This week Action United, Juntos and Youth United for Change joined the cause.

Thanks to all of the groups [...]]]> We’ve added three new groups to the already broad, statewide coalition of organizations supporting special education funding and accountability reform.

This week Action United, Juntos and Youth United for Change joined the cause.

Thanks to all of the groups for their efforts on this important legislation.

The legislation — which will have a new bill number in the coming weeks — addresses the current problems with the state systems for funding and accountability of special education for students with disabilities. The Commonwealth benefits when all students are educated and [...]]]> 1. What is the purpose and history of special education funding and accountability reform?

The legislation — which will have a new bill number in the coming weeks — addresses the current problems with the state systems for funding and accountability of special education for students with disabilities. The Commonwealth benefits when all students are educated and prepared for meaningful employment, higher education, and self-sufficiency.

The legislation does the following:

o Provide an effective formula to distribute state funding for special education, without creating compulsory annual targets or limiting the discretion of the General Assembly;

o Increase the accuracy of the special education formula by using three weights;

o Establish a transparent process to set the final formula weights through a legislative commission and subsequent regulation;

o Maintain spending at 2008-09 levels for 2010-11 if insufficient funds are appropriated;

o Streamline and strengthen school district accountability without imposing excess bureaucracy, applied when sufficient funds are appropriated in future years; and

o Maintain the Contingency Fund and make it more accountable and transparent.

2. Why is this the right time for fixing the state’s special education funding and accountability system?

First, most districts currently do not have the basic resources needed to provide a quality education to children with disabilities. Since 2003, the annual increase in state funding for special education has averaged only 1.7% per year. This has not kept pace with overall inflation (over 3% growth per year), with medical sector inflation (nearly 10% growth per year), or with increased numbers of Pennsylvania students with disabilities (2.6% growth per year).

Second, if we do not fix the system, the upward pressures on local property taxes will continue. It costs more to effectively educate children with disabilities than other students. Students have a legal right to receive quality special education services and programs from their schools (and are more successful when they receive it). Districts must help to meet these needs.

Third, the basic education reforms adopted in 2008 did not include special education. The basic education formula contains variables for students in poverty, English language learners, and district size, but not for special education.

Fourth, school districts will better invest federal stimulus dollars for special education and for basic education if they can accurately anticipate the state systems for special education funding and accountability in future years. The state funding and accountability systems for special education are broken and need repair.

3. How will the proposed legislation calculate and distribute state funding for special education?

The formula remains an independent line item in the state budget, separate from basic education. The formula acknowledges that the General Assembly will use its discretion to decide for each year about the level of state funding for special education and the amount of any change in funding.

The formula distributes any increased funding, determined by the appropriations decisions of the General Assembly, by taking into consideration a number of factors reflecting the unique circumstances of each school district. Factors include the base cost to educate all students, a different weight for each of three cost categories for students with disabilities, and districtspecific variables for student enrollment, actual spending, poverty, tax effort, and cost of living.

Three-year averages are used for many variables, ensuring stable funding levels for districts.

The distribution formula will include three multipliers and weights to better match real student costs, rather than a single variable, a single student count, and a single weight (1.3). Using three “cost categories” will allow the formula to more accurately distribute resources and avoid over-identification.

An actual student count will be used in the highest cost category to ensure distribution accuracy. A data-based statewide percentage of eligible students will be used in the two lower cost categories to balance the needs for providing accuracy and avoiding over-identification. This percentage will be applied to the actual total enrollment of all students in each district for the lowest cost category and to the actual number of students receiving special education for the middle cost category.

The final form of the variables in the formula will be determined by a legislative commission and implemented by subsequent regulations. The commission will use national accounting standards, share information, consult with stakeholders, work with PDE’s Task Force and the Advisory Panel, hold at least three regional public hearings, and receive overall support as needed from PDE. After the commission evaluates and develops the final variables in this open and transparent manner, the State Board of Education will enact the commission’s decisions into regulation.

