Election Series | The Future of Special Education: Addressing the Root of Disproportionate Funding by Erica O. Lee
This is the third contribution in the AJE Forum Election Issues series. Together, these pieces will introduce and analyze relevant issues in education policy and politics that will shape the 2020 Presidential election including the politics of school choice, Black Lives Matter and social justice, reopening schools during a pandemic, prioritizing funding for students with disabilities, early childhood education policies, and student loans for higher education.
Setting the Stage
To many people, the idea of “special education” is still somewhat misunderstood. Some may imagine a group of mixed-age children in a physically-isolated classroom being taught separately from their same-aged peers. Some may imagine the children being placed in the classroom with their peers, but not completely engaged in the same work. However, special education is much more than a simple placement decision. Children with disabilities deserve the right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), which includes instruction within the child’s least restrictive environment (LRE) and access to the general education curriculum to the greatest extent possible (IDEA, 2004). The two main components of this statement are: (1) Is the child being served in the most appropriate (or “least restrictive”) environment? and (2) Is the child receiving the appropriate services to address his individual needs in order to have equal access to the grade-level general education curriculum? These questions should be addressed with careful intention and with the child’s individual needs in mind. Yet, this intentionality and individualization does not come without a hefty price-tag. According to the National Education Association (2019), the provision of individualized services for a child in special education often leads to roughly twice the cost of educating a child without an IEP (Individualized Education Program).
According to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (2019), approximately 14 percent of all public-school students have an IEP under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). However, the federal government does not currently provide full funding for this endeavor. With the increased cost to appropriately serve these students in the school setting, it is no surprise how quickly this can create a financial strain on school systems.
In this article I will present the current issues surrounding a lack of full and equal funding for students with disabilities. I will begin with a review of background information regarding the provision of special education services. This section will be followed by an outline of the past and present state of financial support from the government for providing special education services in American public schools. I will include an example of the disproportionality of funding across many state and local districts, as a result of the funding gap. From there, I will provide a look into the potential future of special education funding by examining the financial promises made by the current presidential candidates.
Understanding the Importance and Complexity of Special Education Services
When developing an IEP for a child with a disability, the school-based IEP team is tasked with considering the “whole child” and ensuring that all educational needs are met. An IEP looks different for every child and may include a wide variety of resources and services. For children in the early childhood stage, teams must ensure that the child is meeting expected benchmarks in all developmental areas – adaptive, communication, cognition, motor, and social/emotional. If delays are present, teams must work to explicitly target each specific area of need with specially-designed instruction. For children in elementary and beyond, teams must ensure that the child is making progress toward mastery of the general education curriculum standards. If sufficient progress is not demonstrated, IEP teams must determine what services are necessary to work toward that goal. Various resources involved in Individualized Education Programs may include, but are not limited to any combination of the following resources:
| Supplementary Aids and Services | Modified curriculumAccommodated materialBehavior intervention planAssistive technologySpecial transportation |
| Special Education and Related Services | Academic interventionClassroom inclusion supportSpeech-language therapySocial skills interventionPhysical therapyOccupational therapySensory integration therapyAuditory-verbal therapyAdaptive physical educationCounselingTransition servicesNursing support |
Additionally, schools are responsible for properly training all necessary faculty and staff to meet the needs of these students. Thus, an issue that has been present for years is the lack of preparation for general education teachers to meet the needs of children with disabilities in the classroom setting. The Department of Early Childhood (DEC), one of seventeen divisions of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), provides educators with a set of research-based practices that are recommended for use in early childhood special education classrooms. One of these practices is the inclusion of young children with disabilities into natural learning environments with their typically-developing peers (Sandall, Hemmeter, Smith, & McLean, 2005). All efforts should be exhausted to provide this service to the greatest extent possible (Kilgo, 2006).
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 62.5% of all students across the country with an IEP spend 80% or more of the school day within the general education environment (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). This is a significant amount of time spent with the general education teacher. Typically, general education teachers do not have much training in the area of special education. They may have only been required to take one course in special education throughout their formal schooling, which leaves them inadequately prepared to support students who have an IEP and receive inclusion services. Investing in resources to increase teacher empowerment (i.e., teacher coaching supports and various professional development opportunities) adds an additional cost toward this cause.
Providing an appropriate education for children with disabilities does not come easily or without financial strain. However, it is not optional. Thanks to federal law, students with disabilities have the right to the free and appropriate education that they deserve. Just because it takes more time, effort, and money does not mean that it should be avoided. IDEA mandates that these children receive the appropriate services within the appropriate setting, alongside their peers to the greatest extent possible. Who foots the bill for these specialized services and often extensive list of materials? Here lies the root of the problem: There is currently no unified provision of funding across the country, and students are unfairly affected as a result.
History of Funding: From 1975 to Present-Day
In order to fully grasp the importance of full funding for special education, it is important to consider the history of this issue. Public Law 94-142, also known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, was signed in 1975, requiring states to provide equal education to children with disabilities. This law has progressed over the years, increasing the public acknowledgment of the importance of this cause. With the initial promise of full funding in 1975, Congress claimed to provide 40% of the cost of special education services, with the states covering the remaining 60% (NCD, 2018). However, this has never happened. Aside from its initial year of funding, the federal government has yet to provide 40% of the total cost as promised.
This issue remains prevalent today and has not made much progress over several decades. According to the NEA:
The assumption underlying the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its predecessor legislation is that, on average, the cost of educating children with disabilities is twice the average cost (measured as the national average per pupil expenditure or APPE) of educating other children. Congress determined that the federal government would pay up to 40 percent of this “excess” cost, which is referred to as full funding. Since 1981, the first year for which full funding was 40 percent of APPE, the federal share has remained less than half of the federal commitment based on regular appropriations. Each year the federal government fails to fully fund IDEA, it shifts the costs for educating students with special needs to states and school districts.
