Dana Goldstein is a noted education journalist who joined the New York Times shortly after Trump’s inauguration. As she writes, she began to focus on vouchers since that would be the focus of this new administration.
Betsy DeVos has held up the Florida voucher program as a national model, so Goldstein went to Florida to learn about the McKay Scholarship Program, which provides vouchers for students with disabilities (Jeb Bush wanted vouchers for the general population, but his referendum to change the state constitution was rejected by voters, and the voucher legislation he passed anyway was overturned by the courts, leaving only the McKay program in place.) Thirty thousands students with disabilities are enrolled in the program.
Goldstein writes that the McKay voucher program has a hidden cost: students relinquish their state and federal rights when they leave the public schools for a private school. Many parents are unaware that they abandon their civil rights protections under the IDEA law when they leave the public schools.
Vouchers for special needs students have been endorsed by the Trump administration, and they are often heavily promoted by state education departments and by private schools, which rely on them for tuition dollars. So for families that feel as if they are sinking amid academic struggles and behavioral meltdowns, they may seem like a life raft. And often they are.
But there’s a catch. By accepting the vouchers, families may be unknowingly giving up their rights to the very help they were hoping to gain. The government is still footing the bill, but when students use vouchers to get into private school, they lose most of the protections of the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
During Betsy DeVos’s confirmation hearings, she spoke glowingly about the Florida program. Senator Tim Kaine asked her what she thought about students forfeiting their rights under federal law, but she was unfamiliar with the federal law. She thought that the provision of services should be left to the states, and Sen. Kaine was surprised that she did not realize that students with special needs were protected by federal law.
As Goldstein notes, many parents are disappointed with the services provided by their public school, but when they get to the voucher school, they discover they no longer have the rights they were used to.
In the meantime, public schools and states are able to transfer out children who put a big drain on their budgets, while some private schools end up with students they are not equipped to handle, sometimes asking them to leave. And none of this is against the rules….
Legal experts say parents who use the vouchers are largely unaware that by participating in programs like McKay, they are waiving most of their children’s rights under IDEA, the landmark 1975 federal civil rights law. Depending on the voucher program, the rights being waived can include the right to a free education; the right to the same level of special-education services that a child would be eligible for in a public school; the right to a state-certified or college-educated teacher; and the right to a hearing to dispute disciplinary action against a child.
It’s not just Florida. Private school choice programs in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Tennessee and Wisconsin also require parents to waive all or most IDEA rights. In several other states, the law is silent on the disability rights of voucher students.
One of the children she profiles is attending an online charter school and getting visits from specialists two-to-three times a week. What he does not get is the social interaction with other children.

Here in northwest Florida it is common practice for county public schools to establish their own charter schools for students that cannot attend regular public schools. I don’t know anything about the funding or how this relates to students’ IDEA rights. There must be a benefit to the districts, or else they would not be establishing these alternative charter schools.
LikeLike
Retired,
The benefit is that the public school gets rid of the children who are hardest to educate. Some charters exclude them. On your county, the charters are used to dump them.
LikeLike
It seemed like dumping to me. Maybe they can keep these students off their test score profile, which everyone knows, drives instruction in Florida. I wonder what happens to IDEA when a public school district sends local children to a charter owned by the district.
LikeLike
This is why parents almost need a law degree to flow through the educational system. Dispute Resolution Departments within the various states are always my first stop if I see such a problem. The schools … public, private, voucher and charter … ALL shortchange IDEA kids. And why not … They get paid anyway because there is NO accountability or consequence for failing to do so.
I usually see less inclination to comply with FEDERAL EDUCATION LAWS at the District level rather than with individual school personnel. Makes me wonder what the district heads are doing sometimes, because it sure isn’t managing or leading in a manner that is beneficial to any of the students.
Current school policies throughout the nation do not include socialization to any child that is not a “round peg” fitting into a round hole.
LikeLike
Linda,
Before the federal law IDEA, children with disabilities hadnoright to an education. Many got no education.
LikeLike
Diane,
Thank you. So “vouchers” are really vultures?
LikeLike
At some point…the refusal of the media to bother to report situations like this one as their respective states’ legislatures contemplate passing voucher laws…..seems like a form of child neglect, if not child abuse. Such refusal is fully protected by the first amendment, but that also protects those who would make maximum efforts to shake them out of their slumber. Noise is in order.
LikeLike
Obviously, the war of words on the public sector, including community-based public schools, and private/public sector labor unions is all part of the agenda of the few wealthiest Americans to subvert the U.S. Constitution and its ability to protect the public from these power hungry psychopaths and malignant narcissists that dominate their segment of the population.
We now know why the U.S. Founding Fathers wrote the U.S. Constitution – to protect the majority of people from the 0.1 percent at the top of the socioeconomic pyramid, but the Founding Fathers made a mistake when they thought the threat would only come through the government. The protections in the U.S. Constitution from our government should have also offered protection from the wealthiest and most powerful in the private sector.
Lord Acton described the 0.1 percent the best back in the 18th century. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The more wealth you have, the more money you have and along with that comes more corruption.
LikeLike