The formula has been changed from earlier versions, so that it no longer includes a performance variable that pays districts additional funding for meeting both inclusion and achievement targets. Instead, a modest grant program will be established to allow school districts to seek recognition and support for the additional costs of implementing best practices for inclusion and achievement. Nothing in the bill, including the grant program, will change IDEA law or the authority of IEP teams for the placement of students.

4. What are the costs of these reforms?

State funding will remain at 2008-09 levels for 2011-12 if insufficient funds are appropriated.

Since 2003, the annual increase in state funding for special education has averaged only 1.7% per year. See #2 above for details showing that special education funding has fallen far behind inflation and other cost drivers.

The bill does not create compulsory annual state spending targets. It is assumed, however, that any increased funding in the future would provide a minimum increase for all districts without state funding cuts. The original terms of the bill, deleted in the current version, would have phased in about $36 million per year in additional state funding, with local districts also picking up their share.

5. How does the proposed legislation affect the Contingency Fund?

The Contingency Fund for extraordinarily costly students is maintained at current levels (one percent of the total special education appropriation) and with current standards for issuing the grants through PDE. The Fund is made more accountable with PDE reports to the General Assembly. The Fund is necessary because no formula can anticipate the extraordinary expenses needed for the most costly students with disabilities.

6. How does the proposed legislation provide accountability for special education?

The accountability system is streamlined and strengthened by incorporating the existing requirement for districts to implement three-year special education plans. The bill has been revised to ensure that accountability will be accomplished without imposing excess bureaucracy on school districts, while still addressing the academic and developmental challenges for eligible students. The district plans will be written in a manner that is easier for parents to understand and shall be made available to the public. PDE will more closely review the plans, will provide technical assistance to improve the plans, and will reject plans that do not meet state and federal standards. PDE will monitor plan implementation to ensure progress pursuant to federal performance indicators and shall identify districts failing to adequately implement their plans. PDE must withhold partial funding when district plans are rejected or when districts are not implementing their plans. PSBA and PSEA reviewed and approved the accountability provisions prior to the votes in the House Education Committee.

To cut costs over time, school district plans must describe programs and strategies targeting K-3 early intervention and also policies to ensure that students who no longer qualify for special education services are transitioned out. This section takes effect when funding is appropriated.

Districts will utilize new state funding, as appropriated, to improve programs and supports and other best practices that benefit students with disabilities, such as meeting state and federal performance indicators and providing curricula adaptation, co-teaching, assistive technology, school-wide positive behavior supports, supplementary aids and services, professional development, reading specialist services and supports, reducing caseloads for special education teachers and related services personnel, and/or placing eligible students in regular classrooms with supports in accordance with their IEP. School districts retain discretion to make the best investments.

7. What protections are needed to guard against over-identification of students for special education?

First, over-identification has not been a problem for many years in Pennsylvania. Since school districts pay for the majority of special education costs, there is no financial incentive to place students into special education. The proposed legislation could increase the state share of funding, but districts will still carry a larger share.

Second, the proposed legislation contains strict protections against over-identification:

(i) The bill supports current state and federal law prohibiting over-identification.
(ii) The bill requires the state to monitor special education data, to issue public reports, and to conduct a review if any district has an excessive increase in its enrollment numbers.
(iii) The formula provides funding based three cost categories and statewide percentages for two of the categories, thus minimizing the potential for overidentifying students.
(iv) The bill strengthens the current accountability system for special education, ensuring that districts invest new funding in effective programs with results for students and schools.

8. What is the background and current system for special education funding in Pennsylvania?

Prior to 1991-92, the state reimbursed school districts for 100% of the “excess costs” of special education above the average cost per student for basic education. After 1991-92, the state switched to a Census System, which was used through 2008-09. The Census System distributed a capped amount of annual state spending for special education based on relative student population in each district. In 2008-09, the state simply assumed that 16% of all students in each district need special education services. Actual student counts in nearly all districts are significantly higher or lower than this 16% assumption. Since 2008-09, the state has not utilized a formula but has maintained the same level of special education funding for each school district.

