National Council on Disability

February 7, 2018

IDEA Series 

Broken Promises: 

The Underfunding of IDEA
National Council on Disability (NCD)

1331 F Street NW, Suite 850

Washington, DC 20004

(IDEA Series) Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA

National Council on Disability, February 7, 2018 

Celebrating 30 years as an independent federal agency

This report is also available in alternative formats. Please visit the National Council on Disability 

(NCD) website (www.ncd.gov) or contact NCD to request an alternative format using the following 

information:

ncd@ncd.gov Email

202-272-2004 Voice

202-272-2022 Fax

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the Administration, as this and 

all NCD documents are not subject to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.
Letter of Transmittal

February 7, 2018

President Donald J. Trump

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD), I am pleased to submit this report titled 

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA. This report is part of a five-report series on the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that examines the past-to-current funding levels 

for all parts of the IDEA, analyzes the impact that the lack of full-funding has had on states in 

meeting their obligations to provide a free and appropriate public education to students with 

disabilities, and provides recommendations regarding future funding.

As you know, the right of students with disabilities to receive a free and appropriate public 

education in the least restrictive environment is solidly rooted in the guarantee of equal 

protection under the law granted to all citizens under the Constitution. Over the past 42 years, 

the Federal Government has recognized and supported this right through providing billions of 

dollars in special education funding to assist the states in meeting their responsibilities in this 

area. NCD has repeatedly called on Congress to fully fund IDEA. The Federal Government’s 

failure to meet its promised funding obligation has stressed many state and local budgets to 

the point where many districts routinely struggle to meet student needs. In 1975, Congress 

promised to cover 40 percent of the average cost to educate a child with disabilities. Congress 

later amended the law to say that the Federal Government would pay a “maximum” of 

40 percent of per-pupil costs. Today, the Federal Government pays less than half of what it 

originally promised in 1975.

Students with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of funding issues, 

which can include delays in evaluations or rejection of requests for independent educational 

evaluations, inappropriate changes in placement and/or services, and failures to properly 

implement individualized education programs (IEPs). This report analyzes and summarizes 

several of the types of funding mechanisms proposed by Congress via bills in the last several 

congresses, as well as funding history, state funding formulas and budget tables, and district 

funding.

National Council on Disability

An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress 

to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.

1331 F Street, NW ■ Suite 850 ■ Washington, DC 20004

202-272-2004 Voice ■ 202-272-2074 TTY ■ 202-272-2022 Fax ■ www.ncd.gov
NCD stands ready to assist the Administration in ensuring the right to a free and appropriate public 

education for students with disabilities as set forth in IDEA.

Respectfully,

Clyde E. Terry

Chairperson

(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the 

U.S. House of Representatives.)

2 National Council on Disability
National Council on Disability Members and Staff

Members

Clyde E. Terry, Chairperson

Benro T. Ogunyipe, Vice Chairperson

Billy W. Altom

Rabia Belt

James T. Brett

Bob Brown

Daniel M. Gade

Wendy S. Harbour

Neil Romano

Staff

Vacant, Executive Director

Joan M. Durocher, General Counsel & Director of Policy

Amy Nicholas, Attorney Advisor

Amged Soliman, Attorney Advisor

Ana Torres-Davis, Attorney Advisor

Anne Sommers, Director of Legislative Affairs & Outreach

Phoebe Ball, Legislative Affairs Specialist

Lisa Grubb, Director of Operations and Administration

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant

Keith Woods, Financial Management Analyst

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 3
4 National Council on Disability
Acknowledgments

The National Council on Disability thanks Selene Almazan, Denise Marshall, and Melina Latona of the 

Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; Laura W. Kaloi of the McKeon Group; and Candace Cortiella 

of The Advocacy Institute for the research conducted in developing this report.

