 |
|
|
Statement of Forest Thigpen on the Lawsuit to Kill Charter Schools in Mississippi
(JACKSON) --
Jackson, MS, July 12, 2016 - Forest Thigpen, president of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, issued the following statement regarding the lawsuit filed yesterday by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The suit alleges that charter school funding violates the Mississippi constitution, in part because the plaintiffs say charter schools are not "free" schools:
Charter schools are public schools, and since they charge no tuition, any rational person would conclude that they are "free" schools as referenced by the state constitution.
Parents are responsible for their children's education. It is immoral for the government to force parents to send their children to schools that do not meet their academic and related needs, especially when other public options are available, including charter schools.
Parents who have enough money to move to a better district or to send their children to private schools already have options. Charter schools, as demonstrated by the student population at the two schools that opened this year, primarily serve families who cannot afford either of those options.
Improving educational outcomes is one of the most important ways to lift children out of poverty, and charter schools offer that hope to parents who want a better future for their children. By pursuing this lawsuit, it appears as though the Southern Poverty Law Center wants to perpetuate, not alleviate, southern poverty.
The Mississippi Center for Public Policy is an independent, non-profit organization based in Jackson. It works to advance the ideals of free markets, limited government, and strong traditional families. Its work, including the Mississippi Justice Institute, is supported by voluntary, tax-deductible contributions. It receives no funds from government agencies for its operations. To learn more about MCPP, visit www.mspolicy.org.
--30--
By Forest Thigpen
To hear this commentary click here.
High school students in Mississippi are required to take a US History test before graduating. But you won’t find George Washington or Abraham Lincoln on that test.
Many of the great problems we face in our country stem from a lack of appreciation for our unique role in human history. Whether they followed them perfectly or not, our nation's Founders built our country on a set of principles that recognized the inherent value of the individual, created by God, with certain rights and powers.
It's critical that our high school graduates have a basic understanding of these principles. The current U.S. History test should be replaced with the Civics Test given to immigrants who want to become U.S. citizens. Its 100 questions cover some current facts, such as the name of the president, and a good smattering of questions that cover the whole span of U.S. History.
Let your legislators know you think students should be tested on all U.S. History.
Proponents of spending more money on education say, or at least imply, that "fully funding the MAEP formula" will produce better results for students. But will it?
Most people probably think that if public school funding is increased, most of it will be spent on increasing teacher salaries. But will it?
Obviously, money is necessary for educating children. But the truth is that almost all the top-spending districts are among the lowest-achieving districts. The inverse is also true: almost all the lowest-spending districts are among the highest-achieving.
As you can see for yourself on our new website, SeeTheSchoolSpending.org*:
The 20 highest-spending districts yielded these grades from the Mississippi Department of Education, based on state-administered tests: 5 Fs, 6 Ds, 8 Cs, 1 B, and no As.
The 20 lowest-spending districts achieved 6 As, 10 Bs, 1 C, 3 Ds, and no Fs.
Of the 19 Districts with an A grade, none are in the top 20 for spending, and only 4 are in the top 90.
Of the 15 Districts with an F grade, none are in the bottom 20 spending districts, and all but 2 spend more than the state average.
The highest-spending districts spend more than twice as much per student as the lowest-spending districts.
When education funding is increased, where does it go?
A recent report by the legislative accounting watchdog, PEER (Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review), found that from 2005-2014, school districts' spending in the "Instructional" category, when adjusted for inflation, decreased by approximately $75 million, while spending in the "Administration" category increased by $57 million.
More specifically, the total spent on salaries of teachers and other professional personnel in the Instructional category declined by approximately $130 million, or about 8.6%. During the same period, expenditures for salaries in the Administration category increased by $15 million, or 8.1%.
On SeeTheSchoolSpending.org, you can see this trend has continued over the past two decades. In 1993, more than 41% of per-student spending was spent on teacher salaries. By 2014, that had declined to less than 33%. (In 1960, which precedes the data shown on SeeTheSchoolSpending, teacher salaries made up 60% of school spending.)
