Funding Special Education in Colorado: comments

INTRODUCTION

Special education in the public schools of Colorado has been suffering from misunderstanding, erroneous information and financial neglect for some period of time, at least since 1962. This misunderstanding has been exhibited by prominent public figures and leaders in the education field, as well as legislators and editorialists. That misunderstanding has led to public statements that are erroneous, which in turn has led to continued negligence of adequate state funding for the program. In all of the public concern and planning to improve education in this state not once have I seen or heard that one factor to be considered is the full funding of the excess costs of special education by the state legislature to the local school districts. Many have alluded to the high cost of special education to the schools but not one has straightforwardly asked for full state funding. Most discouraging is to read comments from members of the Colorado State Board of Education who neither know the history of special education in Colorado, or which agency, the U.S. Congress or the Colorado Legislature, really has the responsibility for funding special education, and have taken no active role in increasing the state funding. Many think that special education did not begin until 1975, the year of the federal law, now known as IDEA.

Let's first explore some of the history of special education and explain the funding of the program in the State of Colorado. The first legislation regarding special education in the public schools in Colorado was enacted in 1917, providing for special programs for children who had physical and/or speech handicapping conditions. The first Director of Special Education with the Colorado Department of Education was a Ms. Downing. The first piece of legislation that approached being comprehensive was passed in 1954, written by Ray Tiable, then Director of Special Education in the State of Nebraska, and later becoming the Director in the Pueblo School District #60. That law provided that the state reimburse the local district for the excess costs of classes for children with mental, hearing, and vision handicaps, and for 80% of the salaries of speech therapists. The formula for determining excess costs was cumbersome and failed to distribute the funds in a fair fashion to all the school districts in the state. 'Excess costs' are those costs that exceed the costs for provision of regular education. In 1965 a major revision was enacted to include all the categories of special education and to reimburse the local districts for 80% of the salaries and benefits of all approved special education personnel, plus 50% of the costs of special transportation. It had been found that the old excess reimbursement amount and the 80% reimbursement amount were essentially equal, and the latter required much less paper work and computing. These addditions and change in formula brought the provision of services to children into the modern era. The districts could now provide a full service and comprehensive program and were not restricted to self-contained classes. It is important to note that the reimbursement formula was not based upon the number of children enrolled in special education, but on the costs of maintaining the program--there are no incentives (ie/for state reimbursement) for the district to increase/pad the enrollment. The next revision of the law came in 1973, the draft of which was written by the Colorado Council of Organizations for the Handicapped. That was a coalition of parent organizations in the state, and was probably the first such organization in the fifty states. The law had four major components: it made the provision of services to all children who had handicapping conditions mandatory by September, 1975; provided that parents give their permission for admission of their children into the program; mandated the establishment of administrative units, and that every district be in an administrative unit; and called for, but did not mandate, the use of staffing to determine eligibility and placement of a student in a program of service.

Other revisions and amendments (ie/ the inclusion of programs for early childhood) have been made in subsequent years, but their inclusion is not necessary for this treatise.

Since 1962 the Colorado legislature has never appropriated enough money so that the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) could reimburse the local school districts the full amount of what they were entitled to by the law. For some years they typically funded the 80% at about 50 to 60 % of that amount, or 40 to 48 % (80 x 50 =40; 80 x 60 =48) of the salaries of approved personnel. That percentage continued to decrease until now it is about 15%. When the TABOR amendment came about that amount was locked in. And so, year after year, the special education funding increase is based upon a flawed figure to begin with.

It should be noted that in all of these years, except for one house in one term, from 1961 to now, the Republicans had control of both houses of the General Assembly.

The first federal assistance to special education came as early as 1959. Beginning that year each state received funds to support stipends for two doctoral candidates at an institution that had a training program in special education. By 1967 that program was expanded to provide funds to the state departments of education to grant summer training stipends and to also provide inservice training to special education personnel. In 1968 the federal program expanded again to make it possible for the CDE to make grants to the local school districts for special education. With the latter, among the grants made to school districts in Colorado were two that provided for the first time in the U.S., a program to teach children who were deaf using a combined approach of manual and oral, in the Jefferson County Schools, and a program to accommodate children who were autistic, in the Denver Public Schools. Both programs were highly successful but were terminated because of lack of funds and of leadership by the Colorado State Board of Education. In 1969 CDE, in conjunction with Adams District #50, received the first, and only, grant made to introduce the new learning disability program by the U.S. Department of Education. The Department had made plans to make ten such grants, but the program was discontinued after two other grants had been approved but later found not to be complying with the concept.

