Next?

July 1, 2010

 (Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

So despite the odd note of protest here and there, Florida’s McKay Scholarship program continued to march across the country this year with the birth of twin offspring programs in Oklahoma and Louisiana. There are many reasons for this progress, including information like this:

For those of you squinting at your IPAD (I wish I was as cool as you, by the way) the pretty chart that I can’t get the blog to make bigger shows the reading scores for Florida and the National average on NAEP for public school children with disabilities. Back in 1998, both Florida and the nation had only 24% of children with disabilities reading at Basic or Better. In the most recent 2009 test, the national average had improved to 34%, but the Florida average had improved to 45%. That means that a child with a disability is approximately 26% more likely to be reading by 4th grade than the national average. It’s worth mentioning that the national figure would look a bit worse if it were possible to exclude the Florida numbers.

As I have mentioned before, Florida’s progress has multiple sources, but we do have evidence linking the program to improvement in scores for disabilities in public schools. McKay helped, and certainly didn’t hurt.

So now the fun part: who will be next?

Florida, Ohio, Utah, Georgia, Arizona, Oklahoma and Louisiana have jumped in with private choice programs for children with disabilities. The water is fine! There are a number of other reforms to special education that states should undertake, including universal screening, but none of these are mutually exclusive with the McKay approach. States need to focus like a laser on early literacy skills, remediate children who are behind, get the diagnosis correct, and give the maximum amount of choice to children with special needs.

My guess is that the next state or states will be in Big 10 country. Indiana, Wisconsin or Ohio with an expanded program (Ohio currently has a voucher program for children with Autism). Maybe all of the above.

Make your prediction now for 2011. Winner gets a coveted JPGB No Prize!


Special Needs Voucher Program passes in Louisiana

June 25, 2010

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

A bipartisan group of legislators in Louisiana have passed a pilot voucher program for children with special needs in Louisiana.

I think this makes Louisiana the sixth state to pass a private choice program for special needs children (Florida, Ohio, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma having already done so).

More details later, but for now:

 BOOOOOOOOM!!!

 

I’ll start a betting pool on the next state to pass special needs vouchers soon.


Oklahoma Oks Special Needs Vouchers

May 26, 2010

 

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Big news out of Oklahoma today: lawmakers passed the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program. Governor Henry, a Democrat, is expected to sign the bill. Text of the bill here (starts on around page 12).

Great win for the kids in Oklahoma, and hopefully a sign of things to come for even broader K-12 reform.


Sara Mead’s inscrutable opposition to McKay Scholarships

May 19, 2010

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Thumbing through the latest edition of Education Next I found a letter from Sara Mead taking exception to Jay and Stuart’s previous article on McKay Scholarships. Mead’s argument seems to boil down to the idea that Jay and Stuart forgot that vouchers for children with disabilities are bad.

Jay and Stuart note in their response that Mead failed to cited any evidence for her opinions about special education vouchers. I will be happy to present some evidence that Ms. Mead is entirely mistaken. The above chart shows gains on the 4th grade NAEP reading exam between 1998 and 2009 for the nation and for Florida.

For those squinting at your IPAD, that big red column more than two and a half times bigger than the blue column is Florida. Florida beats the nation in progress for students with disabilities on all four big NAEP tests.

Now several other factors certainly were involved in driving Florida’s gains among children with disabilities. For instance, policy changes such as heavy weighting of children in the bottom 25% certainly played a role, and I suspect that the revamping of literacy instruction did as well. I make no claim that McKay was the sole cause of this improvement.

If however the fact that all children with disabilities gained the ability to attend private school early in the Aughts negatively impacted their learning, it is awfully difficult to see any evidence of it in their test scores. In fact, it seems far more reasonable to assume that it helped.

Mead wrote:

But there’s no evidence that children with disabilities need additional education options more than any other youngsters in underperforming schools, or that vouchers address the underlying problems in special education. Rather, voucher proponents have seized on this population because they are more sympathetic beneficiaries than poor and minority youngsters. Using children with disabilities to increase public support for vouchers may be smart politics, but it doesn’t mean that special education vouchers are good policy.

On the first point, I can’t help but wonder how much Mead has spoken to parents with children with disabilities. More broadly, this is quite an achievement for a single short letter: a number of unsupported assertions and faulty ESP regarding the motives of McKay supporters. It falls to me to break the news to Mead, but the case for special education vouchers is extremely powerful. If for some strange reason you wish to halt their progress into law, you’ll have to do better than to imagine theoretical problems.


The Argument Clinic

January 5, 2010

Stuart Buck and I have a post over on the Education Next Blog addressing a letter that Sara Mead of the New America Foundation wrote in response to our article on special education vouchers.

Here’s a taste of our response:

Sara Mead’s letter almost feels like the Monty Python sketch about the “argument clinic.” She’s just contradicting us, not providing an actual argument with contrary evidence.

Of course, she could just say that she isn’t.


New Year’s Resolutions

December 16, 2009

(Guest post by Jonathan Butcher)

As I look forward to the New Year, a year in which I will celebrate my 18th birthday for the 14th time, I resolve once again to pursue a long-held dream: to play quarterback for the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.  I know, I know, 18 is a young age to expect to play QB for such a competitive program, but their starter from this season is leaving for the NFL—so they have an opening.  Plus, they just hired a new coach who ran a successful program at the University of Cincinnati (Brian Kelly), so things are looking up.

Irish wins are little scarcer than in the late ‘80’s, when they regularly competed for the top ranking in the AP poll…actually, they’re a lot scarcer.  ND hasn’t competed for a national championship since the early ‘90’s, when Clinton was president and the public hadn’t been introduced to Monica Lewinsky and an “iPod” was a plot element rumored for Alien 3.  With expectations set so high, it has been a painful new millennium of average Irish teams, for the most part.

