Sunday, June 27, 2010

By BRIAN WALLACE, Lancaster Intelligencer Journal Staff Writer

The state House has approved a new funding formula for special-education services, but the bill doesn’t include the mandated funding increases hoped for by some school officials and advocates for the disabled.

In fact, the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. [...]]]> Bill alters special-ed funding

Sunday, June 27, 2010

By BRIAN WALLACE, Lancaster Intelligencer Journal Staff Writer

The state House has approved a new funding formula for special-education services, but the bill doesn’t include the mandated funding increases hoped for by some school officials and advocates for the disabled.

In fact, the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Mike Sturla of Lancaster, said state special-ed subsidies are likely to be frozen at 2008-09 levels for the next two years.

What House Bill 704 would do is assure that whatever money is available for special-education services each year goes to the school districts that need it most, Sturla said.

The legislation, approved last week by a 173-25 vote, would replace a 19-year-old funding formula that assumes all school districts have the same percentage of special-education students — 16 percent.

Using that formula, the state awards an additional subsidy — this year it’s about $3,500 per pupil — for each special-education student.

For years, school officials have complained that the formula is inequitable, penalizing districts with larger percentages of special-needs pupils and rewarding those with fewer students.

HB 704 would base the subsidies on the number of special-education students with mild, moderate or severe disabilities enrolled in each district over the previous three years.

It would guarantee that districts receive at least as much funding as they received in the previous year.

And it would require schools to provide documentation each year of how they use state special-education funds.

Currently, districts must file reports only once every three years.

Missing from the legislation is any reference to how much money districts will receive.

An earlier version of the bill called for establishing a base special-education funding level and increasing that by about $32 million per year to fill a $380 million special-ed funding gap identified in a 2007 “costing-out” study.

That would have brought about $1.8 million in additional subsidies to Lancaster County schools in the first year.

But that provision was stripped from the bill, Sturla said, because of the state’s economic woes.

Pennsylvania expects to end the year with a $1.2 billion deficit, and it made no sense to mandate funding increases the state can’t deliver, he said.

Special-education funding was frozen this year at 2008-09 levels, and Sturla predicts no increases for 2010-11 and possibly  2011-12.

Prior to this year’s funding freeze, increases were below the rate of inflation, ranging from 1.3 percent to 2.7 percent.

Meanwhile, special-education costs have skyrocketed.

In Columbia Area School District, expenditures surged by 43.5 percent from 2005-06 to 2009-10, rising from $2.3 million to $3.3 million, said Laura Cowburn, assistant superintendent for business services.

Over that same period, Columbia’s state subsidy for special education grew by just $59,000, or 5.3 percent, she said.

Lawmakers are aware that special-education services are underfunded, Sturla said, and he expects more state money to be pumped into the pipeline once the economy recovers.

“We’re funding such a pitiful amount of the cost of special education that no one with a straight face could say we’re adequately funding it,” he said.

Even without the prospect of an influx of additional money in the short term, school districts like Columbia, with a special-education population ranging from 21 percent to 23 percent, stand to benefit from the bill.

So does School District of Lancaster, where just under 20 percent of students are identified as special-needs pupils.

Urban districts tend to have a higher percentage of students requiring special-education services and are required to provide the services regardless of state funding levels,  said Carole Clancy, SDL’s director of special education and health services.

“As a result, the burden falls upon our taxpayers to fill the gap in funds.”

More equitable funding “will allow us to provide more support to our teachers, which will allow us to provide more support to our students,” she said.

“It definitely provides a sense of optimism in this tight budget time.”

Sturla said he doesn’t expect the state Senate to take up the bill until after the Legislature adopts the 2010-11 budget.

The earliest the new formula could take effect would be the 2011-12 school year.

Here’s the link:

Special education funding formula inequity in action

Here’s an excerpt:

Pennsylvania for too long has stacked the deck against taxpayers in Columbia, Lancaster [...]]]> Jeff Hawkes’ piece in today’s Lancaster Intelligencer Journal made a great case for fixing PA’s broken special education funding system.

Here’s the link:

Special education funding formula inequity in action

Here’s an excerpt:

Pennsylvania for too long has stacked the deck against taxpayers in Columbia, Lancaster and other high-poverty communities where schools are burdened by greater than average numbers of students who require special education.

Here’s the entire article:

Special education funding formula inequity in action

Pennsylvania for too long has stacked the deck against taxpayers in Columbia, Lancaster and other high-poverty communities where schools are burdened by greater than average numbers of students who require special education.

Every year since 1991, the Pennsylvania Legislature has treated all of the state’s school districts the same, funding each as if 16 percent of its students qualify for special education.

The result is a windfall for some districts. Manheim Township, for example, provides special education for 11 percent of its students. Conestoga Valley offers special education to 12 percent. But both receive state funds based on the 16 percent standard.

Meanwhile, financially stressed School District of Lancaster must provide special education to 19 percent of its students.
The challenge for Columbia is even greater. More than 21 percent qualify for more intensive services. Yet the state treats both districts as if their special needs population was only 16 percent.

Hitting taxpayers

Pennsylvania’s unfair distribution of special ed dollars places an extra burden on schools already struggling to meet the needs of students handicapped by poverty. And that means it places a monetary burden on those districts’ taxpayers who get pinched to fill the funding gap. Still, there’s not enough to go around.

Funding “is extremely tight,” said Jennifer Zolenas, Columbia’s special education coordinator. “We’re always having to figure out other ways to support our students because we must serve them in any way they need.”

Carole Clancy, supervising coordinator of special education for Lancaster’s schools, said, “We have students with significant challenges that need services, and we’re required to do more with less.”

One result, Clancy said, is high turnover among her special education teachers because “the work expectations are very challenging” compared to other districts.

It’s the law that children with disabilities receive a “free appropriate education … designed to meet their unique needs.” To which the state Legislature year after year says, “Whatever.”

“The problem with the state’s system for funding special education is that the state has no system for funding special education,” observes Baruch Kintisch of the Philadelphia-based Education Law Center. “There are many districts that … are robbing Peter to pay Paul to provide some semblance of special education programming.”

Promoting dignity

State Rep. Mike Sturla of Lancaster has for years decried the unfairness, and he now is sponsoring a bill that disability advocates say would move Pennsylvania from worst in the country in special education funding to first.

H.B. 704 proposes two major reforms: (1) a formula to match funding with need and (2) accountability measures to assure funds go only to students who truly need services.

The bill also seeks to reduce the number of students who are made eligible for special education as a result of poor academic performance rather than true learning disabilities.

Fairness. Accountability. A needs-based focus.

That’s what Sturla’s bill offers and why it has 65 co-sponsors (none, alas, from the county’s GOP ranks).

In funding special education appropriately, Kintisch said, children have a chance to reach their full potential and become adults able to support themselves and contribute to society.

The alternative is the status quo which dooms seven out of 10 adults with disabilities to unemployment and dependency.

Chute’s piece: Proposed [...]]]>

Rep. Sturla introduces HB 704

A news brief from the AP was picked up in a few papers; Eleanor Chute from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette did a news brief and longer piece; and Brian Wallace at the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal did a longer piece quoting Sturla and Baruch.

Chute’s piece: Proposed bill would change special education funding formula

Wallace’s piece:  Sturla: Boost special education

The brief appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Harrisburg Patriot-News, the Lebanon Daily News and Lehigh Valley Live – which is the Web site for the Easton Express Times and several other papers in that area.