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 5
6 National Council on Disability
Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Qualitative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Policy Analysis and Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Quantitative Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Chapter 1: History of Funding of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Authorizations Versus Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

IDEA Part B Grants to States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

IDEA Part B, Section 611 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

IDEA Part B, Section 619 Preschool Grants Program . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

IDEA Part C Grants for Infants and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Supplement Not Supplant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Maintenance of Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Federal Regulations on Maintenance of Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Federal Reports on Maintenance of Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Congressional Action on Maintenance of Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Chapter 2: Efforts to Obtain Full Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Chapter 3: Cost of Special Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Chapter 4: Impact of Lack of Federal Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Parent Insight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Medicaid in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 7
Chapter 5: Perspectives of Key Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Chapter 6: Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Impact: Federal Underfunding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Impact: No Large-Scale National Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Chapter 7: Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

8 National Council on Disability
I

n 1975, when Congress passed the first 

iteration of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) mandating that all children 

with disabilities be provided a free appropriate 

public education in the least restrictive 

environment (LRE), it also promised states the 

Federal Government would provide 40 percent 

of the average per pupil expenditure to help 

offset the cost of educating eligible students. 

In the nearly 43 years since the law’s passage, 

Congress has never lived up to that funding 

promise. The failure to provide adequate federal 

funding has left states and districts burdened to 

find the fiscal resources required to meet their 

IDEA obligations.

To better understand how the persistent 

underfunding of IDEA impacts students with 

disabilities, the National Council on Disability 

(NCD) undertook research for this report. Using 

a mixed methods study, key questions were 

used to examine the history of the IDEA funding, 

identifiable impacts in districts and schools 

resulting from a lack of full funding, and the effect 

a lack of funding has had on services to students.

In this report, NCD found that the lack of 

federal support places considerable pressure 

on state and local budgets, resulting in a range 

of actions including one state placing an illegal 

cap on IDEA identification, districts and schools 

limiting hiring of personnel and providers, 

districts and schools restricting service hours, 

and districts and schools reducing or eliminating 

other general programs. There is unanimous 

support to increase annual federal IDEA funds 

and agreement that increases would allow 

districts to improve outcomes and use freed-up 

local funds to support all students. Finally, no 

large-scale national study has been conducted 

since the early 2000s, which limits researchers 

and policymakers’ ability to understand the true 

costs of special education, and maintenance 

of effort (MOE) requirements can serve as a 

disincentive to districts piloting innovative or 

expanded services.

To address these findings, we recommend 

the following to Congress, the Department of 

Education, and state policymakers:

■ Increase funding to the maximum 

authorized amount

■ Provide flexibility in IDEA’s MOE 

requirements that also protect student civil 

rights

■ Establish a funding threshold beyond which 

increases will be tied to improved results for 

students with disabilities

Executive Summary

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 9
10 National Council on Disability
List of Acronyms

AASA The American Association of School Administrators

APPE average per pupil expenditure

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

BCA Budget Control Act

CEC Council for Exceptional Children

CEIS Coordinated Early Intervening Services

COPAA Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates

EAHCA Education for All Handicapped Children Act

EHA Education of the Handicapped Act

FAPE free appropriate public education

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IEP individualized education program

LEA local educational agency

LRE least restrictive environment

MOE maintenance of effort

NCD National Council on Disability

OCR U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights

SEA state educational agency

SEEP Special Education Expenditure Project

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 11
In 1975, when Congress passed the first 

iteration of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) mandating that all 

children with disabilities be provided a 

free appropriate public education in the 

least restrictive environment (LRE), it also 

promised states the Federal Government 

would provide 40 percent of the average 

per pupil expenditure to help offset the cost 

of educating eligible students. In the nearly 

43 years since the law’s passage, Congress 

has never lived up to that funding promise.