ESPN.com’s Tuesday Morning Quarterback gave me something to be proud of as an Irish fan yesterday, though, confirming a suspicion I’ve held as a badge of honor taken out and polished every fall for the past several years to console myself after Michigan and USC thrash the Irish once again: ND requires their players to be students, as well as athletes.  Most major programs do not, contends TMQ’s Gregg Easterbrook.

Maybe the sports artificial universe won’t face the uncomfortable reality that the NCAA system uses football and men’s basketball players to generate revenue and great games — then tosses way too many of these players aside uneducated. It’s a lot more fun to talk about winning and losing than to talk about education.

He goes on:

In the past two decades, there’s been a race to the bottom, in which many football-factory schools have lowered academic standards for football and men’s basketball, dropping any pretense of education in pursuit of wins.

Today, between 70% and 80% of the players on major college football teams—programs that regularly compete for the national championship like Oklahoma, Miami, and Ohio State—will never play a down in the NFL.  In fact, 90 percent of the players in all of Division I college football will not play in the NFL.  Easterbrook writes, “Take into account that some of the NFL rookies are Division II, Division III or NAIA players, and it’s closer to 95 percent… If they don’t study and don’t go to class, they walk away from college football practically empty-handed.”

This is a shame not only because the college athletes are being used by adults they have trusted with their future, but also because there is evidence that schools can have high recruiting and educational standards.  TMQ notes that many schools with strong academic reputations such as Georgia Tech, the University of California, the US Naval Academy and Northwestern are headed to bowl games this year.  TMQ also points to a study forthcoming in the Review of Economics and Statistics linking high academic and athletic achievement among females.

Unfortunately, between reading the TMQ article yesterday and sitting down to write today, the punch line to my post has mysteriously vanished.  After praising ND for holding out against the trend among major programs to lower academic standards for their football team, Easterbrook wrote, “Rumor has it Brian Kelly’s deal to replace [former ND coach Charlie] Weis includes Notre Dame’s agreeing to lower its academic standards for top football recruits. If so, this is a sad, sad day for Notre Dame, and for college football.”  Interestingly, this line was gone from the article when I read it this morning (though a quick search finds the sentence, verbatim, in at least one person’s Twitter feed).  Now, my illusion of a perfect college football institution can remain intact, thanks to ND athletic director Jack Swarbrick, who appears to have replaced Tiger Woods as sovereign supreme over the sports media.

Pipe dreams and conspiracy theories aside, the NCAA and participating athletic programs should be forced to answer for what is happening at, say, Florida State, where “a suspiciously high percentage of football players have been classified as learning disabled, which creates exemptions from already lax academic requirements.”  Maybe committing itself to a remedy can be the NCAA’s New Year’s resolution, but with the amount of money generated in college sports, it’s more likely that I’ll be wearing a gold helmet next September.  Go Irish!


Disruptive Technology in Treating Autism

November 13, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Check it out: cool stuff! Affordable online tools to allow parents to do therapies for autistic children from a company called Rethink Autism on the national ABC News broadcast.

The whole “isn’t this like getting a manual on how to take your appendix out” stuff is just hilarious. If you don’t have access to a hospital or doctor, getting such a manual beats the living daylights out of not getting a manual.

Isn’t that the sort of thing that print journalists used to say about bloggers, back when we still had print journalists?


One Stop Special Ed Voucher Info

October 13, 2009

I know, I know.  I’ve been writing a lot recently about special ed vouchers.  But if you’ve missed it or are just looking for a convenient one-stop place to get the latest info, arguments, and evidence on special ed vouchers, check out the piece Stuart Buck and I wrote for the current issue of Education Next.  It’s filled with links, so it should be a useful resource for anyone interested in special ed vouchers.


Jay & Marcus in NR

October 2, 2009

NR cover (Jay & Marcus article)

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

In the new National Review, Jay and Marcus review the research on special education funding incentives, including the findings of their recent study on the impact of vouchers in Florida.

Financial incentives are particularly important in low-level disability categories like SLD, where a diagnosis is easily fudged. While you need pretty solid evidence to diagnose a child with a traumatic brain injury or other severe disabilities, schools have plenty of leeway on SLD. Some research suggests that public schools use low achievement alone to serve as an indicator of SLD. Studies dating back to the 1980s found that SLD students are indistinguishable from low-achieving regular-enrollment students, with one study estimating that over half the students identified as SLD in Colorado did not fit either federal or state definitions for SLD.

Digital subscribers go here; paper-only subscribers go here; non-subscribers go here.


Jay: Wake Up and Smell the Incentives

September 14, 2009

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Well, it seems to be op-ed day for friends of JPGB today. Below, Matt appreciates Robert Enlow as a man who has “the whole package” – and delivers it in today’s Indy Star. Meanwhile, over on NRO, Jay has a column on the perverse incentives that artificially drive up special ed diagnoses:

Schools have discovered that they can get extra funding from state and federal ‎governments for small-group instruction to help lagging students catch up if they say that ‎the students are struggling because of a processing problem in their brains. School officials who admit that the students are lagging because of poor previous instruction or a difficult ‎home life, by contrast, are left to pay the costs of small-group instruction entirely out of ‎their own budget.

If you’ve been reading JPGB, that part is all old hat to you by now. If not, this NRO piece is a good (though very brief) introduction to the topic.

The NRO piece does make one point I hadn’t thought of before:

In New Jersey, for example, 18 percent of all students are ‎classified as disabled, but in California the rate is only 10.5 percent. There is no medical ‎reason why students in New Jersey should be 71 percent more likely to be placed into ‎special education than students in California.

Indeed.