MASS Special Needs Task Force SPECIAL EDUCATION FINANCE POLICY Sheldon Berman Massachusetts...

MASS Special Needs Task Force

SPECIAL EDUCATION FINANCE POLICY

Sheldon Berman

Massachusetts Association of School

Superintendents


THE DILEMMA The foundation formula was built on the assumption that school districts were not effectively containing costs and were inappropriately identifying children as having special needs.

In contrast, MASS found that for most of the 1990s school districts reduced the percent of students in special education programs.

However, districts were still experiencing cost increases that seriously compromised their regular education program and the goals of education reform.


SPED ENROLLMENTSPECIAL EDUCATION ENROLLMENT AS A PERCENT OF

TOTAL ENROLLMENT FY85 TO FY06

15.0%

15.2%

15.4%

15.6%

15.8%

16.0%

16.2%

16.4%

16.6%

16.8%

17.0%

17.2%

17.4%

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Specia

l Educati

on E

nro

llm

ent

as

a %

of

Tota

l Enro

llm

ent


COST TRENDSSPECIAL EDUCATION AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL SCHOOL

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES FY90-FY05

17.0%

17.5%

18.0%

18.5%

19.0%

19.5%

20.0%

20.5%

21.0%

21.5%

22.0%

22.5%

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

IMPACT OF THE CIRCUIT BREAKER


HEALTH COSTSINCREASES IN SCHOOL DEPARTMENT HEALTH EXPENDITURES

FOR MASSACHUSETTS FY90-FY05

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

50,000,000

55,000,000

60,000,000

65,000,000

70,000,000

75,000,000

80,000,000

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05


COST INCREASESPERCENT CHANGE IN DISTRICT SPENDING

FY90 TO FY05

88.7%

212.6%

156.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

220%

Regular Education Special Education Health Services


CONTINUED COST INCREASES

70.8%

115.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

REGULAR EDUCATION SPECIAL EDUCATION

INCREASE IN PER PUPIL COSTS FY90 TO FY04


COST TRENDSTRENDS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REGULAR EDUCATION IN MASSACHUSETTS FY90 TO FY05

17.0%

17.5%

18.0%

18.5%

19.0%

19.5%

20.0%

20.5%

21.0%

21.5%

22.0%

22.5%

23.0%

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

FISCAL YEAR

SP

EC

IAL

ED

UC

AT

ION

AS

A %

OF

T

OTA

L E

XP

EN

DIT

UR

ES

46.5%

47.0%

47.5%

48.0%

48.5%

49.0%

49.5%

50.0%

50.5%

51.0%

51.5%

52.0%

52.5%

RE

GU

LA

R E

DU

CA

TIO

N A

S A

% O

F

TO

TAL

EX

PE

ND

ITU

RE

S

Special Education Regular Education

IMPACT OF THE CIRCUIT BREAKER


TRANSPORTATION COSTS ESCALATING

PERCENT INCREASES IN TRANSPORTATION COSTS 1997 TO 2005

65.3% 64.3%

82.0%77.7%

52.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

REGULAREDUCATION

TOTAL SPECIALEDUCATION

OUT-OF-DISTRICTSPECIAL

EDUCATION

PRIVATE DAYSPECIAL

EDUCATION

IN-DISTRICTSPECIAL

EDUCATION


TRANSPORTATION COSTS 95-05

FISCAL YEAR

TOTAL SPED EXPENDITURE

ANNUAL % INCREASE

CUMULATIVE % INCREASE

TOTAL REGULAR ED EXPENDITURE

ANNUAL % INCREASE

CUMULATIVE % INCREASE

95 84,424,884 105,676,49496 91,321,342 8.2% 8.2% 110,671,629 4.7% 4.7%97 97,875,680 7.2% 15.9% 115,544,145 4.4% 9.3%98 105,075,909 7.4% 24.5% 120,782,200 4.5% 14.3%99 116,869,372 11.2% 38.4% 128,237,343 6.2% 21.3%00 129,429,988 10.7% 53.3% 134,736,212 5.1% 27.5%01 138,825,076 7.3% 64.4% 144,814,174 7.5% 37.0%02 150,500,350 8.4% 78.3% 157,102,021 8.5% 48.7%03 159,829,896 6.2% 89.3% 158,501,890 0.9% 50.0%04 167,616,568 4.9% 98.5% 156,608,943 -1.2% 48.2%05 173,930,125 3.8% 106.0% 176,374,420 12.6% 66.9%

AVERAGE 7.5% 5.3%

SPECIAL EDUCATION REGULAR EDUCATION

MA SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REGULAR EDUCATION TRANSPORTATION COSTSFISCAL YEARS 1995 TO 2005


SPECIAL ED AND ED REFORM

The cost increases were equivalent to a large share of new ed reform aid from FY93 to FY99.

