Congressional leaders know the need for special education funding, so where's the money?

6/13/00 – The leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives has talked a pretty good game lately about increasing funding for special education. Yet when it comes to actually appropriating the funds, the results so far have been less than satisfactory.

Currently, basic grants for school districts under Part B of the Education for Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) are funded at $4.9 billion. That amount falls far short of what local schools need to meet their mandated obligations to serve all children in special education programs without having to cut other budgetary items.

NSBA has urged Congress to appropriate an additional $2.2 billion this year.

Members of the House Budget Committee apparently saw the need to raise special education funding. They approved a budget resolution for 2001 that called for a $2 billion increase for Part B grants, and they also approved a plan to allow school districts to transfer up to $200 million from other programs to special education, for a total of $2.2 billion.

Rep. William F. Goodling (R-Pa.), chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, also recognizes the special education burdens faced by local districts. The House overwhelmingly passed his proposal, urging Congress to reauthorize a $2 billion increase annually for the next 10 years. However, both that measure, the IDEA Full Funding Act, and the budget resolution are non-binding.

When it comes to real action to provide real dollars, the House Appropriations Committee approved a funding bill May 24 that includes a disappointing $500 million increase for special education for fiscal year 2001. At that rate, it would take 40 years to reach full funding. The full House was expected to begin discussion of the bill June 8 as School Board News went to press.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a funding bill last month that includes a $1.3 billion increase for special education. That's a step in the right direction, but still far short of what is needed.

The $2.2 billion increase proposed by NSBA would only be a down payment on a 10-year plan toward full funding of the federal share.

When IDEA was originally enacted in 1975, Congress made a commitment to pay for 40 percent of the excess costs of its special education mandate. Over the years, the federal appropriation has ranged from 7 percent to 12 percent–it has never come close to the 40 percent commitment.

While children with disabilities present a broad range of costs, in general, the average cost of special education is 2.1 times the cost of regular education. That means the average per-pupil expenditure for a student in special education is $13,860, compared to $6,600 for a student in regular education.

Moreover, the cost of special education is rising every year. For one thing, special education costs frequently involve health-related expenditures and the use of new technologies.

In addition, the 1997 amendments to IDEA and recent court decisions have added new costs for school districts. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court's 1999 ruling in Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Community School District v. Garrett Frey held that school districts must pay the cost for a nurse to monitor students' breathing ventilators.

In addition, public school enrollment is projected to rise over the next decade, and the special education population is likely to rise by at least the same percentage, if not more. In the 1998-99 school year, 5.9 million children age 3 to 21 were served in special education programs, compared to 5.4 million in 1994-95.

NSBA–and local school boards–recognize their obligation to ensure that all children with disabilities will receive a high-quality education so they will have the opportunity to become productive members of their community.

At the same time, school districts face many other costly challenges: to raise academic achievement of all students, equip schools with up-to-date technology, serve the needs of a growing population of poor students, repair and replace aging school buildings, deal with teacher shortages, and manage rising enrollments.

School boards shouldn't have to cut or delay funding for these other priorities in order to meet their obligation to provide special education.

Members of the House recognized this imperative when they voted for substantial funding increases for IDEA in the budget resolution and the IDEA Full Funding Act. Yet, one has to wonder whether those votes were merely undertaken to provide political cover–so members can take credit for supporting large funding increases, while not actually funding IDEA at that level.

The appropriations process for 2001 is not a done deal. As your president, I urge you to contact your representatives and senators and tell them to support an increase of at least $2.2 billion for special education. Let them know you know the difference between an empty promise and a real appropriation.

Reproduced with permission from the June 13, 2000, issue of School Board News. Copyright © 2000, National School Boards Association. Opinions expressed in this newspaper do not necessarily reflect positions of NSBA. This article may be printed out and photocopied for individual or educational use, provided this copyright notice appears on each copy. This article may not be otherwise transmitted or reproduced in print or electronic form without the consent of the Publisher. For more information, call (703) 838-6789.