In 1975 the federal Congress passed the initial law, PL 94-12, that is now known as IDEA. It mandated special education and provided the due process rules and regulations for special education programs in the public schools. It initiated the Individual Education PLan (IEP) for each child. It also provided some funds to be directed to the local schools to help meet the excess costs of special education. This federal law came about because the states and school districts in the United States were not providing adequate services to children who were in need of special education. Many courts, in what were civil rights cases, were returning decisions that the schools were discriminating against children who were handicapped. It must be emphasized that the federal law, IDEA, is primarily one of Civil Rights and it established the procedures to ensure due process. If the State of Colorado wishes not to implement IDEA and therefore not accept the limited federal funds, it could do so. But the schools would still have to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which essentially requires the same. The federal funds to the Colorado schools has been around 15% of the costs.

The state and federal funds combined total about 30% of the costs of special education that are reimbursed to the local schools. The local school district must get the remainder from local funds. What difference does that make as long as the local school districts are funding it to the best of their ability? It makes a lot of difference-- many of the school districts in Colorado are not providing full comprehensive programs for all children who are in need or the services are restricted because of the lack of sufficient funds. The bottom line is that not all children who need special education are receiving that education or are receiving less than needed. Many parents are disturbed by this but do not know where to turn for assistance. In addition, because local funds to make up the short-fall are being taken from the regular school budget many schools have reduced or eliminated such programs as physical education and music, which consequently adversely affects all students. This also tends to pit one group against another.

This blog is not an indictment of those responsible for the local programs or the CDE--for the most part they are doing a great job to the best of their ability and resources. It is an indictment of the Colorado State Legislature and the State Board of Education, and to some extent to the local media for not doing an adequate job of reporting important and critical issues in special education.

Following is a review of articles and coments made in Denver's two newspapers, the Post and the News.

FROM THE NEWSPAPERS

The followng editorial should have merited some kind of rebuttal from either a reader or by the Denver Post itself. It was a malicious one, and every point made was either erroneous, misleading or prejudiced:

Denver Post, April 21, 2002, by Ruben Navarrette, Jr., Special education panel may discover what it really means. The editorial seems to be aimed at all states in general, but he certainly doesn't have an accurate perception of special education in Colorado. He says that special education is an innovation that began in 1975 and he implies that the majority of the costs are reimbursed to the local schools, and they may even profit from the program by padding the student enrollment, none of which is true in Colorado.

The following two articles are justifiably critical of special education, but fail to point out that the underlying problem for the school district(s) is the lack of proper funding:
Denver Post, 1-11-04, article, Let vouchers help special-education students. State Representative Nancy Spence introduces a bill to allow vouchers for special education students.
Denver Post, 2-17-04, article, Special ed vouchers sought. It is argued that vouchers would finally give true choice to special education students who are routinely turned away from schools that don't want to deal with them, but it doesn't point out that the real problem is the lack of funds for the local school district.

Vouchers might seem like a solution, but if the vouchers were made for full tuition so that all students could participate it could wind up being much more expensive than the present program. And services? I've seen private programs that I wouldn't want a child of mine to attend. Why doesn't Spence work for the full funding of the current program?

Consider the following two articles, involving two state elected officials:
Denver Post, April 17, 2005, article, Help kids by better using existing resources, by Jack Pommer, State Representative. He says, "Years ago the federal government started requiring schools to teach children with disabilities. It's a good goal and one that was long overdue. Unfortunately, the federal government never came up with all of the funding that was supposed to come with the mandate." "Without sufficient federal funding and without much state help, districts have used the only option left: they take money from children without disabilities and use it for those with disabilities".
Denver Post, July 26, 2005, news article, Fighting for special education. The Post reporter writes "Throughout Colorado, parents of special-need students say it is not uncommon to wrangle with administrators and teachers over whether services provided by local school districts live up to what their children are entitled to under the Individual with Disabilites Education Act". "The lack of money is also a problem". But Evie Hudak, a member of the State Board of Education had this to say, "When Congress enacted IDEA, it planned to reimburse local school districts for 40 percent of their special-education costs".

I find it very disturbing when our elected officials make statements such as Pommer and Hudak have made. They are both absolutely correct about the need for money to improve special education, but both blame the federal government. Both are obviously unaware that the state legislature made special education mandatory in this state before the federal government did. And that the state has never fully funded special education before or after its' mandate.

