Fw: What's Fueling the Redirection of Special Education Funds

[Guest guest]

----- Forwarded Message ----From: ACE Chair Shapiro acechair@...---------- Forwarded message ----------Date: Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:04 PMSubject: What's Fueling the Redirection of Special Education FundsTo: acechair@...What's Fueling the Redirection of Special Education FundsAuthor(s): CohenPublished: January 12, 2010Last week, the Wall Street Journal published an article highlightingthe large number of school districts that will opt to take advantageof an Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provisionthat allows them to reduce state and local special education spendingwhen their federal funding under the law has increased from the yearbefore. This provision is particularly relevant in 2010 becausesupplemental IDEA funding through the American Recovery andReinvestment Act has dramatically increased the funding each districtwill receive. The article, unfortunately, does not fully discuss whyso many districts are suddenly able to utilize this provision. Itturns out that many states, in an attempt to make more districtseligible for the funding reduction provision, loosened therequirements districts must meet to qualify.Essentially, the provision allows school districts that meet certainrequirements – like those outlined in state academic performance plans- to reduce state and local spending on special education services byhalf of the district’s

increase in federal IDEA funds. For example, ifa district received $500,000 in federal funds under IDEA in 2009 and$700,000 in 2010, it could lower its state and local spending onspecial education by $100,000 (half of the difference between the 2010and 2009 IDEA allocation) and use that money on general educationpurposes (i.e. non-special education purposes). For districts in greatfiscal hardship, this provision could mean keeping a much needed mathteacher or maintaining five day bus services.In typical years, few school districts opt to take advantage of thisIDEA provision for a couple of reasons. Primarily, only a small numberof districts are eligible for the provision because few are able tomeet the state-defined student achievement requirements. Even fordistricts that do qualify, the increase they receive in IDEA fundsfrom year to year is rarely large enough to justify opting into

thefunding reduction provision. A doubling of IDEA funding under theAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, however, changes thatcalculation.This year a significant number of districts reported their intent touse this IDEA provision – 44 percent of districts according to areport by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The report findsthat several states, including Arizona, Michigan, and Ohio loweredtheir eligibility requirements to allow more districts to takeadvantage of the IDEA provision. These states all saw dramaticincreases in the percent of districts eligible for the provision. Infact, under the new criteria, 99 percent of Ohio districts areconsidered eligible for the provision in 2010, compared to only 8percent in 2009.Other states, including California and Illinois, increased the minimumnumber of special education students a district must have before it

isrequired to report student achievement for that sub-group. As aresult, districts with few special education students do not have toinclude them in accountability efforts at all, making it easier toqualify for the IDEA funding reduction provision. The number ofdistricts eligible for the provision in both of these states increasedby 38 percent or more from 2009 to 2010.While IDEA funding provision may be a lifeline for school districtstoday, it could hurt the quality of special education servicesprovided in these districts in the future. A separate IDEA rule calledmaintenance of effort requires districts to maintain the previousyear’s level of local spending on special education to receive federalIDEA funds. Districts can legally skirt this rule when they opt intothe IDEA provision and lower state and local spending by 50 percent ofthe increase in IDEA funding in 2010. These states will only

berequired to maintain the lowered level of local spending to receivetheir 2011 IDEA allocation.In some districts, this means a difference of millions of dollars forspecial education services going forward, an issue many stakeholdersare bemoaning. But these stakeholders should recognize that thedistricts are not the only ones to be held accountable for thispotential permanent drop in state and local special educationspending. The states, which have consciously lowered criteria for theprovision or changed other requirements, are just as responsible.-- ACE Chairwww.freewebs.com/acechair