This means that the bulk of new spending has gone to things other than teacher salaries. If more money is put into the current MAEP formula, that trend is likely to continue.
Questions
Is it possible there is enough money already going into the school system? Could it be that too much money is being directed toward people or programs that do not improve student learning? Based on the findings described above, the answer to those questions appears to be "yes."
Will "fully funding the MAEP formula" cause student achievement to improve? If more money is appropriated, will it find its way to the classroom, where real progress can be made? If past performance is an indication of future results, the answer to those questions is "no."
* Click on the "Rank" heading to sort in order; click it again to sort in reverse order. This link shows 2013 comparison. Spending and grades for 2015 have not been reported, and the 2014 accountability grades are meaningless (see "Waiver Grades").
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Initiative 42 & Alternative 42A: Proposed
Constitutional Amendments Regarding Public Schools
[For a PDF version of this analysis, click here.]
Last year, proponents of a state Constitutional amendment related to public schools obtained enough signatures to place the amendment, known as Initiative 42, on the November 2015 election ballot. In this year's legislative session, the legislature exercised its Constitutional power to pass an alternative amendment, known as Alternative 42A, which will appear on the same November ballot. Both of these proposed Constitutional amendments are described in this paper.
Mississippi Center for Public Policy is not taking a position for or against either amendment. However, we provide analysis so that voters know what they are being asked to vote on. After we posted our initial analysis of Initiative 42, the group known as Better Schools Better Jobs (BSBJ), responded. That organization, also known as "42 for Better Schools," is the primary organization supporting the Initiative. BSBJ posted our analysis on their website, along with their response. We welcome the discussion and have included their response verbatim - and our analysis of it - in this paper. Our analysis of 42A is new and has not drawn a response.
Initiative 42 would make the following changes to the Mississippi Constitution (the Initiative's proposed additions are underlined, and its proposed deletions are shown as strike-through text):
SECTION 201. To protect each child's fundamental right to educational opportunity,
The Legislaturethe State shall,by general law, provide for the establishment, maintenance and support of an adequate and efficient system of free public schoolsupon such conditions and limitations as the Legislature may provide. The chancery courts of this State shall have the power to enforce this section with appropriate injunctive relief.
The Initiative's "title" appears on the ballot in the form of a question and is supposed to reflect the purpose of the Constitutional amendment. The title for Initiative 42, however, will read as follows:
"Should the state be required to provide for the support of an adequate and efficient system of free public schools?"
1. Does the Amendment Address School Funding?
MCPP Original Analysis. This amendment says nothing about funding. While the phrase, "establishment, maintenance and support" could be construed to be related to funding, that phrase is already in the Constitution. This amendment does not propose to change that phrase.
BSBJ Response: The amendment says that the State of Mississippi is responsible for the "...maintenance and support of an adequate and efficient system of free public schools." Clearly, the words "maintenance and support" mean funding. The more important word, however, is "adequate." Contrary to every other state in the U.S., Mississippi's Constitution currently does not require that children be provided an adequate education, only a free one.
The amendment states that our children should be provided at least an adequate education. The amendment leaves it up to the legislature to determine how it will establish, maintain and support an adequate and efficient system of public education, but it requires the legislature to provide support (funding) for an adequate education.
MCPP Analysis of BSBJ Response: Point well taken with regard to whether the amendment relates to funding. We appreciate BSBJ's pointing this out, since our goal is not to tell people whether they should support or oppose the Initiative; our goal is to ensure that the public has an accurate description of what they will be asked to vote on. We said the maintenance and support phrase "could be construed" as being related to funding, which is true, but as a practical matter, it is more accurate to say this phrase is generally construed by courts to be related to funding.
However, BSBJ's statement that the Constitutions of "every other state in the U.S." require "adequate" funding is simply not accurate. A number of states do not have such a requirement in their Constitution.