For 56% of districts SPED increases exceeded 50% of new state aid.

For 29% districts SPED increases exceeded 100% of new state aid.


OMINOUS PRESCHOOL TRENDS

FY85-FY01: 199% increase in special needs preschool enrollments in contrast to a 20.4% increase for all other sped prototypes

In FY02, the DOE reporting date was moved back from Dec. to Oct., thereby reducing the number of preschool enrollments

FY02-FY06: 15% increase in special needs preschool enrollments in contrast to a 7% increase for all other sped prototypes


OMINOUS PRESCHOOL TRENDS

TRENDS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION PRE-SCHOOL ENROLLMENT FY85 TO FY06

3,500

4,161

4,654

5,223

5,731

6,634

7,120

8,475

8,953

8,3488,058

7,801

3,218

5,875

7,7357,549

7,552

8,448

8,667

9,6029,589

9,620

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06


OTHER OMINOUS TRENDS

FY92-FY06: 197% increase in 0-3 year olds with significant disabilities served by Early Intervention

CY83-CY05: 181% increase in confirmed child maltreatment cases

FY90-05: 213% Increase in nursing and health related care costs



0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

EARLY INTERVENTION CHILDREN SERVED FY92 TO FY06

CHILDREN SERVED MODERATE TO SEVERE DISABILITY



CHILD MALTREATMENT: CHILDRENT WITH REPORTS AND INVESTIGATIONS 1983-

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98* 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

MALTREATMENT REPORTS INVESTIGATIONS SUPPORTED INVESTIGATIONS



OSD approved salary relief for private sped schools

$2.5 million increase for FY07 for tuition to 18 schools

$??? Million increase for FY08 for tuition to potentially 180 schools

Notification deadline for FY08 will be Dec. 15


THE REALITY

A significant factor in the increase in costs has been the rapid rise of children with moderate and serious disabilities in early intervention and preschool programs.


FINDINGS The cost of special education increased at a significantly greater rate than that of regular education from FY90 to FY05.

Special education consumes a significantly higher percentage of most school districts’ budgets and a disproportionate share of new funds allocated to education.

Increases in the number of children and severity of disability of children served by Early Intervention and special needs preschool programs indicate that these trends will continue.


MAJOR CAUSES OF INCREASED COSTS

Advances in medical technology

Deinstitutionalization of special needs children and privatization of services

Consequences of a higher percentage of children living in poverty

Increase in families experiencing social and economic stress.


THE PROBLEM

Is not caused by district policy and practice but rather medical, economic, and social factors.

Is exacerbated by the lack of adequate funding at a state and federal level for special education and early childhood programs.


THE DILEMMA

Children are entering our programs with significantly greater special needs and these needs are often identified at a very early age.

We need a solution that addresses the financial crisis emerging in many districts while at the same time meeting the real and substantial needs of these children.

We need a solution that does not blame the children or those working with these children and does not place the primary burden on local communities, but addresses the real causes of the problem.


THE LONG TERM SOLUTION

Provide financial relief to school districts and communities for the rising special education costs through increased aid

Address the medical, social, and economic issues that cause children to require special education.


THE CIRCUIT BREAKER Provided significant state relief for children requiring high cost special education services

For the first time, provided aid for in-district students and private day placements

Significantly increased state funding for special education

Proposed: 90% above 3x foundation ($23,712)

Passed: 75% above 4x foundation ($31,616)

In FY05, it was 11.5%of total special education spending

In FY06, it is likely to be 10%.


INCREASED STATE AID

STATE AID FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

140,000,000

160,000,000

180,000,000

200,000,000

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07


CIRCUIT BREAKER AND SPED EXPENDITURES

SPECIAL EDUCATION EXPENDITURES AND CIRCUIT BREAKER AID FY05

$1,656,892,395

$189,931,074

$0

$200,000,000

$400,000,000

$600,000,000

$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000

$1,400,000,000

$1,600,000,000

$1,800,000,000

TOTAL SPED EXPENDITURES CIRCUIT BREAKER

11.5% of sped

spending


CIRCUIT BREAKER AND SPED WITH SPED TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES

SPECIAL EDUCATION EXPENDITURES AND CIRCUIT BREAKER AID FY05

$1,830,822,520

$189,931,074

$0

$200,000,000

$400,000,000

$600,000,000

$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000

$1,400,000,000

$1,600,000,000

$1,800,000,000

$2,000,000,000

TOTAL SPED EXPENDITURES CIRCUIT BREAKER

10.4% of sped

spending

With sped transportat

ion


INCLUDING SPED TRANSPORTATION IN THE CIRCUIT BREAKER

Foundation budget for special education covered only 48.8% of sped expenditures including sped transportation in FY05.

There is no state support for sped transportation in spite of the regional nature of transportation for out-of-district special education students.

