Special Education Funding for Schools a Delicate Balancing Act (NY)

February 15, 2011

There are few issues that generate more heat than spending on public education. Now more than ever, schools are faced with decreased state and federal aid and skyrocketing costs of state mandates, mostly to pay for staff benefits and pensions.

Special education services also make up a significant chunk of school district budgets. The per pupil cost of educating a child with special needs can be up to three times as much as typical per pupil costs.

Schools must meet certain standards for educating special needs students under the federal Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The problem, however, is that federal funding to meet these requirements is nowhere near the levels school districts need, so the state and, ultimately, taxpayers bear the burden of these costs.

Parents and advocates of students with disabilities welcomed President Obama’s proposed allocation of $11.3 billion in federal funds to schools to carry out IDEA mandates. But they also worry that up to half of that money can be redirected to a school’s general budget costs, according to IDEA MoneyWatch.   

All of this puts school districts and parents, who don’t want to see any cuts in special education services, in a difficult position. In December, the New York State Board of Regents approved a special education cost-containment proposal from the state Department of Education that allows for some changes in special education services.

There are two provisions that worry parents the most. One would allow a school to increase the maximum number of special education students in an integrated class from 12 to 14, under certain circumstances.

T he other provision repeals the requirement that a school provide a minimum of two 30-minute language or speech therapy session a week. Instead, the “frequency, duration and location of each service shall be in the IEP [individual education plan], based on the individual student’s need for the service,” according to the amended rules.

Many parents believe these amendments represent a “slippery slope” that will lead to more changes in services.

Patricia Phelan, an attorney from South Orangeburg who has a daughter with autism, understands parents’ fears. “If this is going to be the beginning of the cutting back of services, we don’t want that,” she said.

But Phelan, who represents parents in disputes with school districts, sees both sides of the issue and says these amendments don’t represent a sweeping overhaul of the system. “I don’t want there to be a knee-jerk reaction or instinctive panic,” she said.

It is, however, a delicate balance. It’s critical, she said, that the new provisions do not become the norm.

“They should only be used in exceptional circumstances,” Phelan said. “What everything comes back to is making sure individual students’ needs can be met.”