Most importantly, it is difficult to understand BSBJ's contention that the legislature would retain any authority over the amount or use of school funding. In three places, the proposed Constitutional amendment deletes references to the legislature and/or its authority over the educational system. It then adds a provision giving power of enforcement to courts. Here is the relevant wording (proposed deletions are struck through, and additions are underlined): "The
LegislatureState shall,by general law, provide for the establishment, maintenance and support of an adequate and efficient system of free public schoolsupon such conditions and limitations as the Legislature may provide." The chancery courts of this State shall have the power to enforce this section with appropriate injunctive relief. For more on this point, see questions 3 and 5 below.
2. What Court Would Have Jurisdiction, and Why Does That Matter?
MCPP Original Analysis. The last sentence in the amendment gives the power to "the chancery courts of this state." Because the State of Mississippi would be the defendant in any lawsuit filed to enforce this section of the Constitution, the lawsuit would have to be filed in Hinds County Chancery Court. There are four Hinds County Chancery Judges, each of whom is elected only by the citizens of a district of the county. One of these judges would be assigned to hear the case, meaning a judge from the Jackson area, who is elected by a small number of people in Hinds County, would have full authority to decide not only how much money is sufficient but how the money is to be spent. The legislature would have no ability to limit the impact of the judge's rulings (see #3).
BSBJ Response: Chancery courts are specified in order to prevent lawsuits for damages. Chancery courts would have the power to enforce the law to adequately fund public schools. A court ruling would simply require the legislature to follow the law and the Constitution.
Under current law, venue for a lawsuit against the State of Mississippi is in Jackson, the state capital, which is in Hinds County. The legislature could pass legislation establishing chancery court venue where the school district is located. In other words, if the legislature does not want to be sued in a Hinds County Chancery Court, it could change that by statute.
MCPP Analysis of BSBJ Response: BSBJ's statement about whether a lawsuit in chancery court can include damages is not accurate. For example, the state's lawsuit against the tobacco industry was filed in chancery court and most certainly included damages. The current Musgrove lawsuit regarding MAEP, which asks for damages, was filed in chancery court. The amendment is not worded in a way that would "prevent lawsuits for damages," as BSBJ asserts.
It is true that a change of venue could be accomplished by a change in law, but our point is not that the venue is Hinds County per se; venue could be changed to any county, and our point would be the same: one judge, elected by the people in one district, would have the power to set education policy and funding for the entire state.
3. Would There Be Limits on the Judge's Decisions?
MCPP Original Analysis. The amendment places no limits on the Hinds County judge who hears such a lawsuit. The judge could, as the initiative's proponents seem to anticipate, require the legislature to "fully fund" the MAEP formula and to phase-in the increased funding over seven years. However, the judge could also choose to require the legislature to double, or even triple, the MAEP funding. The judge could also decide that high-performing districts are getting enough from the state and order the state to give any "new" money to low-performing districts until they catch up. Furthermore, because the amendment does not limit the judge's reach, and because it gives the judge jurisdiction over a "system" of schools, he or she would have full authority to dictate to the state department of education and local school districts exactly how the money should be spent at the state and local level.
BSBJ Response: Clearly, opponents of the amendment seem to believe that their best option for defeating it is fear-mongering about chancery judges in Hinds County. The powers of these judges are limited and checked by the Constitution itself. Either party in a suit can request that the case be heard by a jury. The bottom line is that a lawsuit would be necessary only if the legislature ignores the law and the Constitution, thwarting the will of Mississippi voters regarding public school funding.
The court's decision would have to be based on the facts presented by each side. The chancery court ruling can be appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court for a final ruling. This procedure is current law. A chancery court makes the final decision only if there is no appeal, which is highly unlikely, and as stated in #2 above, the legislature can change the lawsuit location to a county other than Hinds.
MCPP Analysis of BSBJ Response: There's no fear-mongering in our analysis. It's simply the truth. BSBJ offers no dispute as to the potential outcomes we listed. We aren't predicting a judge would rule in these ways, but he or she certainly could do so, since there are no limitations on the judge in this amendment. Furthermore, current Hinds County judges might not rule in these ways, but there is nothing to prevent a judge 10 or 20 years from now ruling in a way BSBJ doesn't anticipate right now.
