The Cost and Implementation of Special Education
For the Joint Legislative Committee on Public School
Funding Reform
October 3, 2006
Good afternoon. I am
Cathy Moncrief, member of the Board of Directors of the New Jersey School
Boards Association, a member of the NJSBA Special Education Committee, and
Board President of the
School board members commit themselves to public education. We govern the delivery of educational services to regular and special education students. We want what is best for all children.
The New Jersey School Boards Association is
currently engaged in a comprehensive study of special education costs and
practices in
NJSBA also has representation on the state's
Special Education Review Commission that is also exploring how best to deliver
a quality education to children with disabilities in the most cost-efficient
way possible.
Those studies are still in progress. So today, I would like to share with you observations and recommendations for change based on the beliefs of the New Jersey School Boards Association, as well as my experience as both a local school board member and an educator.
In 2002, I reported to NJSBA's Delegate Assembly that a major achievement for public education had been attained by the passage of legislation to fund "extraordinary" special education costs in excess of $40,000. This new law represented essential relief for districts that were straining under the burden of high costing out of district placements, or expensive special education costs within the district.
The new law was funded for one year only. A great tool for tax relief remains unfulfilled. One district reported to us that they have three students out of district, who require full nursing services. The cost is $151,000 per year this year. They paid $90,000 for nursing services for one child alone during the past two years. This same district is paying over $130,000 for a single placement of another child, and that does not include the cost of transportation.
Historically
We have risen to the challenge, but special education services are, by their nature, very expensive to deliver.
Over the last twenty years, the number of special education students has increased for several reasons. Among them are the expansion of identified disabilities, and higher rates of certain disabilities within the population. Boards of education recognize their obligation to provide the best quality education to all students, and particularly to special education students in the least restrictive environment, as required by law. The price tag is especially burdensome to small school districts.
You have asked that we provide you with suggestions for
saving money, while preserving quality services in special education. The huge costs associated with special
education are complex because
I would like to present 15 suggestions that would address some of the problems that local school boards face in implementing and funding special education. These suggestions deserve examination by this joint committee.
1. Address the obstacles to inclusion — The federal special education law – the IDEA – requires inclusion. This requirement recognizes that special education students are to be educated, to the greatest extent appropriate, in the regular education program. There are many problems in fulfilling this directive including space, staff, and the ability to provide the instructional and physical requirements of the student’s individualized education plan.
2. Control out-of-district
placements — Specialized programs can be very expensive. Additional
problems can occur in a district with a large mobility rate, that is, when
students come into the district in mid-year.
In
Fifty seven percent of students educated
in costly out-of-district placements are already in those facilities before they
transfer into our district. A staggering amount of money is spent on students with
serious disabilities, who require highly specialized intervention
programs. These students most certainty
deserve an appropriate educational program.
Yet, we need to realize that it can present an enormous cost burden to
the district. In my community of
Where possible, we should look to reduce out-of-district placements for substantial savings. Basic barriers must be removed to assist districts in this effort. One of the most significant barriers is space. In cases where districts have no additional space, portable classrooms cannot be used unless a petition for emergent relief is made. Relax that requirement.
Lengthy and costly litigation can result when parents demand an out-of-district placement for their child—even though the law requires the school district to educate the child in the least restrictive environment. It’s important that parents have complete information. Parent advocacy groups need to provide information to parents concerning the “least restrictive environment” requirements.
3. Consider the costs of transportation services — Transportation is not considered in calculating extraordinary aid for special education services. Yet, these costs can be quite high, and districts must pay vendors what they demand so that the child can be transported to the location where special-education services are provided. One district reported to us that transportation costs for one student for one year was $57,000 for a special bus, driver and aide—in addition to $98,000 in tuition.
