Legislators Consider Special Ed Funding

A LAWSUIT by school districts over special-education funding has done part of its job, which was to get the attention of lawmakers.

Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, D-Bothell, and other lawmakers are working to tweak rules and add zeros to budget line items to benefit special education. They are smart to work to avoid ending up on the losing end of a battle over education funding. And if they are successful, the state's Safety Net Fund, which provides special-education relief to school districts, will get an additional $20 million.

Legislators are also working on regulatory relief for special education. They plan to stop requiring school districts to use up local levy dollars before applying for the safety net. Another move by lawmakers would remove 3- and 4-year-old students from special-education head counts. The pre-schoolers would still receive special-education funding, but they would no longer add to the enrollment cap placed on all school districts. This would create more funded slots for older children.

These are important modifications. They are also a good sign that lawmakers took seriously the lawsuit by 11 Washington school districts.

But no cigar yet. The only way the Legislature can make this go away is to completely overhaul the special-education funding model. Anything short of that doesn't accurately reflect the reality of special-education needs.

The reality is this: Federal spending on special education has risen every year but still falls short of a 1970s-era promise to bring it up to 40 percent of the need.

The state hasn't done much better. While the courts have ruled that special-education programs must be part of a basic education and schools must treat each disability with individual education plans, the state continues to fund this branch of education with a flat rate. This one-size-fits-all model is inadequate.

A report by the Washington Association of School Administrators spotlights the gap in special-education funding and the reality of expenditures. For example, Seattle Public Schools spent $51.6 million in the 2002-03 school year on its special-education program, but received only $29.4 million from state and federal sources. Nearly one-quarter of local tax revenue was used to cover the rest, even though the local levy is meant to supplement basic education.

This fiscal dilemma isn't unique to Seattle. The 35 districts in the Puget Sound region spent about $233 million on special education last year, but almost 30 percent wasn't covered by the state, according to a Seattle Times report.

Facing a multibillion-dollar deficit, it is unrealistic to expect the Legislature to write a check big enough to fix the inequities in special-education spending. But lawmakers must do more than show they are sympathetic to school districts grappling with high special-education costs. They must sow the seeds of a long-term workable solution.

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company