Jury trials can only be requested in chancery court for contested wills, not for cases such as those that would seek to enforce this Constitutional amendment. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is somewhat limited in its power to overrule decisions from a Chancery Court.
4. Would Taxes Increases, or Budget Cuts to Other Agencies, be Necessary?
MCPP Original Analysis. The amendment makes no mention of a phase-in or any other timing. A lawsuit could be filed immediately after the amendment is adopted, and a ruling could come in the first year following its passage, requiring the legislature to adopt whatever budget is dictated by the judge. This would require drastic cuts to all other government agencies, or it would require a tax increase. Our state Constitution prohibits judges from ordering a tax increase at any level of government, but a mandated spending increase could, in effect, require a tax increase if cutting all other programs proved to be politically impossible. It is estimated that all agencies other than the Department of Education would have to be cut about 17 percent, and that's only if the judge orders "full funding" of the current MAEP formula. Those cuts would include IHL, Community Colleges, Medicaid, Corrections, and virtually everything else. If any of those were excluded from the cuts, then other agencies would be cut more deeply.
BSBJ Response: This claim is meant to mislead people about the amendment process. The petition that has been signed by more than 188,000 Mississippians includes a full description of the process. The legislature will continue to have 100% discretion on how it will fully fund our K-12 schools. Under the ballot's financial proposal, any increases in school funding would be wholly dependent upon state revenue increases. In any year when revenue increases, not less than 25 percent of that increase would be devoted to public education. This process would continue, every year the state has revenue increases, until school funding reaches an adequate level. At the current trend of 3 percent annual revenue growth, adequate school funding would be reached in seven years. NO tax increases, NO automatic cuts for other agencies.
MCPP Analysis of BSBJ Response: Our claim is not misleading; it simply recognizes that the Constitutional amendment itself - not what was written on a petition - is the only thing that matters. The "full description" in the petition was simply an idea of the proponents for how the process could work, but this description has no force of law. Even the BSBJ response above refers to it as a "financial proposal," and in the petition filed by the proponents, they called this proposal a "recommendation." The people of Mississippi will not be voting to approve this proposal/recommendation. They will only be voting on the amendment itself.
What is misleading is the Initiative's "title" that will appear on the ballot. It will appear in the form of a question that is supposed to describe the amendment. But 42's title basically asks the equivalent of, "Do you love your mother?" What voters will see is the question, "Should the state be required to provide for the support of an adequate and efficient system of free public schools?" Regardless of the merits of the amendment, this question does not adequately describe its effects.
BSBJ's contention that the legislature would retain "100 percent discretion" is addressed in items 1 & 5.
5. What Would Be Left of the Legislature's Role?
MCPP Original Analysis. The proposed amendment - in three places - deletes the authority of the legislature to determine any aspect of education policy or funding. This is critically important, because state and federal courts generally determine the will of the voters by noticing the words that were deleted by a Constitutional amendment as well as the words that were added. Education would no longer be ruled "by general law" passed by "the legislature" and signed by the governor, and the legislature would no longer be allowed to place "conditions and limitations" on the funding or performance of public schools. In other words, a Hinds County judge, elected by a few, would have more power than the legislature, elected by all the people of the state, to set education policy for Mississippi.
BSBJ Response: This amendment does not delete the authority of the legislature to determine any aspect of education policy or funding. It says nothing about education policy. Similar to what is already in place in many other states, the amendment says only that the state must have an adequate and efficient system of public education for our children. The legislature has the power and authority to determine what is adequate and efficient. Under our checks and balances system of government, if the legislature does not meet its Constitutional mandate, then the citizens of this state have the opportunity to ask a court whether or not the legislature has met its Constitutional mandate.
