Join us MONDAY, April 1, for a special advocacy day for students with disabilities.
This event is being hosted by Investing in Student Potential - Designing systems to give every learner what they need, when
they need it
The Arc of King County is a founding member of the coalition and serves on the steering committee. Shout out to The Arc of Washington, The Arc of Spokane, Inclusion for All, the Down Syndrome Community of Puget Sound, and the Office of the Developmental Disability Ombuds for joining recently. You can see the other great organizational and individual supporters here.
Engage! A special education update
We are in the final stretch, budgets are out, and policy bills are getting their final polish. So what, if anything, will change with special education?
IN THE HOUSE: More funds, but not a lot. Close to $70 million over projected maintenance funding and just $14 million over current law.
While the House funded an increase in the multiplier (.9609 to .9925), it did not hear bills about special education that address the cap, or that would have phased in a larger, tiered increase to the multiplier. The education policy committee passed a bill that addressed technical support and demonstration sites for inclusive schools, but the Appropriations Committee did not hear the bill. The House did not make changes to the Safety Net in its budget.
IN THE SENATE: A lot more than the House. About $152 million over projected maintenance funding and $98 million over current law.
About 40 percent of the increase is to the Safety Net, and so won't benefit all local education agencies (LEAs). The Safety Net is for extraordinary costs. The Senate also funded an increase to the multiplier (.9609 to 1), generating either $81 million or $86 million (the dollar increase varies in different budget documents). The Senate also budgeted two pieces of legislation that it passed:
- SB 5091 - Pulls federal funding out of the Safety Net and replaces it with state funds; this makes it easier for districts to apply (Has not yet passed the House)
- SB 5532 - The Senate version helps staff and families understand/navigate special education services. (The House has since amended it to emphasis support for inclusive and differentiated teaching, but has not yet passed it.)
The Senate then added more money to the Safety Net, on top of the federal swap out. The Senate did hear the bill that would have have phased in a larger, tiered increase to the multiplier but did not vote it out of committee.
Neither of the proposed multiplier increases come close to closing the gap of several hundred million dollars that local
education agencies (LEAs) are reporting. But budget writers in both chambers say the numbers don't reflect increases made in the last biennium that, when paired with the multiplier, send millions more to LEAs.
So how is special education funded?
And how can LEAs and the legislature have such different takes?
Washington uses something I call a capped pool.
To fund general education, the state has a formula it uses
to generate a per-student allocation. This base allocation varies between LEAs
depending on teacher and student profile and things like local cost of living. The base allocation in Aberdeen can look a lot different than the base allocation in Kirkland.
To fund special education, the state takes that base allocation
(unique to each LEA), then multiplies it by a pre-determined number. This is
called “the multiplier” and right now it is .9609.
The state then multiplies
that amount by the number of full-time special education students in the LEA … or … up
to 13.5 percent of total full-time student enrollment in the LEA - whichever is
smaller.
This creates a pool of money that the LEA draws from to pay for special education services. I call it a capped pool because the state caps it based on a percentage of enrollment. The state wants to contain costs so it penalizes districts with too many special education students.
The problem? Well, beyond the conflict with federal law that requires LEAs to find, assess and serve all qualifying students, the size and depth of the pool is completely unrelated to
cost of services or actual number of students requiring services. It is a formula
that helps state budget writers arrive at a number but doesn’t align with
actual need. The pooled funds could be adequate, or way off.
If you have more than 13.5 percent of students qualifying
for services, you will get less, per student. Your pool will be shallow. How big a deal that is depends on
the cost of required services.
If your base allocation is low (because, say, your cost of living is low), your special education
allocation will be low. Whether that matters depends on the cost of required
services.
And if both your base is low and you exceed the 13.5 percent enrollment cap? Again, depends on costs of required services, but odds are more likely
your pool feels like a muddy pond.
What we don’t have – yet – is a system designed to give
every learner what they need, when they need it. And neither chamber seemed interested in taking that up this session.
OK - what about policy? Any wins?
SB 5532 - This is the bill that came from the Senate and was designed to help people understand and navigate special education better. It was amended by the House to promote inclusion. It also charges the Office of the Education Ombuds to create training on special education basics for both school staff and families, and includes an advisory committee that among other things would set up demonstration sites for inclusive learning. It passed the House Education Committee unanimously but has yet to get a hearing in Appropriations.
- There is no House-amended bill posted to the bill page yet, but you can read the striker here. Rep. Dolan wrote the striker, so if you like it, thank her!
The lines we love:
“Inclusive education practices significantly improve outcomes for students with disabilities and have significant benefits for all students in the classroom. It is the legislature's intent to develop best practices for inclusion in numerous settings and to ensure that best practices are supported statewide.”
The striker also says:
- Best practices for differentiated instruction must be embedded into professional development for all teachers
- The state Office of the Education Ombuds (OEO) shall develop training materials for students, families, school staff and the community, subject to funding
- Subject to funding, a special education ombuds should be located in each Educational Service District
- An advisory group will be established for demonstration sites and other purposes
- The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) must establish a technical assistance program on inclusive education practices
- OSPI must identify meaningful indicators of success for special education
SB 5091 - This is mostly a funding bill related to the Safety Net. It swaps out federal funding for state money. This eases some of the restrictions and makes it easier for LEAs to apply to. What is not clear is how the federal money will be used.
- Ramona Hattendorf, Director of Advocacy, The Arc of King County
