co. v. Spry, 2012 OK 98, 292 P.3d 19 (2012).

26.

McGrory

, (December 30, 2014). judge Dismisses Voucher Lawsuit Again. Tampa Bay Times, December 30, 2014, accessed January 28 2015, http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/judge-dismisses-voucher-lawsuit—again/2211872

27.

McGrory

, (January 8, 2015). FEA Won't Appeal Decision on Voucher Lawsuit. Tampa Bay Times, January 8, 2015, accessed January 10 2014, http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/fea-wont-appeal-decision-on-voucher-lawsuit/2212938

28.

Miss. Code Ann. §§ 37-175-1 to 37-175-29.

29.

National Center for Education Statistics, Condition of Education “Children and Youth With Disabilities” http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp N.C. Rev. Stat. §§ 112.2–5.

30.

Niehaus v. Huppenthal, 310 P. 3d, 983 (Ariz: Court of Appeals. 2013).

31.

Ohio Revised Code, Section 3310.41.

32.

Ohio Rev. Stat. § 206.09.04.

33.

Ohio Revised Code, Section 3310.41.

34.

Okla. Stat. §§ 70-13-101.1-01.2.

35.

Piketty

, & Saez

(2013). Top incomes and the great recession, IMF Economic Review, 61, 1: 456–478

36.

Piketty

, & Saez

(2014). Inequality in the long run, Science of Inequality, 344, 6186: 838844.

37.

Pub. L. 101476.

38.

S.B. 850 116^th Sess (Fla. 2014).

39.

S.C. State Budget Proviso 1.85; N.C. Rev. Stat. §§ 112.2–5.

40.

Steverson

(January 30, 2013). Backed by State Money, Georgia Scholarships Go to Schools Barring Gays. New York Times, accessed November 10, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/education/georgia-backed-scholarships-benefit-schools-barring-gays.html?ref=education&_r=1&

41.

Sutton

, & King

(2013). Financial crisis not wasted: Shift in state power and voucher expansion,” Journal of Education Finance, 38, 4: 283–303.

42.

Unanswered Freedom of Information Act request have hindered availability of the actual report.

43.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).

44.

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (509, U.S., 1 1993 at 13.).