SB 1000: The Autism Voucher Bill

Sen. Florence Shapiro (R-Plano), along with 10 co-sponsors, today filed Senate Bill 1000, the much-anticipated and highly controversial autism scholarship (voucher) bill. It would create the “Autism Services Accessibility Program” and would allow students with autism to transfer within a particular school district, to a public school in another school district, or to an accredited private school equipped to deal with students with Autism.

Since this is lengthy and complicated, I’m going to digest it in bits and pieces. Most of this will just be analysis; the majority of my personal thoughts on this will be in a separate post.
First, let’s talk about what Shapiro has stated as the need for the legislation. Texas has about 17,000 children with autism, which is nearly double the 2001-2002 number of 8,900. Second, if students with autism don’t get proper educational services early in life to work through the disorder, it can cost $3.2 million for lifetime care, as autism sufferers will require significant care or even institutionalization.

Next, let’s talk about the financial aspects of the bill. According to Shapiro’s press conference, a student who desires to go to a public school would be entitled to an amount equal to the amount that the local school district would receive for that student from the state. In other words, the state aid a district is entitled to for the student under Chapter 42 of the Texas Education Code is the dollar amount the child would be eligible for. The DMN states this a little differently, though:

Under the bill, the voucher amount would be based on the average cost of educating an autistic student in the school district where the child lives. If the parents opted to send their child to a private school that had a higher tuition than the voucher amount, the parents would have to pay the difference.

Here is how the legislation states it:

The commissioner shall deduct an amount equal to the amount of funding to which the school district in which the eligible student resides is entitled under Chapter 42 for that student from the total state aid to which that district is entitled and shall transfer that amount to the district in which the student is enrolled.

If a student resides in a school district that does not receive state aid under Chapter 42, the district in which the student resides shall purchase attendance credits under Section 41.093 in an amount equal to the amount of funding the district would receive for the student under Chapter 42 if the district were entitled to state aid under that chapter, and the commissioner shall transfer that amount to the school district in which the student is enrolled.

Shapiro has said that she actually expects a “zero” fiscal note. While she may actually get a “zero” fiscal note, I don’t think it is reasonable to say that the program would have a zero fiscal impact because of Sunset provisions, other evaluation provisions, and more. As for the actual economic impact, there is really no way to tell at this time because of the different amounts different districts are paid for a student.

Second, let’s address the in- and out-of-district transfers. It has been my understanding that in-district transfers have been legal for autism and other students for a long time, but that it involves a lot of red tape. Toward that end, it’s good to see this codified. I have no objection whatsoever to transfers within public schools.

Now, let’s address the private school portion. First, here is how the bill defines a qualifying school:

“Qualifying school” means a nongovernmental community-based educational establishment that provides for the educational needs of students with autism. The term does not include a school that provides education in a home setting or that limits enrollment to relatives of the school’s staff.

A couple of things on this. First, I think that the “qualifying school” definition is written to exclude religious schools. I may be wrong, but in typical government language these days, you have “faith- and community-based.” Here, you have only “community-based.” To me, that excludes religious institutions which I believe is appropriate considering the issue here is quality education and not religious instruction. There may be some religious schools who provide autism education, and this may cause concern for proponents of the legislation, if my interpretation is correct.

The bill also has a multi-pronged eligibility test: the parent must apply to participate through TEA, the child must have already been admitted to the school, TEA determines what students are eligible, etc.
the student’s parent of the student’s eligibility. The manner of pay also appears to be direct pay, i.e. TEA pays the qualifying schools as opposed to the parents.
There is also another clause I’m not too sure about:

A student’s program funding may not be financed by money appropriated from the available school fund.

I’m guessing, then that the money would come from somewhere else in the general fund. The bill isn’t clear on that.

There are a couple of other problematic points with the legislation. For example, consider this:

Sec. 29.361.  QUALIFYING SCHOOL AUTONOMY. (a) A qualifying school that accepts funding under this subchapter is not an agent or arm of the state or federal government.

This, of course, would essentially exempt the schools, which would be receiving state money, from obligations under the Texas Public Information Act. This is especially problematic when it comes to accountability issues.

Also, the program has a 10 year sunset. That’s pretty excessive, especially for a new and untested program. Although there are some annual accountabilities built into the legislation, a 10 year sunset is far too long.

The program this legislation was to be modeled after was actually a pilot program, but this program is evidently a ten-year minimum.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It