MCPP Analysis of BSBJ Response: [See our "Analysis of BSBJ Response" on question 1, where we show the words that would be deleted from the Constitution.] Attorney General Jim Hood, in a memorandum supporting his motion to dismiss the Musgrove MAEP lawsuit, noted that Section 201 of the Constitution (which Initiative 42 proposes to amend) "empowers the legislature to establish the 'conditions and limitations' under which public schools operate." If the legislature is deleted from that section of the Constitution, as proposed by Initiative 42, where does it derive any authority over school funding? As we pointed out originally, when words are deleted from the Constitution, courts consider such an action as the intentional will of the voters. In this case, courts are highly likely to determine that the voters sought to remove the legislature's power to set conditions and limitations on how the education bureaucracy spends money.
BSBJ asserts that the amendment "says nothing about education policy." But when the legislature is prohibited from setting "conditions and limitations" on the "system of free public schools" or its funding, the amendment does say something about education policy by dictating who has authority over it.
Analysis of 42A - the Legislative Alternative to Initiative 42
History of the Initiative Process in Mississippi - In 1992, the voters of Mississippi approved an amendment to the state Constitution to give the people of the state the opportunity to amend the Constitution by use of a ballot initiative. Before that amendment was adopted, the only way to change the Constitution was for two-thirds of both houses of the legislature to approve an amendment, and for the people to adopt it in a general election.
Legislative Alternative - The 1992 amendment created a detailed process for putting an initiative on the ballot. That process included an option for the state legislature to propose an alternative to an initiative. Such an alternative would not replace the initiative, but it would be placed alongside the initiative on the ballot, giving voters the option to vote for the initiative or the alternative, or to vote against both.
Initiative 42 will be the sixth initiative to appear on the ballot. 42A will be the first alternative to appear.
Constitutional Amendment Proposed by Alternative 42A
Alternative 42A, like Initiative 42, would amend the current provision (Section 201) of the state Constitution that calls for the legislature to provide for "free public schools." Alternative 42A would make the following changes (proposed additions are underlined, deletions are shown as strike-through):
SECTION 201. The Legislature shall, by general law, provide for the establishment, maintenance and support of an effective system of free public schools upon such conditions and limitations as the Legislature may prescribe.
The Alternative's "title" that will appear on the ballot will be:
"Should the Legislature provide for the establishment and support of effective free public schools without judicial enforcement?"
Changes to Current Constitution
The current Constitutional provision requires the legislature to provide for "free public schools." Alternative 42A would make two changes. First, it would require the legislature to support "an effective system" of such schools. Second, it would remove a phrase that could be considered redundant with regard to legislative authority.
Alternative 42A retains the authority of the legislature to provide for the school system "by general law." Consequently, the legislature could define what constitutes "an effective system" of schools. It is unknown how any court would define that term. Because the legislature retains this "general law" authority (which Initiative 42 would remove), the more specific phrase, "upon such conditions and limitations as the Legislature may prescribe" may be unnecessary. It is unclear why legislators deleted this phrase. They might have simply been attempting to remove a redundancy, or they might have sought to identify something in Initiative 42 to which they could agree, since Initiative 42 also removes this phrase.
Technically, this Alternative focuses on the school "system," not on schools. (Initiative 42 does the same.) Why legislators chose the phrase "effective system" rather than "effective schools" is not clear. Perhaps they were simply using a phrase similar to the one used in Initiative 42. Hopefully, this distinction is truly is a technicality, and the effectiveness of the system would be judged by the effectiveness of the schools, but there is no guarantee of that. For instance, if viewed from a bureaucratic perspective, it is possible for a "system" to be deemed effective even if its components are not. (For example, under the Department of Education's former classification of school achievement - before districts were graded A through F - some districts were labeled "Successful" even though they had no schools in their district classified that highly.) How a court would rule on that is unpredictable.
The unpredictability of how a court would rule - next year or 20 years from now - is one of the reasons for caution in considering any Constitutional amendment.
Similarities and Differences between Initiative 42 and Alternative 42A
Initiative 42 and Alternative 42A both call for support of a "system" of free public schools. Initiative 42 calls for "adequate and efficient" system; Alternative 42A calls for an "effective" one.
