1  

The Comprehensive Synthesis of the

Importance of Special Education Budgeting

Dominica R. Felici Skal

August 17, 2015

  2  

As I prepare this comprehensive report, I realize that as a future school leader,

I will have a financial responsibility in the following areas of concern: budget

development and implementation, IDEA and other funding for special education,

compliance monitoring, special education plan development, parent engagement, extended

school year and working in collaboration with school board members as well as other

administrators. Below you will find a reflection of these responsibilities as a future

school leader and their relation to the school budget.

•Budget Development and Implementation

As a future special education administrator, I will be required to both develop and

implement a special education budget. I will begin by assessing the previous year’s special

education budget in order to locate improvement areas. ‘How can our students to be

provided the biggest bang for their buck?’ (Sorenson, R.D. & Goldsmith, L.M., 2013). In

doing so, I will begin by reviewing the needs of the current students with IEPs. Then I will

research the rate of growth for the student versus the expense for the service. ‘The

service business of school requires self-discipline, trustworthiness, transparency, integrity

and collaboration to be combined in an integrated budget and academic action plan’

(Sorenson, R.D. & Goldsmith, L.M., 2013, p.30). The budget cycle can be visualized as a

never-ending circle of setting goals, reviewing goals and cost, research, proposals of

options, reviewing those options and voting on the best options for the needs of our

  3  

students. The budget continues to cycle as improvements will always be needed through

assessments and goal setting.

•IDEA and other sources of funding for special education

‘Before 1975, students with disabilities were discriminated against for these

individuals were not afforded a free and appropriate education due to their disability. In

1954, 21 years prior to 1975, Brown vs. the Board of Education set the stage for

eliminating discrimination in public schools by abandoning segregation for it is the right of

every individual to be afforded an equal, free and appropriate education (FAPE). Although

Brown vs. the Board of Education was not a special education case, this supreme court

decision made it possible for early 1970’s court cases such as: PARC (Pennsylvania

Association for Retarded Children) vs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills vs. The

District of Columbia to entitle exceptional children a free and appropriate education and

therefore, due process of law. As debated on our discussion board during Week 8, my

opinion remains that Pennsylvania is more progressive in special education than New Jersey

due to the PARC case. Although New Jersey may have more specialized educational

facilities close in proximity, Pennsylvania’s special education standards and laws appear to

be more detailed and demanding. Due to these court decisions which dealt with

discrimination, Congress enacted PL 94-142, known as Public Law 94-142, The Education

for all Handicapped Children Act. Eight years prior to IDEA, The Individuals with

  4  

Disabilities Education Act was enacted, Rowley vs. the Henderick Hudson BOE decision

defined appropriate in FAPE without the school district’s legal obligation to afford the

maximum education for each student.’ (Yell, M., Katsiyannis, A., Hazelkorn, M., 2007) Why

mention these historical cases and what do they have do with the present day budget? As

a taxpayer versus a parent with a special needs child, each party has a diverse

perspective. During Week 7’s discussion board, Melissa and I were sharing personal

perspectives for a reason. The point being that if President John F. Kennedy did not lead

the reigns for both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and PL 94-142 due to

his personal interest and compassion for his disabled sister, Congress and Gerald Ford

would not had signed either policy to law. These laws set the stage for a Free and

Appropriate Education (FAPE), Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Least

Restrictive Environment (LRE), due process and parent procedural safeguards. Yet how

and why did it take so long to renew PL 94-142 to IDEA during the Clinton administration

and now IDEIA during the Obama administration? I recall the Reagan administration’s

involvement with “The War on Drugs” and Bush with “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB). Still

today, I believe that the Rowley case continues to muddy the waters of educational

leaders’ perspectives. Rowley’s decision claimed that school districts have to provide an

appropriate education. However, this supreme court decision decided that school districts

are not bound to providing “the maximum or best” educational opportunity for their

  5  

students. With that thought in mind, doesn’t it sound hypocritical when all school districts

claim their mission is provide an education that allows students to reach their full

potential? At the same time, I wonder if FAPE needs be redefined for the present time,

in order to align with Common Core Standards and assessments intended for high school

graduation such as: PARCC? More importantly, what do school districts need to change to

financially prepare themselves for FAPE of 2015?

•Compliance Monitoring, Extended School Year (ESY) & Parent Engagement

Special education funding results from a combination of local, state and federal

funds and the question becomes during an audit or compliance monitoring are these funds

being appropriately utilized according to the law? ‘The Individuals with Disabilities

Education law distributes federal funds to school districts in order to assist public schools

to abide by this law. IDEA is a law with five sections: A, B, C, D & E. Part A of IDEA

defines the law and its purpose. Section B of IDEA deals with state eligibility for federal

funds for students with disabilities ages 3-21. In order to comply with Part B of IDEA,

six main principles must be in compliance: FAPE, LRE, due process, IEP, entitlement to

evaluation upon parental consent and child/parent input taken into account in the

educational process. Part C of IDEA deals with LEA eligibility for federal funds for

children ages birth-2 years of age. In order to comply with Part C of IDEA, four main

principles must be in compliance: family entitlement of appropriate, timely and

  6  

multidisciplinary identification and intervention services, individualized family service plan

