Should the State Pay the Costs of Special Education?

On February 16, 2012 a bill was introduced in the assembly by Herb Conaway, Jr. from the 7^th District (Burlington) advancing the notion that the burden of Special Education costs should be shifted to the State in order to provide property tax relief for residents.

As reported by the bill’s sponsor, “The increasing number of students and the increasing costs of special education for those students have created a serious shortfall in many school district budgets, which in turn leads to a necessary increase in local property taxes.”

“In addition, some small districts are now required to pay nearly $200,000 per pupil for out-of-State special education placements.”

Under federal and State mandates, all classification and program decisions made by the special education staff must be fully funded regardless of other budget priorities or the availability of resources in the school district.  Special Education continues to claim a larger percentage of the overall school budget each year.

This proposed amendment to the Constitution provides that in order to provide property tax relief, the State would pay all costs of special education for children who are eligible for programs and services which are mandated by State or federal statutes or regulations and further provides that the eligibility of a child for a special education program or service would be determined by the State.

At the present time, State and federal aid is provided for part of the costs of special education for children who are classified by a school district as eligible for a program or service, and the district is responsible for the balance of the costs.

The solution however; is obfuscated by the amendment’s shifting of the burden from property tax to income tax or in other words from local expense to state expense.  The underlying issue remains unchecked:  Special education costs continue to spiral out of control with no cap in sight.

 

strategies for cost containment employed by school district officials including Special Ed. Directors, Superintendents and Business Administrators, are often attenuated by the due process appeals

While the bill claims authority in determining eligibility, I contend the real problem at present is acceptance of program and continuous push by parents and advocacy groups for increased services beyond the IEP’s (individual education plan) prepared by teams of highly qualified child study specialists. 

 

Furthermore, strategies for cost containment employed by school district officials including Special Ed. Directors, Superintendents and Business Administrators, are often attenuated by the due process appeals and more often than not rendered ineffective by ALJ’s (Administrative Law Judge) in rulings favoring the petitioner.

 

The real issue behind the high costs associated with Special Education remains private school increases absent any cap structure compared to public schools along with the inability to enforce IEP’s at the district level.  While every IEP is constructed to adhere to the tenants of providing a ‘Free and Appropriate Education’ or FAPE in the ‘Least Restrictive Environment’ or LRE, the only way costs will be contained or “Rolled Back” is to provide real authority through legislation shifting the burden of proof back to the petitioner or in most cases the parent.

In conclusion, while the amendment attempts to provide relief in the form of reduced property taxes, it does little combat or address the actual cause.