The Initiative 42 petition expresses its sponsor's opinion on the definition of "adequate and efficient," where adequate would be defined only by the level of funding, starting with the current funding formula for the Mississippi Adequate Education Program (MAEP), and an efficient education would be "one that will, among other things, enable Mississippi's public school graduates to compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding states" (emphasis added). It is unknown whether a court would adopt the sponsor's definitions, or whether a current or future court would be bound by such definitions. The phrase "among other things" is dangerously open-ended, allowing the chancery court judge total discretion to define "efficient" however he or she pleased. Because Initiative 42 removes the legislature's authority to provide for schools "by general law," the legislature would not likely have the authority to define those terms.
Alternative 42A has no definition of "effective," but as with most Constitutional provisions, the legislature would have the authority to define that term, because 42A would retain legislative power to define that term in a "general law." Still, this would likely be the subject of much litigation.
Initiative 42 removes all three references to the legislature or its authority in Section 201 of the current Constitution. Alternative 42A removes only one.
Initiative 42 replaces "Legislature" with "State"; it deletes the legislature's authority to provide for schools "by general law"; and it deletes the authority of the legislature to set the "conditions and limitations" for how taxpayers' money is to be spent in the schools. Alternative 42A removes only the "conditions and limitations" clause. Because 42A would retain the legislature's authority to provide for schools "by general law," it is likely that the "conditions and limitations" clause is redundant, since a general law is where "conditions and limitations" may be established.
Initiative 42 would transfer power over schools from the legislature to a chancery court judge in Jackson (or some other location if the legislature were to change the current law on jurisdiction for cases against the state). Alternative 42A retains the power in the legislature elected by voters throughout the state.
After removing the power from the legislature, as described above, Initiative 42 expressly grants the power to "the chancery courts of this state" to enforce this newly revised section of the Constitution. Because our current law specifies that a case against the state must be filed in Hinds County, the practical effect of this provision of Initiative 42 is that a judge in Jackson would determine how much and how taxpayers' money would be spent on public education. Even if the legislature changed the location for filing such cases (which would make little sense), the point would remain the same: a small number of voters in one county would choose, in effect, an education czar to dictate the actions of the legislature - and the state department of education AND the local school districts - because of his or her unfettered power over the school "system." (See our full analysis of Initiative 42 for further explanation.)
Initiative 42 establishes a "fundamental right" to "educational opportunity" for "each child." Alternative 42A does not.
As mentioned above, caution is critical before enacting Constitutional amendments. But an extreme abundance of caution is required when establishing a fundamental right, as it invites the enormous danger of unintended consequences. Initiative 42's sponsors define this as a right "through 12th Grade," with no beginning. This could be interpreted as a right to a government-provided "education" beginning as early as birth. As extreme as that sounds, it is clear from recent court rulings that ideas which were once considered extreme can become Constitutional rights in only a short time. Such a "fundamental right" could be interpreted by some courts to supersede parental rights.
Education Scholarship Account (ESAs) Now Available in Mississippi
The newly created Education Scholarship Account (ESA) program is now accepting applications from parents of special needs' students who have had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) over the last 18 months. The accounts were created by the Equal Opportunity for Students with Special Needs Act, championed by Rep. Carolyn Crawford and Sen. Nancy Collins during the 2015 session. (To read the entire bill and to learn about your rights and responsibilities under the program, go here.)
The program gives parents of students with special needs the option of withdrawing their child from the public school system and receiving $6,500 for the school year 2015-2016. These funds can be used to obtain a variety of services, including paying for private school tuition, physical therapy, transportation and assistive technology.
The program is currently under the administration of the Mississippi Department of Education (MDE).
There are 500 scholarships available for the 2015-16 school year. The first 250 scholarships will be offered on a first-come, first-served basis. The remaining scholarships will be awarded via random lottery.
The application is available here and also in each school district.