12 National Council on Disability
T

he National Council on Disability (NCD) has 

long advocated for Congress to provide 

federal funds for special education as 

authorized in the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). Most recently, in its 

statement on the 40th anniversary of IDEA, 

NCD pointed out that “(I)n 

1975, Congress promised 

to cover 40 percent 

of the average cost to 

educate a child with 

disabilities, but decades 

later, broken promises and 

disagreements over the Federal Government’s 

funding responsibilities remain. Congress 

later amended the law to say that the Federal 

Government would pay a ‘maximum’ of 

40 percent of per-pupil costs. Today, the Federal 

Government pays less than half of what it 

originally promised in 1975, or roughly 18 percent 

of the total.”1

Research for this report found that 

comments received in preparation for NCD’s 

2002 report, Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act Reauthorization: Where Do We 

Really Stand?, remain valid today. In particular, 

one commenter stated, “Congress must fund 

40 percent of special education as promised 

so long ago. The lack of sufficient federal IDEA 

funds generates resentment and discrimination 

against children with disabilities in their public 

schools. Any new funding must be linked 

to state/local school districts’ compliance 

with and enforcement of IDEA statutory 

requirements. Anything else will continue to 

fuel noncompliance.”2

IDEA’s substantive right 

to a free appropriate public 

education (FAPE), requiring 

that the individual needs of 

each student drive special 

education services and 

instruction, is independent 

of the availability of resources. However, the 

individualized nature of special education and the 

stark reality of the limitations on state and local 

funding are often at odds, resulting in districtlevel decisions that ration and deny services and 

supports to meet the unique needs of students 

with disabilities. More than two decades ago, 

NCD heard from parents that, while a lack of 

resources is not an acceptable excuse under the 

equal protection provisions of the Constitution 

upon which IDEA is based, school districts 

continue to use lack of funding as an excuse to 

limit the level of support and services to students 

with disabilities.3 Interviews conducted to inform 

this report revealed the same.

Policymakers need additional information 

on the federal funding of IDEA. NCD sought 

Introduction

[T]he Federal Government pays 

less than half of what it originally 

promised in 1975, or roughly 

18 percent of the total

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 13
to gather that information. In this report, we 

address the following questions:

■ What obligations does the Federal 

Government have to fund IDEA and at 

what level?

■ What are the past-to-current funding 

levels for all parts of IDEA by the Federal 

Government?

■ What identifiable impacts has the lack of 

full funding had on schools’ abilities to meet 

their obligations under IDEA?

■ What is the impact that lack of funding has 

had on services to students?

Research Methods

To address these questions, the NCD research 

team conducted a mixed methods study 

gathering stakeholder perspectives, as well as 

policy and quantitative information. The research 

questions provided a basis for analysis of the 

history, trends, and current status of federal 

law—both authorizing and appropriations; 

examination of available research and descriptive 

data; and consideration from the experiences of 

stakeholders—parents, school personnel, district 

and state officials or their national organization(s), 

and officials from the Department of Education.

Qualitative Analysis

To gather stakeholder perspectives, the 

NCD research team conducted interviews 

and held five forums—four regional and 

one national. Specifically, the NCD team 

conducted 25 semistructured interviews with 

key stakeholders, including Department of 

Education officials; state and local administrators; 

and representatives from disability rights 

organizations, professional associations, and 

parent organizations to determine perspectives 

on federal funding for IDEA.

In the second phase of research, we gathered 

perspectives from parents and students through 

four regional focus groups in California, Illinois, 

Texas, and Virginia. NCD recruited participants 

through the Council of Parent Attorneys and 

Advocates (COPAA)’s member network, local 

parent networks, and state and national partners 

in the forum locations. In total, 72 people 

participated in the regional forums. Only 

30 percent of regional forum participants were 

COPAA members and 70 percent were nonCOPAA members. Of the 72 participants in 

the regional forum, 38 percent were parents or 

students of color.

The third phase of data collection occurred 

during an online forum at COPAA’s national 

conference. In total, 58 people participated in 

the forum. Twenty-three percent were people 

of color. An additional 23 people responded 

Research Questions Addressed 

in Report

■ What obligations does the Federal 

Government have to fund IDEA and at 

what level?