9. What is the current level of special education funding?

Pennsylvania’s state share of funding for special education is low. Local school districts pay most of the cost. This puts pressure on local property taxes in many communities. In recent years, state funding for special education has fallen behind state funding for basic education, receiving much smaller annual increases.

Special Education Expenditures in PA (2007‐08): Local – $1.5 billion (54%); State – $926 million (32%); Federal – $400 million (14%); Total – $2.8 billion.
Average annual increase in the last 6 state budgets: Special Education – 1.75%; Basic Education – 4.66%.

10. What is special education?

Special education is not a “place” for receiving instruction, but is a set of supports to help students with disabilities learn in the general curriculum according to their needs. Regular education teachers, with training, can usually meet these needs in regular classrooms with accommodations, supports, and services. These additional supports are often quite costly.

11. How are students with disabilities doing in Pennsylvania public schools?

Over 270,000 students receive special education services. The drop-out rate for students with disabilities is more than ten times higher than for other students. Teacher quality and academic achievement are much lower for students with disabilities. National data show that the unemployment rate of adults with disabilities exceeds 70 percent, partly due to a lack of quality education. These outcomes are not inevitable, as students with disabilities in wealthier Pennsylvania school districts have much better outcomes.

12. Why does special education cost more than basic education?

Emotional, intellectual, or physical disabilities can directly impact a child’s capacity to achieve key learning goals and milestones in the same manner as other students. This requires additional time, equipment and technology, materials, personnel, and effort. Costs have increased over the years as science has progressed, identification and treatment have improved, and shortages of trained professionals have developed.

Summary of Senate Bill 1115 and House Bill 704
as Introduced in 2011 by Senator Browne and Representative O’Neill

CONTACT: Education Law Center
Baruch Kintisch, 215-238-6970 x 320
Sandy [...]]]> Download a .pdf of the Summary.

Summary of Senate Bill 1115 and House Bill 704
as Introduced in 2011 by Senator Browne and Representative O’Neill

CONTACT: Education Law Center
Baruch Kintisch, 215-238-6970 x 320
Sandy Zelno, 412-255-6414

PURPOSE –  The legislation addresses the current problems with the state systems for funding and accountability of special education for students with disabilities. The Commonwealth benefits when all students are educated and prepared for meaningful employment, higher education, and self-sufficiency. Reforms are required at this time because most school districts do not have the basic resources needed to provide a quality education with supports and services for children with disabilities. The state funding and accountability systems for special education are broken and need repair.

SUMMARY –  The legislation is being introduced in the same form as adopted by the House in 2010, making the following improvements:

o Provide an effective formula to distribute state funding for special education, without creating compulsory annual targets or limiting the discretion of the General Assembly;

o Increase the accuracy of the special education formula by using three weights;

o Establish a transparent process to set the final formula weights through a legislative commission and subsequent regulation;

o Maintain spending at 2008-09 levels for 2011-12 if insufficient funds are appropriated;

o Streamline and strengthen school district accountability without imposing excess bureaucracy, applied when sufficient funds are appropriated in future years; and

o Maintain the Contingency Fund and make it more accountable and transparent.

DETAILS –

(1) The formula for distributing state funding for special education will include:

• The formula remains an independent line item in the state budget, separate from basic education. The basic education reforms adopted in 2008 did not include special education.

• The formula acknowledges that the General Assembly will use its discretion to decide for each year about the level of state funding for special education and the amount of any change in funding.

• The formula distributes any increased funding, determined by the appropriations decisions of the General Assembly, by taking into consideration a number of factors reflecting the unique circumstances of each school district. Factors in the distribution formula include the base cost to educate all students, a different weight for each of three cost categories for students with disabilities, and district-specific variables for student enrollment, actual spending, poverty, tax effort, and cost of living. Three-year averages are used for many variables, ensuring stable funding levels for districts.

• Overall, the formula will distribute special education funding with the goal of helping all students to meet state academic standards. Students with disabilities have higher costs than other students just to provide the basic materials, personnel, services, equipment, technology, and time and effort required to learn.

