Suspicious, disappointed, pleased and grateful: Those were some of the reactions educators and parents shared to the 2019 Minnesota Legislature’s efforts to help students who have some form of disability.
Along with the progress, there’s lots more work needed — and not just more money — to help the growing number of these students.
Here are a few facts, educator and community reactions, and three suggestions.
According to Tom Melcher, director of Minnesota Department of Education’s program finance division, from the 2002-03 school year to the 2018-19 school year:
— The number of students with special needs increased from 113,786 to 145,442.
— The percentage of these students, birth to age 21, served by public schools grew from 13.4% to 16.3%.
— Legislative funding for students with special needs grew from $1.2 billion to almost $3.1 billion.
A 2016 Minnesota Department of Education report describes a legislative requirement that superintendents annually report how much a “district is cross-subsidizing the cost of special education programs with general education revenue” (http://bit.ly/2Zneehw). Federal and state laws require that schools serve students with disabilities, as well as other students.
The term “cross subsidy” bothers Gretchen Godfrey, assistant director of PACER, a research, information and advocacy organization serving students with special needs and their families (more information at www.pacer.org). She explained, “These are first, district students.”
Furthermore, districts use general fund dollars to support not just students with disabilities, but also student athletes, artists or students in other extra-curricular activities. Yet no one calls that spending a “cross subsidy” for those students.
This year’s Legislature provided an additional $94 million so that the amount of the “cross subsidy” doesn’t increase. The Legislature also reduced the rate paid by a resident district (where the students with special needs live) to the district where those students attend: In the 2019-20 school year, resident districts will pay 85% of “unfunded costs,” down from 90%. Starting in the 2020-21 school year, resident districts will pay 80% of those costs.
Some complain about districts paying charter public schools to serve special need students. However, MDE’s October 2018 figures show that in 2018-19, thousands more students with special needs open-enrolled from one district to another (13,771), compared to the number who transferred from a traditional district to a charter (8,311).
Eugene Piccolo, executive director of the Minnesota Association of Charter Schools, was glad the Legislature adopted Gov. Walz’s recommendation regarding funding for these students. However, he’s concluded “the state needs to take a look at the whole funding mechanism. This is a short-term fix.”
Here’s part of the enrollment picture in area school districts.
Craig Ihrek, Caledonia Area Schools superintendent, told me that the number of students with some form of disability has increased from 101 in 2016 to 142 in 2019. This represents a growth from 13% to 18% of the district’s students. He estimates the cross subsidy for 2016-17 to be about $592,000.
Craig Ihrek, Caledonia Area Schools’ superintendent, said: “In theory, it should help the overall budget as special education has really been an unfunded federal mandate that has only been partially funded as promised, so any help we can get will be greatly appreciated.”
What could be done?
— As PACER suggests, legislators should consider creating a statewide form to use with special needs students. Forms vary across the state, requiring extra paperwork if students move from one community to another.
— Ask MDE to convene regional meetings in which districts and charters that are unusually successful with special needs students in various categories can share strategies.
— Create a state funding task force that includes some of the Minnesota’s most successful schools, families, students and advocacy groups to develop recommendations on funding and increased efficiencies.
Minnesota Commissioner of Education Mary Cathryn Ricker described legislative education funding actions as a “down payment in making Minnesota the ‘Education State.’”
While there was progress, actions such as those suggested above can help Minnesota public schools be more effective and efficient.
Joe Nathan, formerly a Minnesota public school teacher, administrator and PTA president, directs the Center for School Change. Reactions welcome, email@example.com.