The most disturbing article of all appeared in the Rocky Mountain News, March 5, 2006, Feds still stiffing special education. This is an article written by Bob Schaffer, a former U.S. Representative and a current member of the Colorado State Board of Education.
"Very soon we will observe the 30th anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This landmark federal legislation is the foundation of all our schools do for special education students today.
"It is fair to say that IDEA has changed the face of public education profoundly. Any principal, superintendent or local school board member old enough to remember the pre-IDEA era will tell you so.
"As the U. S. Congress moves toward reauthorization of IDEA, it is a good time to reflect on what went right and what went wrong with the act.
"What is most right about this law is that it represented a national commitment so much in keeping with the ideals of our country--to address the special needs of children who in many times and places had been inadequately served. As a result, millions of lives have been changed for the better.
"What is most wrong about this law is that the federal government broke the solemn promise it made regarding funding and the consequences for states and local school disricts have been immense.
"The federal government knew then, and we all know now that special-education services are very costly. The acute needs of these children make that self-evident. It was clear even 30 years ago that these costs would have to be shared by federal, state and local authorities. It was also clear that since the federal government is the source of this legal mandate, it must bear the lion's share of those costs, and the law did so specify.
"Tragically, however, right from the beginning the federal government broke its pledge, and defaulted on its funding obligation. In a nutshell, the mandate came down, but the promised funding did not.
"Left holding the bag were state and --particularly--local governments. The dislocation of local budgets and services was great indeed. Sacrifices were made. Valuable educational and community services were cut or eliminated. But local people persevered out of devotion to their special-needs children. Just because a wrong is long standing does not mean that it's OK. In my time in Congress I joined many colleagues who felt the sting of this wrong as keenly as I did. Year after year we fought the battle of "full funding for special education." Progress was made, but the gap between the promise--the legal obligation of the federal government--and the reality remains huge.
"Once again, as congressional reauthorization approaches, it is time to renew this battle. It will not be easy and we cannot ask the education community to make this struggle alone.
"It will require a united effort on the part of all our elected state officials--our congressional delegation, our General Assembly and our State Board of Education.
"Democracy is a form of government that keeps faith with its promises to its people. This promise has waited long enough."

My critique: The "good old days" are what really brought about Public Law 94-142. I remember at least two different principals shouting at a lingering student in the hallway to get to his classroom in a hurry or he would put him in the special classroom at the very end of the hallway where the dummies were. I remember special classes in rooms that were not fit for storage. I have seen two fully enrolled classes placed in one classroom. I have seen classes upon the school stage, the equipment having to be moved on and off to accomodate the regular use of the stage. I have seen speech therapy rooms in the basement boiler room or in the mop closet. I have experienced the hopelessness of parents because there was no special education program available. I must add that by far the majority of educators and board members were very cooperative and sympathetic to these children and their needs. But it unfair and untrue to characterize the pre IDEA days as the glory days. On the one hand Schaffer recognizes the need and goodness of special education, but he ignores the state role in financing it. Yes, it is an obligation in our democratic society to tend to such needs, but is this State not a democracy, as well as the federal government? The state has shortchanged the funding of special education for forty six years!! Even if the Congress funds at 40 per cent, that leaves 60 per cent for the state, to which it has never approached. There are some very pretty words and phrases in the article, but to me they seem very wrong.

The following news items accurately portray the need for focusing on the financing of special education in Colorado.

Denver Post, June 17, 2002, news item, Poll reveals frustration at special ed. A national poll found one in six parents of disabled has considered suing or has threatened to sue the child's school district to get services. From where the parents came was not specified.
Rocky Mountain News, August 3, 2004, letter to the editor. A mother describes her efforts to get services for her child, but to no avail.
Denver Post, April 17, 2005. State School Spending Near Bottom of Class, by Paul Teske. "Specifically, Colorado now ranks 40th of the 50 states in per pupil spending." "While Colorado ranks low on general per-pupil education spending it also has the distinction of ranking low for special education spending. Colorado reimburses only about 17 per cent of local districts special education expenses, well below the national average of 32 per cent. While special education spending is important to help the students achieve, the combination of low federal and Colorado state reimbursements means that such mandated spending, in effect, is a "tax
on the spending for general education students coming from local resources,...."

***************

Members of the Colorado General Assembly and State Education Board Members: You do not have much time left to correct this terrible injustice. If you do not correct it soon, the funding for special education will always be less than needed, and under TABOR it will be impossible to change. Now is the time--Colorado is apparently going to make some great changes and additions to its public schools this year and next--and you have a new Commissioner of Education with a new Executive Director of Special Services and a new Director of Special Education. Let's give them a chance to do great things with a properly fianancially supported special education program.

Thanks for reading this.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

comments

I owe an apology to all readers--this blog has had a google-blogger glitch, and the comments have not been recorded. Google has repaired the glitch and comments may now be seen. If you have previously tried to comment, please leave your comment again. John

2 comments:

Anonymous said...: Kind of sad, isn't it? My school district needs the money.; February 5, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Anonymous said...: As Executive Director of the SLV BOCES I know first hand the huge amount of money we hare having to assess our member districts to cover the costs of Special Education services for these districts. An increase in funding for special education would free up district local money which could provide additional programs and resources for regular education. It might even help prevent the loss of programs such as music, art and physical education for all students.; February 13, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Funding Special Education in Colorado

INTRODUCTION

About Me

Blog Archive

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

comments

2 comments: