I am on board with the Federal bailouts of Wall Street, the big banks, the auto industry and housing mortgage situation. If the economy can’t be saved from a total meltdown, we are all going down with it. So President Obama and Congress—do what you have to do on that front.
I also like the new President’s idea of rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure as an economic engine in the years ahead. And that kind of program can certainly help state and local governments. But in the short term, there is something Washington can do for state and local governments nationwide—something simple, something powerful, and something long overdue. Increase federal funding for IDEA—special education, and do it now.
As state and local governments grapple with epic budget crises, the situation for education funding will be more precarious that at any time in recent memory. Right here in Connecticut, 10% reductions in state education spending are in the mix of possibilities. That’s $285 million, most of it in the form of aid to towns that cannot compensate for such a hit with local tax revenues. Local education budgets will be impacted significantly in many jurisdictions.
Now consider this. In Connecticut, spending for special education will top $1.5 billion this school year—more than 20% of all current education expenditures. The split of local (60%), state (31%) and federal (9%) aid for special education translates into $900 million local support, $465 million state support, and $135 million federal support. In 1975, when IDEA became law, 40% federal support was promised. Imagine if CT were to receive federal aid more in line with that initial promise, and local/state support could be reduced accordingly.
At 40% the federal share would be $600 million, not $135 million, allowing local and state special education spending to drop by a combined $465 million—without cutting services to a single child. And it would free up those state and local dollars to help address the current budget crisis here. Increasing the federal share to 40% over three or four years would still provide more than $100 million to CT each year until the target was reached. Think what that could do given the current state and local budget situation.
Current national figures are estimates, but information on the NEA website suggests that less than $25 billion in new federal aid would be needed to bring the federal share to 40% nationally. Read the complete NEA proposal for IDEA funding.
I know $25 billion is a lot of money, but given what has been done and is being considered for other sectors of the economy, it isn’t an unreasonable amount for states (and towns) to receive. I won’t even call it a bailout, since it is only what was promised long ago. And best of all, it can be done quickly because the programs and payment processes are already in place. No new planning or lengthy ramp up period is required.
Mr. Obama, Congress, you can get that money where it can do some real good, real fast.
It appears that you make some good points in the above article but you miss the solution. Since 1995 (to 2006) federal funding for Part B IDEA grants has increased 250%. Yes, it is most likely below where it needs to be but if the local and state entities are letting this programs grow faster than the rate or inflation or even double the rate of inflation, then they need to share most of the blame. Controls and guidelines need to be implemented with suggestions for productivity programs to maintain cost controls. This appears to be sorely lacking in Connecticut as well as other states as it is not in the culture of the NEA to look in this direction. See the attached for details:
http://holt.house.gov/pdf/CRSonIDEAfunding021105.pdf
Thanks, Jerry, for the link to the NEA report and your comments. I don’t disagree that school districts should always be looking for more economical ways to provide services in all program areas. But I don’t think that much of the “blame”, as you put it, for the current cost of special education can be laid at the doorstep of state and local agencies’ implementation of the federal mandate. And don’t let the 250% increase in IDEA funding mislead you. Because the federal contribution has been at such a low percentage for so long. doubling or tripling it still leaves Wahington’s share far below expectations.
Thanks again
Bob
“Productivity programs to control costs” are something we need on Wall Street, not in our schools. The events of the past few months have demonstrated beyond doubt that the lack of controls allowed the growth of profits and salaries to go completely out of whack in our financial institutions with resulting great harm – check the unemployment, bankruptcy and foreclosure rates — to our country.
When anyone suggests, however, that the problem with schools is that they just need more funding, then immediately there is a hue and cry for accountability, spending controls and productivity programs. What it comes down to is that our principals, teachers and students are expected to muddle along with whatever small change Uncle Sam finds in his pocket for them.
Congress passed a law in 1975 requiring the schools to provide special education for those who need it and promising to pick up 40 percent of the cost. Never once has Congress fulfilled that promise, although the schools have been required to uphold their part of the bargain. How can the resulting shortfalls possibly be the fault of state and local school systems?
Seven or eight years ago, President Bush and Congress did the same thing all over – as President Reagan might say, “There you go again” — when they passed the much-heralded No Child Left Behind program. The program laid a burden of a good many extra controls and productivity programs – like the requirement for high-stakes testing in every grade whether needed or not — on the schools, but for the past seven years, the funding formula has been one of benign neglect.
For its profligacy, Wall Street gets billions of dollars in bailouts; for their steady underfunded efforts, schools get told they really need to be more careful how they spend their money. Go figure!
The magazine Education Week had an article on financing “special needs kids”. It it a stamp of shame on this country that special needs children and families have to engage Lawyers, Advocates and Judges and Court Costs in order to get their children PROPERLY educated. Go for it. !!!FRAN