• Districts will utilize new state funding to improve programs and supports and other best practices that benefit students with disabilities, such as meeting state and federal performance indicators and providing curricula adaptation, co-teaching, assistive technology, school-wide positive behavior supports, supplementary aids and services, professional development, reading specialist services and supports, reducing caseloads for special education teachers and related services personnel, and/or placing eligible students in regular classrooms with supports in accordance with their IEP. School districts retain discretion to make the best investments.

• The bill does not create compulsory annual state spending targets. It is assumed, however, that any increased funding in the future would provide a minimum increase for all districts without state funding cuts. The original terms of the bill, deleted in the current version, would have phased in about $36 million per year in additional state funding, with local districts also picking up their share.

• State funding will remain at 2008-09 levels for 2011-12 if insufficient funds are appropriated. Since 2003, the annual increase in state funding for special education has averaged only 1.7% per year. This has not kept pace with overall inflation (over 3% growth per year), with medical sector inflation (nearly 10% growth per year), or with increased numbers of Pennsylvania students with disabilities (2.6% growth per year).

• The distribution formula will include three multipliers and weights to better match real student costs, rather than a single variable, a single student count, and a single weight (1.3). Using three “cost categories” will allow the formula to more accurately distribute resources and avoid over-identification. The final definitions for the categories and the weights will be determined through a legislative commission and then placed into regulation.

• An actual student count will be used in the highest cost category to ensure distribution accuracy. A data-based statewide percentage of eligible students will be used in the two lower cost categories to balance the needs for providing accuracy and avoiding over-identification. This percentage will be applied to the actual total enrollment of all students in each district for the lowest cost category and to the actual number of students receiving special education for the middle cost category.

• The final form of the variables in the formula will be determined by a legislative commission and implemented by subsequent regulations. The commission will use national accounting standards, share information, consult with stakeholders, work with PDE’s Task Force and the Advisory Panel, hold at least three regional public hearings, and receive overall support as needed from PDE. After the commission evaluates and develops the final variables in this open and transparent manner, the State Board of Education will enact the commission’s decisions into regulation.

• The formula has been changed from earlier versions, so that it no longer includes a performance variable that pays districts additional funding for meeting both inclusion and achievement targets. Instead, a modest grant program will be established to allow school districts to seek recognition and support for the additional costs of implementing best practices for inclusion and achievement. Nothing in the bill, including the grant program, will change IDEA law or the authority of IEP teams for the placement of students.

(2) The Contingency Fund for extraordinarily costly students is maintained at current levels (one percent of the total special education appropriation) and with current standards for issuing the grants through PDE. The Fund is made more accountable with PDE reports to the General Assembly. The Fund is necessary because no formula can anticipate the extraordinary expenses needed for the most costly students with disabilities.

(3) The accountability system is streamlined and strengthened by incorporating the existing requirement for districts to implement three-year special education plans. The bill has been revised to ensure that accountability will be accomplished without imposing excess bureaucracy on school districts, while still addressing the academic and developmental challenges for eligible students. The district plans will be written in a manner that is easier for parents to understand and shall be made available to the public. PDE will more closely review the plans, will provide technical assistance to improve the plans, and will reject plans that do not meet state and federal standards. PDE will monitor plan implementation to ensure progress pursuant to federal performance indicators and shall identify districts failing to adequately implement their plans. PDE must withhold partial funding when district plans are rejected or when districts are not implementing their plans. PSBA and PSEA reviewed and approved the accountability provisions prior to the votes in the House Education Committee. To cut costs over time, school district plans must describe programs and strategies targeting K-3 early intervention and also policies to ensure that students who no longer qualify for special education services are transitioned out. This section takes effect when funding is appropriated.

(4) To further prevent over-identification – in addition to using to the three-variable formula and the strengthened accountability system – PDE will directly monitor and report on identification rates in districts, conduct a thorough review of districts increasing the ratio of eligible students to all students more than 10% in one year or 5% per year over any five-year period, and shall withhold partial funding from districts with unjustified increases.