■ What are the past-to-current funding 

levels for all parts of IDEA by the Federal 

Government?

■ What identifiable impacts has the lack of 

full funding had on schools’ abilities to 

meet their obligations under IDEA?

■ What is the impact that lack of funding has 

had on services to students?

14 National Council on Disability
through an email address.4

 In addition to the 

72 participants at the forum, there was a total of 

81 people who responded in the focus groups, 

the national forum, and the email responses.

In all settings, NCD used a semistructured 

question protocol to gain perspectives about 

parent and child experiences with IDEA. Data 

was recorded and transcribed to identify 

themes among the experiences (see appendix 

for protocols).

Policy Analysis and Literature Review

To understand the policy context, we conducted 

a thorough review of current policy on the issue 

of IDEA federal funding, examining specifically 

any relevant statute, regulations, or guidance on 

the topic.

Quantitative Data

In our quantitative review, NCD gathered 

descriptive statistics and reviewed data from 

the IDEA Annual Reports to Congress, Annual 

Budget Justifications, Annual IDEA Child Counts, 

as well as other available national data sets. 

This quantitative review helps to provide an 

overarching picture of the topic nationally and 

enhances the individual perspectives gathered 

from the qualitative components.

Limitations

In this study, NCD recruited participants 

through COPAA’s member network, local 

parent networks, and state and national 

partners in the forum locations. Additionally, 

we purposefully selected interview participants 

based on location and position. Therefore, the 

qualitative data identified in the report should 

not be viewed as generalizable, but rather 

as perspectives of individuals within those 

positions. The qualitative data offers individual 

first-person perspectives to complement the 

quantitative aspects of this report.

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 15
16 National Council on Disability
Chapter 1: History of Funding of the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

I

DEA,5 originally enacted in 1975 as the 

Education for All Handicapped Children 

Act (EAHCA), provides federal funding 

through state formula grants to assist states 

with the excess costs of educating children 

with disabilities. States must provide a free 

appropriate public education (FAPE) to all children 

with disabilities as a condition of receiving federal 

IDEA funds. Thus, IDEA is both a grants statute 

and a civil rights statute.

The availability of federal funds to educate 

children with disabilities predates EAHCA by 

several years.6 It was the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Amendments Act of 

1966 that first authorized a federal assistance 

program for states to educate children with 

disabilities.7 That program was repealed in 

1970 and federal assistance for children with 

disabilities was consolidated under the Education 

of the Handicapped Act (EHA). Funding was then 

incorporated into the EAHCA upon its passage 

in 1975.

EAHCA introduced a funding formula that 

would provide each state with a maximum 

grant equal to the state’s number of children 

with disabilities receiving services multiplied 

by a percentage of the national average per 

pupil expenditure (APPE). The APPE percentage 

was authorized to gradually increase—starting 

at 5 percent in fiscal year 1978 (FY1978) and 

increasing to 40 percent in 1982. The 40 percent 

APPE funding level, which was permanently 

authorized, has come to be known as “IDEA full 

funding.” The Senate Committee on Labor and 

Public Welfare stated the reason for the funding 

formula as follows:

The Committee wished to develop a formula 

which would target funding and eligibility for 

funding on the population of handicapped 

children for whom services would be 

provided. The Committee adopted this 

formula to provide an incentive to states to 

serve all handicapped children and to assure 

that the entitlement is based on the number 

of children receiving special education and 

related services within the State and for 

whom the State or the local educational 

agency is paying for such education. The 

formula in existing law, the Education of the 

Handicapped Act, distributes Federal funds 

to the States on the number of all children, 

aged three to twenty-one within such State. 