With state and local school districts being left to fend for themselves, this further perpetuates disparities already present across state lines, and even within. States like Alabama operate on a Census-based system, meaning that the state assumes that all its districts have an equal percentage of students with disabilities and provides monetary support based on those estimates (Education Commission of the States, 2019). Other funding mechanisms include categories such as a multiple student weights system, resource-allocation model, reimbursement system, block grant, and high-cost students system. Because states are able to determine their own approach, the availability of resources can vary greatly. Returning to Alabama as an example, a 2018 financial report posted to their state education website demonstrated significant differences in expenditure per student. For example, an elementary school in an affluent area of Alabama spent $13,084 per student, while an elementary school in a rural part of the state only spent $8,295 per student (ALSDE, 2018). This reflects the standard cost of spending per student and does not include the additional expenses needed for specialized instruction, which are not always publicly disclosed per district. Without full funding at the federal level, these disparities will continue to exist.
Looking Toward the Future
Although Congress made the promise for full funding forty-five years ago, we have yet to see that come to fruition. With the upcoming presidential election, as with all election years, we have a renewed sense of hope for the future of special education funding. With new presidential campaigns comes the potential for a platform of progress in this area. Although it is ultimately up to Congress to make this happen, a new president-elect could come with an increased federal interest in the responsibility of funding these crucial expenditures.
It may finally happen. Democratic nominee Joe Biden recently released “The Biden Plan for Full Participation and Equality for People with Disabilities.” As part of this platform, Biden promises to:
- provide special education teacher training and professional development
- expand programs for young children with disabilities
- implement anti-bullying programs
- increase funding for students with disabilities to access accommodations in higher education
- enforce civil rights laws for individuals with disabilities
- lower health care costs for individuals with disabilities and their families
- invest in National Institutes of Health (NIH) research; provide job training for adults with disabilities
- expand and improve early intervention and early childhood special education programs
- improve school discipline procedures to address existing disparities
- and fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
The promise of fully funding IDEA within ten years would mark the end of a decades-long battle, resulting in life-changing opportunities for individuals with disabilities and their families. This is only possible with the compliance of Congress. However, this offers more promise than has been seen in many years. The highest percentage of the federal share of average per-pupil expenditure (APPE) was 33% in 2009, but this percentage reflects the additional support of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; NCD, 2018). Federal APPE dropped back to 16% the very next year and has been on a gradual decline ever since.
On the other side of the election is Republican Donald Trump’s proposed 2021 fiscal year budget for education. Trump’s overall requested budget for 2021 is $66.6 billion, an 8.4% cut from last year’s budget (NEA, 2020). These cuts would largely affect children in K-12 public-school settings, particularly children in low-income areas. School systems would be left to cover the gap in funding, maintaining the disproportional access to resources across the nation. Wealthy districts may be better equipped to provide specialized services, while disadvantaged districts will struggle to fill the gap. One of the areas somehow spared in Trump’s budget cuts is special education. However, if the goal is full funding, this still is not even close. The upcoming fiscal year budget is $900 million more than last year, although last year’s budget was the lowest-ever funding of IDEA at 13.8% (NEA, 2020).
Under Biden’s proposal, special education funding could eventually increase by 24% to the full 40% as promised, whereas funding under Trump’s proposal would drop to a staggering 13.8%. The present state of funding is not conducive to providing the free and appropriate public education to all children as intended. Further, the two proposals for the future of funding have significantly different outcomes. Consider the candidates’ proposed budgets toward this endeavor before making your decision. Your vote can create a lasting impact on the future of funding for special education.
Erica Lee is a PhD candidate in Early Childhood Education at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and is expected to graduate in December, 2020. She holds an Educational Specialist degree in Autism Spectrum Disorders, a Master of Arts degree in Early Childhood Special Education, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Collaborative Education. Erica is in her seventh year as a special education teacher at Crestline Elementary School in Mountain Brook, Alabama, where she serves as the department head of special education. She is certified to teach children ages birth through 12th grade in collaborative/special education settings. Her research interests are centered around the field of special education, with a particular interest in autism, behavioral disorders, and social-emotional learning. Erica’s doctoral dissertation topic focuses on utilizing a mindfulness-based intervention with children on the autism spectrum to decrease disruptive behavior in the inclusion setting.
References
DEC/NAEYC. (2009). Early childhood inclusion: A joint position statement of the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C § 1400 (2004).
Kilgo, J. L. (2006). Transdisciplinary teaming in early intervention/early childhood special education. Olney, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.
National Council on Disability. (2018). Broken promises: The underfunding of IDEA.
National Education Association. (2019). IDEA funding gap. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/IDEA-Funding-Gap-by-State-FY-2019.pdf
National Education Association. (2020). Trump/DeVos budget request, FY 2021. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/Trump-DeVos-FY21-Budget-Request-for-EducationRelated-Discretionary-Programs-with-State-Tables.pdf
Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M.L., Smith B.J., & McLean, M.E. (EDs.) (2005). DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practical application in early intervention/earlychildhood special education. Missoula, MT: Division for Early Childhood.
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Special Education Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/ about/overview/budget/budget17/justifications/hspecialed.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for EducationEvaluation and Regional Assistance, What Works Clearinghouse.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Digest of Education Statistics, 2018 (NCES 2020-009), Chapter 2.