(5) PDE must provide public notice of the decisions and actions it takes pursuant to this law, as well as file an annual special education report with the General Assembly.

HISTORY – In the 2010-11 session, the special education reforms were considered as House Bill 704 and Senate Bill 940. The House gave its final approval to the bill on June 23, 2010 by a vote of 173 to 25.

Thanks to all of the supporters who have worked hard on this effort to improve Pennsylvania’s special education funding system.

WHO
All students, parents, advocates, and concerned citizens from ALL parts of Pennsylvania. (Especially, but not only folks in Chester and Delaware Counties.)

WHEN
Right now. [...]]]> WHAT
Contact state Senator Dominic Pileggi, Majority Leader, and ask him to allow a vote on House Bill 704 for special education funding and accountability reforms.

WHO
All students, parents, advocates, and concerned citizens from ALL parts of Pennsylvania. (Especially, but not only folks in Chester and Delaware Counties.)

WHEN
Right now. The official legislative session will end in a couple of weeks, so we could run out of time for this year if things are delayed.

HOW
Call Senator Pileggi’s Harrisburg office at (717) 787-4712 and leave a detailed message. Also, send him a polite and personal e-mail to dpileggi@pasen.gov.

WHY
On September 21 the Senate Education Committee held a hearing about HB 704. The Committee indicated that they will only vote for HB 704 if Senator Pileggi, as the Senate Majority Leader, first gives his approval for a vote both in Committee and on the Senate floor. We have met with most senators and know that we can win these votes if Senator Pileggi allows them to happen during the next couple of weeks.

A Summary of HB 704 is linked in the right margin. Watch our video from the 21st and hear what supporters are saying.

TALKING POINTS

These talking points will work for Senator Pileggi (contact him first even if you live outside Chester or Delaware Counties) or any other state senator.

• Please support House Bill 704 in the Senate Education Committee and on the Senate floor. HB 704 deserves your support and a vote before the end of the year.
• I am asking you to support reform of the state funding and accountability system for special education.
• HB 704 has 66 bipartisan cosponsors. It was approved 173-25 by the full House of Representatives in June.
• The current funding system is broken, is unfair, and does not provide enough resources for special education in the right places. It sets the number of students eligible for state funding for special education at 16% regardless of whether the district has fewer or more students receiving special education. It also does not focus the funding on strategies that have a track record for improving student performance.
• The school districts you represent need additional resources and support from the state, and must be held accountable for results.
• I have personal experience with how this broken system hurts children with disabilities and all students. (Describe your experience.)
• Thank you for supporting this important issue and voting for HB 704.

10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 21 in Room 8, East Wing, Capitol Building in Harrisburg.

Representative Sturla (our lead sponsor) will testify and present the bill to the Committee for consideration.

The East Wing [...]]]> The Senate Education Committee will meet and discuss our legislation for special education funding and accountability reforms, HB 704, at –

10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 21 in Room 8, East Wing, Capitol Building in Harrisburg.

Representative Sturla (our lead sponsor) will testify and present the bill to the Committee for consideration.

The East Wing is directly behind the main Capitol building, down an escalator and to the right.

PLEASE ATTEND THIS HEARING. BRING OTHERS WITH YOU. This is our one big chance in the Senate before the end of the year.

Consider scheduling a meeting or two with state senators from your area, after the hearing on Tuesday. Staff for your senator(s) are likely to be available, even on short notice.

The Senate Education Committee will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, September 21, 2010 on House Bill 704. The hearing will take place in Room 8, East Wing, Capitol Building. We’re encouraging people to attend and show their support.

House Bill 704 is [...]]]> ATTENTION: Disability Advocates, Parents, and Concerned Citizens

The Senate Education Committee will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, September 21, 2010 on House Bill 704. The hearing will take place in Room 8, East Wing, Capitol Building. We’re encouraging people to attend and show their support.

House Bill 704 is our legislation for special education funding and accountability reforms. The bill makes important improvements to benefit the education of children with disabilities.