(IFSP), parental right to participate and consent before initiation of intervention services

and due process. Parts D and E of IDEA deal with quality of special education, special

education professional development and recruitment/retainment of special education

teachers and staff. (Wright, W.D. & Wright P.D., 2013) I mention IDEA under compliance

monitoring because this is why each state requires special education enrollment

submissions in some form to the federal government. Second, each state has built

compliance laws for their state. For example, as mentioned in the PATTAN Special

Education Plan training video, Pennsylvania schools are compliant or following the law when

a speech and language teacher has 65 or fewer caseloads with a maximum of five students

per session. However, New Jersey does not have a legal limit of caseloads for the

speech/language teacher. The New Jersey Special Education Programs in all public school

districts must be compliant with twenty indicators. After reviewing New Jersey’s Self

Assessment Special Education Monitoring Manual, I felt that New Jersey is moving toward

a system that combines both cyclical and focused compliance monitoring. In fact, New

Jersey is offering school districts money through a School Improvement Grant (SIG) to

hire Turnaround Principals or partake in a variety of transformation models. The New

Jersey Compliance Monitoring System reminded me of the continuous improvement cycle

as in NJ’s Student Growth Objectives (SGO’s) similar to PA’s Student Learning Objectives

  7  

(SLO’s). Extended School Year (ESY) as outlined in IDEA and by the New Jersey

Department of Education allow a collaborative decision at the IEP meeting between the

school district and parents if these extra services are necessary during the summer

months due to a variety of indicators involving rate and recovery of regression. During

IEP meetings, I have witnessed discussions of student x’s ability to retain information

after the weekend and school vacations, in order to determine if ESY would benefit

student x. Parent engagement is not only encouraged during IEP meetings but also

required by law. IDEA specifies the right to parent involvement throughout the law.

Furthermore, school districts must have a written parent engagement policy, which is

required by law if the school district accepts Title I funding. The New Jersey Special

Education Code requires school districts to have parent advisory groups. In my opinion,

allowing parents to form a community avoids due process because a listening ear is always

available. From a business perspective, it is more advantageous to know why one has an

unhappy customer than to avoid the complaints. Due to differences in state compliance,

the process in the development of Special Education Planning also differs in legality

between states.

•Special Education Plan Development & Collaboration with Administration/School Board

New Jersey and Pennsylvania differ in special education plan development as

mentioned through the discussion board with my research and participation in NJSmart

  8  

training for special education submission. I do realize that although the PARC case may

have provided the state of Pennsylvania with more descriptive state compliance laws, as a

future special education administrator, this detailed information is needed for budget

planning regardless of state compliance requirements. ‘As I shared on the discussion

board, I would like to utilize a format similar to the Lawrence School District in Trenton,

New Jersey because it followed a researcher’s process’ (Servillo, E, 2015). This example

located in Appendix A also signifies the importance and necessity of working with other

school administrators and board members, as well as the collaboration of team

development, where the big picture is identified. Although the big picture for each school

district may have a common theme, it is unique for each school district due to differences

of wants and needs for each school population and community.

To conclude, the past ten weeks assisted me in visualizing all of the themes discussed

as in a Wordle and their connection to the budget cycle. It is my hope to be given the

opportunity to become a Special Education Supervisor or Turnaround Principal, the

administration and organization of the budget and its relation to the school’s mission will

determine the heart of the agenda. “I Expect Progress” in not only my expectation in

every IEP but in every student served either in my classroom or under my future

leadership.

  9  

References

Yell, M., Katsiyannis, A. & Hazelkorn, M., (2007). Reflections on the 25th anniversary of

the U.S. supreme court’s decision.

Servillo, E. (2015, August 14). Special education strategic planning sessions 1-3.

Retrieved from: http://ltps.org/admin.cfm?subpage=7517

Sorenson, R.D. & Goldsmith, L.M., The principal’s guide to school budgeting. Corwin: 2013.

Wright, W.D. & Wright, P.D., Wrightlaw: Special education law. Harbor House Law Press:

2013.

  10  

Appendix A

A Research Process Format of Special Education Planning

I. Mission Statement II. Development of a Vision for "each" Team (Blue, Yellow, Red Teams-Time Magazine that reads “Special Services that Succeeds”. The participants were asked to "envision" what was written in Time Magazine that warranted such high recognition. Key Question: In our current SPED Services Program already in place, what programs, services, curriculum, student outcomes, best practices facilities would you expect to see in your school that are succeeding? (Think the “Big Picture” for the individual school district) III. Team Collaboration: After all teams received their group's visions, the next session began with a synthesis of the common themes. The common themes were: Inclusion, Early Intervention, Smaller Class Sizes, Full Child Study Teams, Professional Development, Social Skills Development, Students Transition to High School and Adulthood, Community Outreach, PM Tutoring, Facilities-accessibility, capacity IV: Emerge Themes with Goals: 1. Equal Access for All Children (Inclusion Programs-Equitable Service) 2. Community Outreach & Readiness 3. Professional Development V. Goal Statement and Objective: In teams, one goal statement was written w objectives. So basically the overall goal and objectives in how to obtain the goal is shown in the example below: Goal Area: Community Outreach and Readiness Goal Statement: Establish an inclusive community, based on partnerships and alliances, which will foster student success in the global world. Objective 1: Survey the community to find interest and need for knowledge of our students Objective 2: Create community workshops to develop an inclusive community Objective 3: Increase community-based instructional experiences to build linkages and increase utilization of resources. Recommended Potential Actions: (Action Plan) 1. Publish business partners on websites 2. Ongoing opportunities (committee discussions) between parents, CST, and board to discuss strategic goals and objectives 3. Parent/community-wide school support for business partners VI. Strengths, Challenges and Visions Strengths vs. Challenges T Chart