Closing the Special Education Gap is Not All That Hard

For decades now, Minnesota has had a special education deficit, which politicians and the Minnesota Department of Education slyly call the "special education cross subsidy."   Here is the MDE's graphical presentation of that deficit, which represents the comparison of total special education expenditures to the total of special education revenues, state and federal.   We call it the cross subsidy, because both state and federal law basically prohibit a district from cutting expenditures to resolve the deficit, but instead, require districts to cannibalize funds from other necessary programs to cover the mandate deficit.


The entire education community, insiders and outsiders, know that this practice, of shifting the cost of special education to other students is an abomination.  There is no rational basis for doing business this ways: It harms our most vulnerable students and it tends to impact most negatively the school districts who can least afford to absorb it.   It is, in a word, unconstitutional, and everyone knows it.

However it has become accepted by virtually the entire education community, insiders and outsiders, that it is, of course, absolutely unrealistic and certainly impossible, to expect, or even ask, the legislature to fully fund this mandated expenditure.  Where would $750 million per year come from?  It would foolish even to ask, we are told.

Yet, year after year, as we enter the biennial odd numbered budgeting year, the State's Management and Budget Office report that we have a budget surplus, and immediately, legislators debate how much of that surplus should be rebated in the form of a tax cut to "give the taxpayer's their money back."  In February of 2016, Minnesota Public Radio reported budget projections of about $1 billion.  That's a one billion dollar surplus with a 1.5 billion dollar biennial special education budget deficit.    In February of 2017 the forecast budget surplus from Management and Budget was $1.6 billion. Flush with cash, the legislature and Governor Dayton compromised at the end of the 2017 session on a $600 million tax cut, but promised to study how the special education deficit might be closed.

Study, in this context, means really, postpone, or procrastinate, or ignore.   Year after year, we pretend that if we could just think things through, we might come up with a solution to narrow the special education deficit, but announce other plans for the surplus that is staring us in the face.  

Sooner or later, and hopefully sooner, an ambitious plaintiff is going to sue the state to require full funding of the special education mandate.   When that happens, the state is most certainly going to respond by telling the court that $750 million per year is impossibly beyond reach.  But closing the gap is not going to be all that hard.  We simply need to stop pretending that we have a surplus when special education is underfunded, and allocate that surplus money to cover that unfunded mandate. 

MASBO, the Minnesota school business officer's legislative platform states: “It is critical that the State continue to stabilize funding and appropriately recognize education as a priority, given its constitutional obligations." The Association of Metropolitan School Districts (AMSD) states in its platform: “Minnesota’s education funding system does not provide adequate, equitable or reliable resources for our schools. important work remains if we are to achieve the “thorough and efficient” education funding system envisioned in the State Constitution"  SEE, (Schools for Equity in Education) states in its platform: "Quality public education –the engine that drives Minnesota’s economic prosperity-is threatened by years of neglect at the state level …It is crucial that this shortfall in state funding for special education be funded.”

The Minnesota Association of School Administrator's platform states that we must: "Increase the basic general education formula by at least 3% per pupil unit each year of the biennium….Create a plan to fully fund the special education cross-subsidy."  The Minnesota School Board's Association urges that we must:  "eliminate the cross subsidy of special education programs by general education funds. The state shall assume the responsibility of supplying the additional revenue to fully fund the gap between the deficit in federal funding and the actual special education costs incurred by school districts."

It should be obvious by now, that the legislature is going to continue to study this problem to death, but do nothing, unless there is a constitutional suit.   When I discuss this with many educators, they often confuse this idea with providing even more money for special education.   Fully funding special education is necessary so that the cross subsidy can be returned to other programs.  We need to fully fund special education  so that we can increase our efforts for other disadvantaged students, students who were are leaving behind. If, and when, that happens, it is critical that school districts be required to use those funds to make a quantum leap in programs necessary to provide a better education to the students we are currently leaving behind.   I'll say more about this in future posts.

Debunking the Special Education Federal Share Alibi Part 2