An underfunded mandate

03/25/2007

Star Tribune
Published: March 25, 2007

Special-education students -- those with behavioral, physical or learning disabilities -- cost roughly twice as much to educate as other students. The state and federal governments require school districts to meet their learning needs, and both provide some extra funding for that purpose.

But that aid has not kept pace with skyrocketing costs as the general school population flattens and as special-ed student ranks grow. In Minnesota, special-ed payments to districts were capped in 2003 to help resolve the budget deficit.

In 2005, Minnesota school districts paid $417 million out of their general budgets for special education, an expense known as the cross-subsidy. This year that is projected to be $518 million. One legislative proposal would allocate $500 million over three years to restore the state's earlier -- and promised -- commitment to special-needs kids.

Editorial writer Denise Johnson recently discussed special-education costs with three representatives from the Alliance for Student Achievement, a coalition of 16 Minnesota education groups of educators, parents and school board members that support the legislation. They are Vicki Roy, chairwoman of the Alliance and a Burnsville school board member; Deb Wall, Forest Lake's special-education director, and Brad Lundell, director of Schools for Equity in Education. Following are excerpts from their conversation.

Are special-education-driven deficits a problem primarily for larger districts, where there are higher numbers of special-needs students?

Lundell: Most districts are affected, but some do get hit a little harder. St. Cloud, for example, is a regional center for a number of school districts. They spend about 18 percent of their budget on special ed, compared to the state average of about 13 percent.

Roy: Expenditures may be higher in some larger districts, but I find that the percentages are similar around the state. In my district, we spent just over $21 million last year on special education, but our state and federal aid amounted to $13.6 million. Our cross-subsidy that had to come from our general ed budget was $7.5 million. Only 64 percent of the cost was covered; compare that to having 97 percent of our costs covered by state and federal government back in 1992.

It is difficult for parents and other taxpayers to understand why, year after year, referendums pass and the state K-12 contribution goes up, but the school cuts keep coming. What impact does special ed have on those reductions?

Lundell: It's a myth that school budgets have increased. Even when state spending goes up by 2 or 3 percent, and with last year's small increase for special ed, that does not undo four years of flat or reduced funding. And remember, for several years inflationary increases were taken out of all the formulas, which helped districts fall further behind.

Roy: If you look at the amount of referendum funds Minnesota districts receive, it's pretty proportional with what we don't get for special education. School boards went for those excess levies to pay for basic operational costs, not add-ons. Had the special-education budgets been covered, some of the districts might not have needed the referendums -- or would have asked for smaller amounts.

Wall: Providing service for many special-ed children is very expensive, and we're getting more students with greater needs all the time. Some of the devices are expensive -- special computers for dyslexic or hearing impaired students that can cost $10,000. Many students require a lot of personnel to deliver service. And since the special-ed laws were passed, other things have happened that impact the costs. Open enrollment and charter schools may be good for kids, but local districts have to pay the special-ed bills for those children and for children in private schools. We have no control over that.

We've been talking years about how the federal government has never paid more than about 17 percent of the costs, though the original legislation said they were supposed to work up to shouldering 40 percent. Won't districts still be behind, even with state help?

Wall: We don't expect full funding. Districts will always have to put some extra into special ed; the federal government is slow to act and the state only agrees to pay for a certain percentage of salaries -- not benefits. The state aid will help us do a better job with all students. We don't want parents [of regular and special-ed students] to feel pitted against each other.

Roy: Our districts want to do the reforms that the governor and others talk about. We want to make changes in our high schools, keep class sizes down, do early education and so forth. But it gets harder and harder to find room for those things in our budgets. If we can get what was promised on special ed, a lot of resources would be freed up for innovation.