Parental Responsibilities
Parents must agree to five requirements in order to receive the scholarships. These include providing an organized, appropriate educational program with measurable annual goals and agreeing not to enroll their eligible child in a public school.
Allowable Expenses
Once the recipients of the scholarships are chosen, they will be mailed an award packet. This packet will include an award letter and reimbursement request instructions. The law limits what the reimbursement funds can be used for. See the list here.
(Adapted from the Mississippi Department of Education Website)
Like us, you're probably hearing lots of questions swirling about Common Core. Are you looking for answers?
The questions we often hear include: Is it the right thing to do? Are the standards good or bad? What is the Mississippi legislature doing? Tell me about this commission they are creating (SB 2161). Will it do any good?
In addition to questions like these, many groups, including the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, have long asked whether Common Core is constitutional, or even legal.
On March 27, 2015 Mississippi Center for Public Policy and the Federalist Society hosted John Sauer at the Capital Club in Jackson. Sauer explained the constitutional and legal questions that continue to plague Common Core.
Watch the video of the Liberty Luncheon Here
Sauer is a Harvard Law graduate, Rhodes Scholar, and an experienced trial attorney. He is lead counsel in Sauer v. Nixon, a case that exposes the illegal implementation of Common Core. The case has already been heard by a Missouri court. The court found that the multi-state "Smarter Balanced" testing consortium being used to implement Common Core is "an unlawful interstate compact to which the U.S. Congress has never consented, whose existence and operation violate the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution."
Whether you believe Common Core is a tool to lift students to higher educational levels or an unconstitutional overreach of the federal government, we hope you will watch this presentation of Mr. Sauer's on-the-ground experience with this controversial national topic.
Special Needs Bill:
Bold Step in Giving Parents More Choice
March 26, 2015 - Mississippi Center for Public Policy President Forest Thigpen commended the Mississippi Legislature for passing the "Equal Opportunity for Children with Special Needs" bill, Senate Bill 2695. The bill is now on its way to Governor Bryant, who has promised to sign it.
"This bill will provide children with disabilities the opportunity to receive the education that best suits their needs," Thigpen said. He said a new mechanism created by this bill, called an Education Scholarship Account (ESA), "is the boldest step yet in giving parents more choice and transformational control over their children’s education."
With an ESA, parents will be able to choose among a variety of educational services, including specialized therapy, tutoring, software, and other methods of meeting the educational needs of their child. Parents will be able to choose whether to allocate some or all of the money for tuition at a private school.
Thigpen said ESAs are different from vouchers. "With a voucher," he said, "the entire amount would be allocated to one school, even if the child would be better served by utilizing a variety of options. ESAs allow that type of customization."
Over the past four years, Mississippi legislators have empowered parents and students by implementing transformational education reforms, such as charter schools, A-F ratings, the third-grade reading gate, and two voucher programs limited to speech and hearing disabilities.
"Legislators who voted for these reforms are listening to parents and should be commended," Thigpen said. "In some cases, they faced the wrath of school administrators and others who advocate mere tweaks to the current system. These legislators correctly see that parents don’t have time to wait for the bureaucrats to get it right. Their children need options now so that their children have the best future possible."
SB2695 is targeted to children with special needs, but Thigpen believes this type of parental choice will gain popularity and will eventually be available for all children.
"All children are unique, and all children should have the chance to receive an education that equips them for a fulfilling life," he said. ESAs put parents in the driver’s seat of their children’s education and future.
"Parents are ultimately responsible for the education and upbringing of their children," Thigpen said, "and they should have the tools they need to exercise that responsibility. If parents believe the public schools are not providing the education their children need, they should be allowed the flexibility offered by ESAs to pursue other options."
Thigpen noted the effort of the sponsors of the bill, Sen. Nancy Collins and Rep. Carolyn Crawford. "These legislators, as mothers of children with special needs, have a special understanding of the need for this legislation, and they have worked for years to achieve this. On behalf of the parents of Mississippi children with special needs, we are grateful for their dedication and perseverance."