The Committee has developed a formula 

which generates funds on the basis of the 

handicapped children receiving an education 

within a State.8

IDEA has undergone several reauthorizations 

since 1975. The most significant change to 

the funding formula occurred in the 1997 

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 17
reauthorization.9

 Congress became increasingly 

concerned that tying funding to the number 

of students receiving special education was 

acting as an incentive to overidentify students 

as needing special education. This concern 

was particularly acute regarding children of 

color and to the disability categories of specific 

learning disability, intellectual disability, and 

emotional disturbance.10 This concern appeared 

to be justified because the number of children 

with disabilities being served had grown from 

4,475,011 in 1987 to 5,775,519 in 1996—an 

increase of 33 percent in just 10 years.11

To address this concern, Congress designed 

a new state allocation formula, moving from 

a formula based on 

the number of children 

receiving special 

education in the state 

to a formula based on 

the total population of 

children in each state and 

the percentage of those 

children who are living in poverty. Congress 

believed this approach would reduce or eliminate 

any financial incentives to overidentify students 

needing special education. Congress added the 

poverty factor to recognize the link between 

poverty and disability.12

The funding formula adopted in the 1997 

reauthorization was to take effect beginning the 

year that federal appropriations for state grants 

exceeded $4.9 billion. Appropriations reached 

that threshold in FY2000. The formula also 

guaranteed states a minimum, set at the amount 

received in the year prior to the threshold year of 

FY2000. Thus, states were guaranteed to receive 

their FY1999 level of funds.13

Any new funds appropriated for state grants 

were to be allocated to a state based on the total 

population of children ages three to 21 in that 

state, broken out in the following manner:

■ 85 percent based on the total population of 

all children ages three to 21

■ 15 percent based on the state’s share of 

children living in poverty

The 1997 reauthorization maintained the 

maximum authorization of 40 percent of the 

APPE, which remains in effect today.

Prior to the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, 

funding was authorized as “such sums as 

may be necessary.”14 In 

contrast, IDEA 200415

included specific amounts 

of authorized funding 

for several years. The 

amounts were designed to 

provide significant annual 

increases, culminating in 

a funding level for FY2011 that was the amount 

estimated to provide “full funding.”

For the purpose of carrying out this part, 

other than Section 1419 of this title, there 

are authorized to be appropriated—

$12,358,376,571 for fiscal year 2005

$14,648,647,143 for fiscal year 2006

$16,938,917,714 for fiscal year 2007

$19,229,188,286 for fiscal year 2008

$21,519,458,857 for fiscal year 2009

$23,809,729,429 for fiscal year 2010

$26,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and

such sums as may be necessary for 

fiscal year 2012 and each succeeding 

fiscal year.16

This concern appeared to be 

justified because the number of 

children with disabilities being 

served had grown ... 33 perce

in just 10 years

18 National Council on Disability
The 2004 IDEA also introduced a new 

provision that allowed school districts to use 

IDEA federal funds to serve children who 

were not eligible for special education. Called 

Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS), 

this provision allows districts to use up to 

15 percent of IDEA Part B federal funds to 

serve children in kindergarten through grade 

12 (with emphasis on 

students in kindergarten 

through grade three) 

not currently identified 

as needing special 

education or related 

services, but who need 

additional academic 

and behavioral support to succeed in a general 

education environment. This provision is known 

as “voluntary CEIS.”

In the case of districts identified by the 

state as having significant disproportionality 

in the identification, placement, and/or 

discipline of students with disabilities based 

on race or ethnicity, the district is required 

to use 15 percent of its IDEA Part B funds to 

provide comprehensive CEIS to serve children, 

particularly but not exclusively, in those groups 

that were significantly overidentified. This 

requirement is known as “mandatory CEIS.”17

States were not required to report the data 

on the amount of IDEA funds used by districts 

to provide CEIS to the 

Department of Education 

until the 2009–2010 

school year. The data 

collection was instituted 

in conjunction with the 

American Recovery 

and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (ARRA). Reported data shows 

little impact of this provision on the overall 

IDEA funding provided to local districts. In the 

2014–2015 school year, only 457 districts were 

required to use IDEA funds for CEIS due to 

disproportionality, or just 3 percent of districts 

nationwide.18

Year

Amount of IDEA 

Part B funds spent 

on voluntary CEIS 

(in millions)