4. Reduce litigation costs — Litigation costs can be enormous. To reduce these costs, some states use a peer-review mediation process that kicks in before the matter reaches the courtroom. I believe such a mediation system should be investigated. Additional legal and programming expenses are incurred if the case goes to the Office of Civil Rights, where decisions are made about educational offerings without regard to the cost or impact on the other students in the district. Because the needs of special education students and the delivery of services is very complex, we believe the state should require ongoing training in special education for judges who adjudicate special education cases.
5. Use new approaches to meet staffing needs — Specific classifications of students can trigger additional staffing requirements, and different ratios of teachers and aides to students. These requirements cost districts more money. No Child Left Behind mandates that "Highly Qualified Teachers" for special-education students in middle and secondary schools must not only have special-education certification, but subject-area certification as well. We should explore allowing the privatizing of Child Study Teams, which provide very different services and expertise than classroom teachers.
6.
Control state and federal funding that supports parentally placed students in
non-public schools — Until a few years ago,
7. Fund and implement transition services on a county or regional basis — Older students' education plans must include services designed to move them from high school to post-school settings, such as college, vocational training, adult services, independent living, and employment. In the past, county vocational schools often provided transition services. But vocational school districts schools are moving away from traditional vocational education to high-tech programs, so this is no longer a viable option—and districts must now meet the transition services mandates alone. The cost of providing transition services district-by-district far exceeds the cost of a county-wide program.
8. Expand and extend shared services provided through Educational Services Commissions — These commissions provide a wide range of shared services to school districts, including special education programming. The state should facilitate further expansion of ESC services—for example, expand programs to school campuses for example and permit the use of portable classrooms on the grounds of schools.
9. Charge the cost of medically based related services to health insurance, not school districts — Under the present code, schools must provide related services when they are required for the student to benefit from an educational program. Related services can include transportation to, from or around a school building, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and counseling for students and their parents. When a parent seeks a physician’s order for a related service, it is not required that the physician specify how the additional service relates to the educational program. Often, the reason is a medical one, and should more appropriately be born by an insurance company, rather than the school district. In addition, costs for students requiring nurses and medical transport would more appropriately be borne by medical insurance.
10. Examine costs for related services — The cost of related services—such as occupational therapy, speech therapy, physical therapy and counseling—vary widely by region. Where there is great demand, costs are high because providers can charge whatever they want.
11. Control rates for approved private schools for the disabled — Tuition rates charged by private schools can be very costly. The state sanctions private special education schools. Districts report that tuition increases have often doubled in a year, and that the tuition is two, three and even four times a district's per-pupil costs.
12. Allow waivers on class-size limits — Special education code limits the number of students in in-class support programs, and no longer permits waivers to increase class size. Just one additional student requiring IEP-driven in-class support could require an additional special educator to meet this student's needs throughout the entire school day. This is not cost effective.
13. Explore classification rates — We should examine the ratio of special-education services to parentally placed non-public school students, particularly in the areas of speech and language. Compare these to public school ratios. All non-public school children must be served and evaluated by school districts. Districts must subcontract for Child Study Team services to meet the ever increasing numbers.
14. Provide direct state funding, not tied to local school districts,
for DYFS and court-ordered placements — Districts are frequently charged
for educational programming for students who have dropped out of school or never
even attended our schools. If a student is incarcerated and their legal
guardian moves to a new community, then the new school district is
responsible. One student registered in
Incarceration and court ordered placements should have separate educational funding not tied to the district.
15. Establish a neutral clearinghouse for information — A clearinghouse could identify strategies, programs and cost structures to help cost-effectively guide small school districts serve children. NJSBA’s special education study will result in identification of best practices.
NJSBA also has long standing policy, FC
6171.4 on Special Education, which we have attached to our testimony for your
information.
The current process of providing special education is
structured so that the needs of special-education students are, all too often,
pitted against the needs of other students. Moreover, schools often have little
or no choice when it comes to the delivery of special education services. Special education costs are a significant
part of total educational costs in
We thank you for listening to our suggestions for reducing special education costs, and we stand ready to assist you in any and every way as you move forward in the task of your committee.