Debunking resistence to full funding of special education Part 3

I've been writing about the special education deficit, the huge $700 million per year difference between the amount of money school districts are mandated to spend on special education and the amount of the state and federal reimbursement provided to support that spending.   Special education funding is necessary to cover the excess costs required to meet mandated standards for students with disabilities.  In its description of special education funding, the Minnesota Department of Education  acknowledges the necessity of this extra funding, as well it should:

The state funds special education because it recognizes that special education services cost more than those provided to all children. Appropriations are based on the perception of the “excess costs” of special education. The term “excess cost” stems from the legislative assumption that general education revenue is used to cover basic costs for each child (including those with disabilities) and the legislative desire to share the burden of these extra costs with local districts. Introduction to Special Education Funding Section 1, MDE.  (italics supplied) 

To say that these costs arise from an assumption and perception is the understatement of the century.   Together, Minneapolis and St. Paul serve just over 78,000 students (APU) in 2016.  By the MDE's own accounting, it costs them $227 million to educate their special education students above the regular education revenue provided to educate them.  The two districts receive only $113 million in special education revenue (state and federal combined) towards that $227 excess cost.   By MDE's own accounting, it costs Minneapolis $51 million more to provide special education for students with disabilities than the general fund formula and special education revenues together provide.   That $51 million has to be pulled out of funds allocated to the District for other purposes.  

School districts have lived with these large and growing deficits for decades, and increasingly the deficits are preventing them from meeting their constitutional responsibilities to other students.  So, why haven't these districts all fought like tigers in the legislature or even in the courts to get that deficit covered? Why don't  school district their representatives, and special education advocates fight harder to fix this problem?

One reason that the MDE special education bureaucracy may not fight harder to eliminate the special education deficit, is that the districts' obligation to pay for mandated special education services is not dependent on the amount of funding provided to them.  If special education funding is inadequate, that causes corresponding cuts in services to other students, but not to special education students.  Moreover, special education is the only significant mandate that is directly enforceable by students and families.  When the special education division of MDE says that there is a "perception" that special education costs more, it is possibly reflecting a benign indifference to the funding of their own programs arising from the fact that their programs fully function without regard to the level of state and federal funding provided to school districts.   

Perhaps this is unfair, but the highway people at MnDot are fighting for more highway funds in the MnDot budget, because their programs depend on it, and the fishery people in MnDNR are fighting for more money for fish and wildlife appropriations in the DNR budget, for the same reason.  In contrast, Special Education services don't depend upon special education appropriations:  they depend instead on what the legislature (and MDE) decides are mandated services.  

Pitting General Fund Increases Against Special Education

A second reason is that some educators are reluctant to fight for more special education funding is that they may perceive that more dollars allocated to special education will reduce the dollars allocated to the basic formula.  And, virtually all school districts, and their advocates certainly believe that the general fund allocation is also constitutionally inadequate.   

According to the Minnesota Association of School Business Officers in their 2018 legislative platform:

The basic funding formula amount is the largest source of revenue for all school districts, accounting for approximately 56% of a school district’s total operating revenue. While progress has been made, the formula allowance would have to be higher than the current level by $596 (9.4%) per ADM (Average Daily Membership) to have kept pace with inflation since 2003.

The chart above compares the growth in in the general education formula as compared to inflation, as reported by MASBO. 

The general formula is inadequate to cover the costs of regular education. It cannot cover the cost of providing what it is supposed to pay for, and in difficult state funding times, there is pressure to restore the buying power of the formula, or add to it.  And, the inadequate general education formula increasingly gets diminished by the special education deficit too.   This creates a natural tension between the districts with large special education deficits that are often twice as high per student as the districts that have much lower special education costs per students. 

This tension may be exploited by persons seeking to hold back the pressure to increase funding for public education.   In 2007, as the statewide special education deficit rose dramatically under the Pawlenty administration, many districts and their advocates combined to push the Governor and the legislature to do something about it.  Governor Pawlenty responded by threatening to veto inflationary increases in the general fund formula if the legislature insisted on reducing the special education deficit. A deadlock between the branches emerged in which Governor Pawlenty forced the legislative branch to choose between making modest progress on special education or making modest progress on the formula.   This pitting of the one shortfall against the other shortfall made many public education advocates reluctant to press for special education funding reform. 

This is a complex topic, and so there is more to come.  

Debunking the Federal Share Alibi, Part 1
Debunking the Federal Share Alibi, Part 2