Special education transportation costs have been growing at almost 2x the rate of regular education transportation and doubled between FY95 and FY05, creating serious hardships for districts.

Special education transportation is a basic component of serving high cost special education children and, therefore, should be part of the Circuit Breaker formula.


SPED FOUNDATION BUDGET ISSUES

Locks in the percent of students in special education in-district (3.75%) and out-of-district (1%)

Seriously underestimates special education services and tuitions Expenditure on services is 284% of foundation in FY04

Expenditure of sped tuitions is 319% of foundation in FY04


FOUNDATION BUDGET ISSUES

FOUNDATION BUDGET CATEGORYFOUNDATION

BUDGETACTUAL FY04

SPENDING

ACTUAL AS A % OF

FOUNDATIONAdministration 345,115,767 324,593,647 94.1%Instructional leadership 470,530,879 644,341,515 136.9%Classroom & specialist teachers 3,074,895,282 3,908,460,083 127.1%Other teaching services 656,211,845 634,925,912 96.8%Professional development 113,669,891 201,736,320 177.5%Instructional materials & tech 385,675,675 316,378,823 82.0%Guidance & psychological 201,769,831 267,609,172 132.6%Pupil services 181,965,111 518,319,101 284.8%Operations & maintenance 803,567,886 781,250,738 97.2%Employee benefits 662,084,453 1,384,226,288 209.1%Special education tuition 158,984,988 507,236,006 319.0%TOTAL 7,054,471,607 9,489,077,605 134.5%

FY04 EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENTAGE OF NEW FOUNDATION CATEGORIES


FOUNDATION BUDGET INADEQUACY

54% of actual spending

SPECIAL EDUCATION EXPENDITURES IN COMPARISON TO FOUNDATION ALLOCATION FOR FY05

$1,656,892,395

$894,346,648

$0

$200,000,000

$400,000,000

$600,000,000

$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000

$1,400,000,000

$1,600,000,000

$1,800,000,000

Total SPED Expenditures SPED in Foundation Budget

54% of actual spending


FOUNDATION BUDGET INADEQUACY

SPECIAL EDUCATION EXPENDITURES INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION IN COMPARISON TO FOUNDATION

ALLOCATION FOR FY05

$1,830,822,520

$894,346,648

$0

$200,000,000

$400,000,000

$600,000,000

$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000

$1,400,000,000

$1,600,000,000

$1,800,000,000

$2,000,000,000

Total SPED Expenditures withTransportation

SPED in Foundation Budget

48.8% of actual spending


POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Increase the circuit breaker for FY08 to address OSD approved salary upgrades for private 766 schools

Adjust the foundation budget to accurately account for special education costs

Lower the circuit breaker threshold to 3x or 3.5x foundation or increase the reimbursement to 80%

Include special education transportation in the circuit breaker

Restructure out-of-district special education transportation with the hub being the private school


RESTRUCTURING SPED TRANSPORTATION

Currently, districts rely on themselves or on education collaboratives for out-of-district sped transportation

Collaboratives transport or contract for transportation services for all students within the collaborative region to all private sped schools attended by these students.

Therefore, there are overlapping routes going to the same private school


PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM

Overlapping routes and inefficiencies

Diverse vehicles from taxis to handicapped accessible mini-buses

Planning is complex: multiple students to multiple schools

Traffic congestions and delays at the private schools

Lack of training for drivers and transportation monitors


CORE CONCEPTS OF A RESTRUCTURED APPROACH

Each private school serves as the hub for planning services for all students at the school

Each collaborative would provide or bid transportation for the private schools in its region for all students at the school

The collaborative becomes the central point of contact and organization


CASE STUDY

QUADRANT # PUPILS # VENDORS # ROUTES RIDERSHIP

1 25 9 12 2.08

2 12 3 3 4.00

3 58 14 19 3.05

4 19 7 7 2.71

TOTAL RIDERSHIP 114 33 41 2.78

THE LEARNING CENTER FOR THE DEAF TRANSPORTATION DATA


BENEFITS

Fewer routes and more efficient routing that saves costs

With routing based in one school, larger groups of children can be transported together, reducing the number of vehicles

Eases congestion at the school Easier to provide higher quality drivers and monitors

One stop complaint management for parents and school

Potential for multiple uses for busses such a field trips

Improves quality of students’ education experience


PILOT PROGRAM

3 Collaboratives Assabet Valley Collaborative ACCEPT Collaborative Lower Pioneer Valley Collaborative

3 year transition to new structure

Includes evaluation to determine cost effectiveness

Requires $300,000 each year


This PowerPoint is available at

the MASS website.

www.massupt.org

MASS Special Needs Task Force SPECIAL EDUCATION FINANCE POLICY Sheldon Berman Massachusetts...

Documents

Transcript of MASS Special Needs Task Force SPECIAL EDUCATION FINANCE POLICY Sheldon Berman Massachusetts...