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives approved HB 704 in June by an overwhelming vote of 173 to 25.  The bill is now in the Senate. At the hearing, Representative Sturla (our lead sponsor) will testify and present the bill to the Committee for consideration.  It’s important we show our strength at this hearing.

For more information about attending the hearing contact the Education Law Center’s Baruch Kintisch or Sandy Zelno.

PA_students_with_disabilities_deserve_better

OP-ED: Pa. students with disabilities deserve better

Updated: 07/15/2010 01:12:15 PM EDT

There’s been a lot written recently about a piece of legislation that would create new state laws for special education funding [...]]]> The York Dispatch ran an op-ed from the Education Law Center today, explaining the hold harmless provision of House Bill 704:

PA_students_with_disabilities_deserve_better

OP-ED: Pa. students with disabilities deserve better

Updated: 07/15/2010 01:12:15 PM EDT

There’s been a lot written recently about a piece of legislation that would create new state laws for special education funding and accountability.

Let’s be clear: The reforms in House Bill 704 are needed because special education was left out when the General Assembly enacted basic education reforms in 2008. Students with disabilities should not be left out of these important reforms and deserve better. These children have waited long enough for the state to pay attention to their needs. The Senate should act before the end of the year to consider and approve HB 704.

Under HB 704, state funding for special education will be distributed based on the actual needs of students and schools. Schools will be held accountable for effectively investing these resources, without creating excessive bureaucracy or paperwork requirements. HB 704 also revises the reforms made for basic education to better match the needs of the special education system and to reflect the lessons learned since 2008. These are huge steps for improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities.

But what does it mean?

For the last two years, no formula was used to distribute special education funding to Pennsylvania’s public schools — school districts received the same funding they received the prior year, regardless of any change in the number of students with disabilities or other cost factors in the schools. The formula used for the past 16 years — from 1992 to 2008 — mistakenly assumed that 16 percent of all students in each district need special education.

Many districts have a percentage that is higher than this. For example, York City, Hanover Public and West Shore school districts report more than 18 percent of their students require special education services.

The new formula established under HB 704 will solve this problem in a fair manner. State funding will be distributed based on an objective formula that takes into consideration actual student counts, local cost and tax factors, and variations in educational expenses for students with disabilities who need different intensities of services and supports.

But this isn’t just about money. It’s also about strengthening the accountability system to provide confidence to taxpayers that education investments for students with disabilities are being made based on research, best practices, careful planning and transparent reporting.

Despite these huge improvements proposed in HB 704, some have criticized the bill for also containing a requirement that no school districts will receive a cut in funding.

One reason for including this requirement is that no bill — even very good ideas like HB 704 — can receive approval in the General Assembly if it cuts funding for some while increasing funding for others. Redistributing the wealth isn’t popular in the Capitol.

This is unfortunate, but it’s political reality. On balance it makes sense for the General Assembly to approve HB 704, even with the hold harmless provision. Here are four reasons why:

First, the state contributes only 32 percent of total spending for special education. The federal government pays only 14 percent. Nearly all schools need more special education funding to relieve local tax pressures, although some need a lot more than others.

Second, since 2003 the annual increase in state funding for special education has averaged only 1.7 percent per year. This has not kept pace with overall inflation (more than 3 percent growth per year), with medical sector inflation (nearly 10 percent growth per year), or with increased numbers of Pennsylvania students with disabilities (2.6 percent growth per year).

Third, the number of students is just one factor in the funding system under HB 704. Some districts with fewer students but higher poverty and higher property taxes may actually need and receive slightly more funding under the legislation.

Fourth, the state funding system for special education has been broken for so long that the current levels received by each district bear no relationship to the needs of the students in that district. The most important priority is to fix the system. State officials can monitor the new system over time and adjust the distribution formula to better match local needs.

Ultimately, the new formula and accountability system in HB 704 looks ahead, not back. No formula by itself can solve all of the problems faced by school districts and their students with disabilities.

For example, strong advocacy will be needed in future years to encourage the General Assembly to match annual funding levels with changes in the number of students needing special education and with the rising cost of providing the services and supports needed to help them succeed in school.

