A Book, an Idea and a Goat.
NH can do much better!
From ‘A Book, an Idea and a Goat,’ Andru Volinsky’s weekly newsletter on Substack is primarily devoted to writing about the national movement for fair school funding and other means of effecting social change. Here’s the link: https://substack.com/@andruvolinsky?utm_source=profile-page
By ANDRU VOLINSKY
There are four questions to ask about NH’s special education system. First, why do we provide special education services? Second, is what we provide a part of a constitutionally required adequate education? Third, if NH is required by the Claremont decisions to provide special education services, is what the State pays enough? Fourth, are their public policies that we can improve to better and more efficiently provide special education services?
Why do we provide special education services?
In part, NH provides special education services to children with qualifying disabilities because the federal government requires NH to do so and conditions the provision of millions of dollars in federal aid on NH’s compliance with federal standards.
However, the stated purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which became law in 1975 under President Gerald Ford, exemplifies the spirit of the law and the value we should place on all individuals. This includes those who are neuro-diverse or differently-abled.
The US Department of Education further states: “The law guarantee[s] access to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) to every child with a disability. [The law] emphasizes access to the general education curriculum, the provision of services for young children from birth through five, transition planning, and accountability for the achievement of students with disabilities. The IDEA upholds and protects the rights of infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities and their families.”
NH has patterned its procedures and programs on the federal model and adopted very similar language delineating the purpose of our state program. “All children in New Hampshire [shall] be provided with equal educational opportunities . . . to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.”
Uniquely, NH downshifts a lot of the responsibility to pay for special education services that are required by state law. Often, between 20 and 25 percent of local school budgets is devoted to providing special education and related services. Perhaps also unique, the state of NH takes a big bite out of the grant monies provided by the US DOE before sending the remainder to local districts. It does so with strategies like charging rent for state offices to the federal government to house the NH DOE employees who work on special education programming.
Finally, before I leave this point, for the first time in recent history, NH’s special education programming under Commissioner Edelblut has been found to be “in need of improvement,” the third lowest of four categories applied by the US DOE to state programs.
Is special education a part of an adequate education required by the state constitution?
Yes. The state’s constitution simply does not carve out children who are differently-abled. The goal of a constitutional education is to enable all children to become competitors in the marketplace of ideas and to provide a strong opportunity to become competent in the life skills need to succeed in society and participate in our democracy. This includes children eligible for special education and related services.
Think of it this way. Math and science are inarguably part of constitutional adequacy. The textbooks used to teach these subjects cannot be read by a blind child. A special education plan under the IDEA or the NH statute provides for text-to-voice software or a book printed in braille to create a bridge to the regular education programming for the blind child who needs it and supplies support services for the child to catch up with classmates.
Many more varied and complicated needs are addressed by special education programs that are equally necessary to build bridges to regular education curricula for children with disabilities. A child with emotional difficulties who cannot sit through class may need a place to take time out. A child with limited intellectual development may require a whole different kind of learning program. Children with very significant intellectual limitations may require placement in programs like those provided by the Crotched Mountain School in Greenfield. Children with physical limitations may require adaptive technologies and those with severely compromised medical situations may seek placement in a program like Ceder Crest in Keene.
It’s worth noting that NH adequacy statutes include funding for special education services. This is an admission by the State that adequacy includes special education.
Does the State contribute sufficiently to the costs of special education to meet its constitutional commitment to taxpayers?
The answer is a resounding “NO.”
The full time boarding or day programs like those at Crotched Mountain or Ceder Crest are very expensive, often costing more than $100,000/year because of the intense level of services provided by highly skilled personnel. The rates for these services are set by the NH Department of Education.
In cases of less extreme need, just the professional time of regular school district personnel required to manage a child’s Individual Education Program costs more than $5000/year assuming one teacher or similar professional case manages 20 children. The State’s current level of funding for adequacy for each child that qualifies for special education is $2100, less than half the cost of the necessary case management without the student receiving any services. $2100 doesn’t begin to reimburse the cost of a boarding program or the costs of transportation and participation in a day program. A full time paraeducator, who may be assigned to a single student, has a salary and benefit cost of $40,000 or more.
The State’s Special Education Aid program, formerly called “Catastrophic Aid,” doesn’t make up for the shortcomings in adequacy funding. The program is subject to regular underfunding, at times being funded at 70% of the scheduled appropriation. The program grants made through this program total about $30-35 million and are made a year in arrears. This magnifies the problems caused by the State’s repeated underfunding. Even if fully funded, the Special Education Aid does not reimburse the first $70,000 in cost that is paid by the local district. That’s right, the program doesn’t kick in until the local district has paid 3.5 times the average per pupil cost for services and equipment provided to a child who qualifies for special education and related services.
Can NH do special education better?
Yes.
First, the State can pay its own damned rent. Second, it can better allocate funds to Special Education Aid so that it is fully funded. If it wants to stick with this model that is based on a local approach, it can drop the threshold to receive this funding from 3.5 times average cost to 1.5 times average cost and it can pay the funds to local districts on a current basis instead of paying a year in arrears. Finally, it can make Special Education Aid a part of adequacy to provide it with constitutional protections.
Even better, the State can switch from a local funding model to a state funding model by adopting something akin to a state insurance program for special education. A statewide insurance-style special education funding system could pay for outside services directly instead of reimbursing districts after the fact, reimburse local employee costs related to the provision of special education services on an ongoing basis and better allow local officials to plan their special education budgets year to year. The ability to exercise local control—rather than just respond to emergencies—would be enhanced.
As well, requiring communities without property wealth to raise money in the same way as communities with great property wealth is unfair and contributes to the scapegoating of families whose children require special education services
A state program would move NH away from the current situation where a child’s home school district foots the bill for that child’s special education needs where the Individualized Education Program was designed by a prior school district and the child and her family moved to the paying school district in September or in the middle of the year. Even if a family hasn’t transferred schools, a traumatic injury or serious illness may occur at any time and require special education services be provided to a child without notice sufficient to plan a special education budget. Courts also order services for children in state custody without much notice.
Special education costs are repeatedly cited as the second most significant driver of unplanned increases in school budgets. The cost of health insurance is the most often cited driver. NH’s total spending on special education and related services is approximately $850 million each year. The federal government contributes $48 million directly, and another $15 million through the state-federal Medicaid partnership. The state contributes $93 million through Special Education Aid and adequacy funding. The balance, approximately $694 million, is raised by local property taxpayers.
In the Rand school funding case, we argue that the state should foot the bill for special education and not foist it on local districts. A statewide plan or dramatically increased per student funding would better suit our state’s needs and meet constitutional requirements.
Spread the word (and please subscribe).
PS. The State requested another extension and so no briefs in the pending NH Supreme Court cases for another 15 days.
Thanks for reading Andru’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Andru’s Substack is free. Subscribe by pledging your support at $00.00. Share with your friends! © All rights reserved. Andru Volinsky, PO Box 1181, Concord, NH 03302. 2024