Amount of IDEA 

Part B funds spent 

on mandatory CEIS 

(in millions)

Total amount of IDEA 

Part B funds spent 

on CEIS 

(in millions)

2009–2010* $260.1 $306.9 $56

2010–2011 $115.4 $163.9 $27

2011–2012 $109.3 $107.2 $21

2012–2013 $84.6 $239.6 $32

2013–2014 $80.5 $176.1 $25

2014–2015 $69.8 $198.4 $26

*Funds made available by the ARRA were subject to EIS.

Source: Annual reports of Part B Maintenance of Effort Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services.

In the 2014–2015 school year, only 

457 districts were required to 

use IDEA funds for CEIS due to 

disproportionality, or just 3 percent 

of districts nationwide

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 19
Concerned with the small number of districts 

being found to have disproportionality, in 2016 the 

Department of Education promulgated new federal 

regulations regarding the method used by states 

to identify local districts as having significant 

disproportionality. Implementation of these new 

requirements could result in a substantial increase 

in the number of districts 

that will be required to 

spend 15 percent of 

their IDEA Part B funds 

on CEIS going forward. 

However, the new 

regulations also allow 

districts to use some of 

these funds to serve students already receiving 

special education services in certain cases.19

Authorizations Versus Appropriations

At no time since Congress established the 

federal funding formula in the EAHCA (in 1975) 

has the amount of funds appropriated matched 

the authorized amount. While IDEA is the 

authorizing legislation—laying out the amount 

authorized to be appropriated—this amount only 

provides guidance regarding the amount of funds 

to carry out the authorized activities. However, 

it does not guarantee that such amounts will, 

in fact, be made available to states and local 

districts. Ultimately, the regular appropriations 

bills passed annually by Congress determine 

the amount appropriated. If Congress fails to 

pass annual appropriations bills, funding is 

provided via continuing resolutions and omnibus 

appropriations measures.

In the case of IDEA Part B, the appropriations 

process has resulted in substantial underfunding 

throughout the history of the legislation. 

Annual appropriations have also been positively 

influenced by ARRA in 2009 and negatively 

influenced by the automatic spending cuts to 

government programs through sequestration and 

the spending caps placed on future discretionary 

appropriations. The Budget Control Act of 2011 

brought about both sequestration and the 

spending caps.20

IDEA Part B Grants 

to States

IDEA Part B distributes 

funds to states under 

two sections: Section 

611 provides funds for 

children ages three to 

21 receiving special 

education in public schools and Section 619 

provides preschool grants for children ages three 

to five.

IDEA Part B, Section 611

The following table shows the history of federal 

appropriations from fiscal years 1988 through 

2017 for IDEA Part B, Section 611 (children ages 

three to 21) in both dollars and as a percentage 

of the APPE.

This table shows that in nearly 30 years 

(1988–2017), the offset of federal funding 

provided by Congress to states for the APPE for 

IDEA-eligible children ages three to 21 has only 

once been funded above 18 percent. In the last 

eight years, funding has remained flat at about 

16 percent.

IDEA Part B, Section 619 Preschool 

Grants Program

The following table shows the actual federal 

appropriations for fiscal years 1988 through 

2017, the number of children ages three to five 

served, and the federal share of the cost per 

child served.