Equally strong advocacy will be needed to ensure that scarce state resources are not siphoned off every year to provide undeserved increases to school districts with falling special education costs. We hope that many legislators will oppose unjustified funding increases in the future, even if they continue to demand no cuts.

The funding and accountability reforms in HB 704 will make these protections and improvements more likely over the long run.

Our schools can do much better and our children deserve better. Everyone in Pennsylvania benefits when students with disabilities receive an education preparing them for meaningful employment, higher education and self-sufficiency.

– Baruch Kintisch is the director of policy advocacy for the Education Law Center.

David Mekeel: Changes to special ed-funding needed

For two decades, public school districts have received state funding for special education the same way.

State Rep. P. Michael Sturla hopes to change that.

The Lancaster County Democrat has authored a bill that would fundamentally [...]]]> A good column on HB 704 from the Reading Eagle‘s David Mekeel:

David Mekeel: Changes to special ed-funding needed

For two decades, public school districts have received state funding for special education the same way.

State Rep. P. Michael Sturla hopes to change that.

The Lancaster County Democrat has authored a bill that would fundamentally change special-education funding – eventually.

“The system has basically been flawed since it was changed 20 years ago,” Sturla said. “It makes the incorrect assumption that 16 percent of all students across the board have special needs.”

Right now, all 500 school districts are given special-education funding based on 16 percent of their student population. But while 16 percent of students in the state are in special education, Sturla said, the distribution of those students isn’t uniform from district to district. Passed by the House about two weeks ago, House Bill 704 would instead divvy up special education funds on more of a case-by-case basis.

The main change would be that districts would get funding based on the actual number of special-education students in the district, not simply a generalized 16 percent.

“The funding would reflect the actual numbers and the needs of an individual school district,” Sturla said.

The new system also would financially reward districts for successfully showing that students with moderate needs have improved enough to no longer need services.

Worried that such incentives could lead to districts playing the system, the bill calls for penalties for districts that mainstream students and can’t show that the students no longer need services, Sturla said.

While special-education funding has been a long-fought battle for Sturla – he’s been working on it for 15 years – he knows that his new bill isn’t a quick fix. To get it through the House, he said, the bill had to stipulate that the new funding formula would apply only to new money.

“It will probably take 10 years for everything to balance out,” he said.

And since special-education funding hasn’t gone up in the past few years, and likely won’t for the next year or two, it could be awhile until the bill’s impact is felt.

And, Sturla added, the state Senate doesn’t seem to be in a rush to act on the bill because no new special-education money is on the horizon. But Sturla says now is the time to act, so that when new money is available, a fair, sensible system is in place.

Originally Published: 7/9/2010

Changes to special ed funding needed

Contact David Mekeel: 610-371-5014 or dmekeel@readingeagle.com.

State funding for special education was not cut for 2010-11. Every school district will get the same state funding it received in 2008-09 and 2009-10. Your advocacy on House Bill 704 deserves credit for protecting [...]]]> The state budget was finalized on time, much faster than anyone expected. Click here to read ELC’s budget analysis.

State funding for special education was not cut for 2010-11. Every school district will get the same state funding it received in 2008-09 and 2009-10. Your advocacy on House Bill 704 deserves credit for protecting this line item in the budget, which avoided the cuts absorbed by most other programs. Of course, you are well aware that the high inflation rate for many special education services and programs threatens the needs of children even with “flat” funding.

The quick resolution of the budget means that there was not enough time for the sponsors of House Bill 704 to negotiate with the Senate about approving the special education reforms. We will work over the summer so that the Senate can promptly hold hearings and vote on HB 704 in September.

Thank you for hanging in there for a couple of extra months. With your help, we should see our legislation signed into law while the flowers are still blooming in September and before the leaves start falling from the trees.

Check back here for updates during July and August. Click on the links in the right margin to read the summary of the changes made in HB 704 as the House voted to approve the bill in June.

Let us know what else we can do to support your work.