Starting on July 1st, Indiana is allowing the use of state funds to the parents of students receiving special education services through the use of Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). This will allow parents to spend money that the state would utilize to educate their students in order to enroll them in other schools or to receive the services that they would get in their IEPs from private providers (Ritz, Burke, & Fuentez-Rohwer 2022). The parents must apply by August 5th of this upcoming school year (2022-2023) in order to be eligible. This is an extension of the recent efforts by Indiana’s legislative body to increase the amount of state dollars which can be utilized in private education settings (McCoy 2022). McCoy also notes that this money might be seen as valuable to some Hoosier parents since it would make them eligible for more state funds than what they could already receive under the state’s voucher program.
There are concerns that this program, and programs like it, may actually not benefit the students that it intends to serve. Even proponents of school choice and expanded use of charter schools are in disagreement on whether a plan like this would actually be a boon to students and their families (Ladner & Smith 2016). In that article Nelson Smith, a proponent for the increased usage of charter schools, cautions that ESA’s may in actuality only serve to benefit students from the most privileged backgrounds while not providing the same advantage to students of families of color or to economically disadvantaged families. He cites ESA usage in Nevada as being inadequate to pay for the privatized services promised by the bill. While families in wealthier areas, he states, would be able to cover the difference between the cost of the service and what the policy provides, this difference would be harder to cover for less affluent families. All it would do, he states, is give families who are already advantaged in their child’s education even more power.
Ritz, Burke, & Fuentes-Rowher, in an article for the South Bend Tribune, also express consternation with the policy. They view the use of ESAs as akin to a parent forfeiting rights that they hold under IDEA, specifically those that include the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the least restricted environment. They are concerned that parents, while being given the illusion of educational options for their child, would actually become the ones responsible for those services. They note that providers would not actually have to follow a student’s IEP and could deny services altogether to a student as they deem fit, all things that public education is not allowed to do. Finally, they argue, if a student is not receiving the correct services or a private agency is misusing the funds, then the parents, not the state, would be responsible for holding that agency accountable. This means that they would have to hire and pay their own lawyer in order to receive justice or recompense. While not stated by the authors, this would also have a disparate impact on families of less advantaged backgrounds as they would be less likely to be able to hire the attorney necessary to purse damages. I also wonder what damages that the parents could even pursue as by utilizing an ESA they are giving up the educational rights of their child.
In research there are even more concerns. Fitch, Hulgin, & Commer (2021) found that states that utilize voucher programs extensively fail to fully disclose to parents how accepting the voucher impacts the rights of their students. The states often use language that side-steps discussion of students’ disabilities and instead utilize “market language” (p. 8) in order to sell parents. The states typically discuss the use of vouchers in the terms of a capitalistic approach to education: Parents could explore the free-market of education in order to “choose” what is best for their child. In actuality, however, in receiving a voucher parents are simply just agreeing to not hold the state responsible for their education and instead take that responsibility onto themselves. Bon, Decker, & Strassfield (2016) note that the use of the voucher system is different in many states than simply enrolling a student in a private placement as this does not forfeit a student’s rights and the private institution is still beholden to upholding any and all laws around a child’s education.
Simply calling something a freedom does not make it so, and the freedoms provided by ESAs are an illusion at best. Anything that requires the relinquishment of a right provided by the law is not a freedom. Special education students are a particularly vulnerable portion of our society. Fitch, Hulgin, & Commer call them one of the most “excluded and invisible” (p. 6) groups in the United States population. While the use of ESAs may give some parents hope, I fear that they only expose special education students and their families to increased educational turmoil. There is no guarantee that a private program would have the services needed by a child, and even if they did, there is no guarantee that child would be able to access them. If there were to be any misapplication of the funds by the private program, there would be little to no recourse under the law, and families would be required to pursue any damages utilizing their own resources. This loss of power for families is the real problem with programs like vouchers and ESAs. Every parent wants the best for their child and vouchers seem as though they would allow parents the ability to actively pursue every opportunity for their child, but with this policy, I suspect parents will be reduced to passive bystanders in the long run.
References
Bon, Decker, J. R., & Strassfeld, N. (2016). Special Education Voucher Programs, Reflective Judgment, and Future Legislative Recommendations. Peabody Journal of Education, 91(4), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1207444
Fitch, Hulgin, K. M., & Coomer, M. N. (2021). How “special needs” vouchers deceive the public and silence the right to inclusive education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2021.1957174
Ladner, & Smith, N. (2016). Should reformers support Education Savings Accounts? Education next talks with Matthew Ladner and Nelson Smith.(Viewpoint essay). Education Next, 16(3), 62–.
McCoy, D. P. (2022, July 14). Indiana will help families who leave Public School pay for special education. WFYI Public Media. Retrieved August 1, 2022, from https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/indiana-will-help-families-who-leave-public-school-pay-for-special-education
Ritz, G., Burke, R., & Fuentes-Rohwer, C. (2022, August 1). Viewpoint: Potential consequences of indiana program for special needs students. South Bend Tribune. Retrieved August 1, 2022, from https://www.southbendtribune.com/story/opinion/columns/2022/08/01/esa-program-is-problematic-for-the-overall-future-of-education-for-children/65383661007/
The Mann Cave Blog 