At no time since Congress 

established the federal funding 

formula in the EAHCA (in 1975) has 

the amount of funds appropriated 

matched the authorized amount

20 National Council on Disability
Federal Appropriations for IDEA Part B, Section 611 (children ages 3–21)

Fiscal 

year

Children served 

(in thousands)

Appropriation 

(in thousands 

of dollars)

Federal share 

per child served 

(dollars)

Percentage 

of APPE

1988 4,236 1,431,737 338 9%

1989 4,347 1,475,449 339 8%

1990 4,419 1,542,610 349 8%

1991 4,567 1,854,186 406 9%

1992 4,727 1,976,095 418 8%

1993 4,896 2,052,728 419 8%

1994 5,101 2,149,686 421 8%

1995 5,467 2,322,915 425 8%

1996 5,629 2,323,837 413 7%

1997 5,806 3,107,522 535 9%

1998 5,978 3,807,700 636 11%

1999 6,133 4,310,700 701 11%

2000 6,274 4,989,685 793 12%

2001 6,381 6,339,685 991 14%

2002 6,483 7,528,533 1,159 15%

2003 6,611 8,874,398 1,340 17%

2004 6,723 10,068,106 1,495 18%

2005 6,820 10,589,746 1,558 18%

2006 6,814 10,582,961 1,551 18%

2007 6,796 10,782,961 1,584 17%

2008 6,718 10,947,511 1,609 17%

2009 6,599 22,805,211* 3,453 33%

2010 6,614 11,505,211 1,736 16%

2011 6,552 11,465,960 1,745 16%

2012 6,543 11,577,855 1,766 16%

2013 6,574 10,974,866** 1,674 15%

2014 6,593 11,472,848 1,743 16%

2015 6,691 11,497,848 1,717 16%

2016 6,691 11,912,848 1,777 16%

2017 6,814 12,002,848 1,761 16%

*2009 includes funds made available under the ARRA (P.L. 111–15).

**2013 reflects the impact of sequestration required under the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Source: U.S. Department of Education. “Special Education Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request.” http://www2.ed.gov/

about/overview/budget/budget17/justifications/h-specialed.pdf. (Accessed July 31, 2017.)

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 21
This table highlights that, for nearly 30 years 

(1988–2017), the federal funding provided to 

states—to offset the cost of special education 

to preschool age children ages three to five—

Federal Appropriations for IDEA Part B, Section 619 (preschool grants for children 

ages three–five)

Fiscal 

year

Children served 

(in thousands)

Appropriation 

(in thousands of dollars)

Federal share per child served 

(dollars)

1988 288 201,054 698

1989 322 247,000 767

1990 352 251,510 715

1991 367 292,766 798

1992 398 320,000 804

1993 441 325,773 739

1994 479 339,257 709

1995 522 360,265 689

1996 549 360,409 656

1997 562 360,409 642

1998 572 373,985 654

1999 575 373,985 651

2000 589 390,000 662

2001 599 390,000 652

2002 617 390,000 632

2003 647 387,465 599

2004 680 387,699 571

2005 702 384,597 548

2006 704 380,751 546

2007 714 380,751 533

2008 710 374,099 527

2009 709 774,099* 1,092

2010 732 374,099 511

2011 738 373,351 508

2012 745 372,646 500

2013 749 353,238** 472

2014 745 353,238 474

2015 753 353,238 469

has consistently declined. This has occurred 

despite the fact that the number of preschool 

age children served by states has nearly 

tripled.

(continued)

22 National Council on Disability
Federal Appropriations for IDEA Part B, Section 619 (preschool grants for children 

ages three–five)

Fiscal 

year

Children served 

(in thousands)

Appropriation 

(in thousands of dollars)

Federal share per child served 

(dollars)

2016 753 368,238 489

2017 753 368,238 489

Note: Beginning in 1991, IDEA required that services be made available to all children with disabilities ages three to 

five as a condition for receiving funding for children in this age range under the Grants to States program.

*2009 includes funds made available under the ARRA (P.L. 111–15).

**2013 reflects the impact of sequestration required under the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Source: U.S. Department of Education. “Special Education Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request.” http://www2.ed.gov/

about/overview/budget/budget17/justifications/h-specialed.pdf. (Accessed July 31, 2017.)

IDEA Part C Grants for Infants and 

Families

IDEA Part C provides grants to states to 

assist in providing services to children with 

disabilities, from birth to age two, and their 

families. Allocations are based on the number 

of children in the general population ages birth 

through two years in each state. IDEA 2004 

authorized the appropriation of “such sums 

as may be necessary” for each of the fiscal 

years 2005 through 2010. The following table 

shows federal appropriations for IDEA Part C 

for infants and families for fiscal years 1988 

through 2017.

Federal Appropriations for IDEA Part C (grants for infants and families)

Fiscal year Appropriation (in millions of dollars)

1988 67,000

1989 68,800

1990 79,500

1991 117,000

1992 174,900

1993 213,200

1994 253,200

1995 315,600

1996 315,800

1997 315,800

1998 350,000

1999 370,000

(continued)

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 23
Federal Appropriations for IDEA Part C (grants for infants and families)

Fiscal year Appropriation (in millions of dollars)

2000 375,000

2001 383,600

2002 417,000

2003 434,200

2004 444,400

2005 440,800

2006 436,400

2007 436,400

2008 435,700

2009 439,400

2010 439,400

2011 438,500

2012 442,700

2013 419,700*

2014 438,500

2015 438,600

2016 458,600

2017 458,600

*2013 reflects the impact of sequestration required under the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Source: Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. “Part C National Program Data.” http://ectacenter.org/partc/

partcdata.asp (Accessed July 31, 2017.)

This table shows that, over the course 

of 30 years (1988–2017), the federal funding 

provided to states—to 

offset the cost of early 

intervention and special 

education to infants 

and toddlers—has 

incrementally risen.

Supplement Not 

Supplant

In general, federal funds appropriated under IDEA 

Part B may only be used to cover the excess 

costs of providing special education and related 

services to students with disabilities. Federal 

funds must supplement 

(or increase) the level of 

other federal, state, and 

local funds expended for 

special education and 

related services and in 

no case supplant these 

funds. This requirement 

is known as supplement 

not supplant. In 1975, it was included in EAHCA 

and reads as follows:

[Fo]r nearly 30 years (1988–2017), 

the federal funding provided to 

states—to offset the cost of special 

education to preschool age children 

ages three to five—has consistently 

declined

24 National Council on Disability
[States must] provide satisfactory 

assurance that Federal funds made available 

under this part (A) will not be commingled 

with State funds, and (B) will be so used 

as to supplement and increase the level 

of State and local funds expended for the 

education of handicapped children and in no 

case to supplant such 

State and local funds, 

except that, where 

the State provides 

clear and convincing 

evidence that all 

handicapped children 

have available to them 

a free appropriate 

public education, 

the Commissioner may waive in part the 

requirement of this clause if he concurs 

with the evidence provided by the State.21

This requirement was maintained in both EHA 

amendments of 198622 and 1990.23

Maintenance of Effort

In addition, IDEA includes separate maintenance 

of effort provisions that apply independently at 

the state and local level. The term maintenance 

of effort (MOE) generally refers to a requirement 

placed upon many federally funded grant 

programs that the state educational agency 

(SEA) and local educational agencies (LEAs) or 

school districts demonstrate that the level of 

state and local funding remains constant from 

year to year.

IDEA 199724 added new language identifying 

four exceptional circumstances an LEA may 

use to justify a reduction in MOE, and more 

than one may be applicable in each year. An 

LEA may reduce its required local MOE if the 

reduction in expenditures is attributable to the 

following:

■ The voluntary departure or departure for just 

cause of special education personnel

■ A decrease in enrollment of students with 

disabilities

[O]ver the course of 30 years 

(1988–2017), the federal funding 

provided to states—to offset the 

cost of early intervention and 

special education to infants and 

toddlers—has incrementally risen

■ An individual child with 

disabilities moves out, 

graduates, ages out, 

or no longer needs an 

exceptionally costly 

program

■ The termination of 

costly long-term 

purchases, such as the 

acquisition of equipment or construction of 

school facilities

■ The assumption of cost by the highcost fund that may be operated by 

the SEA

IDEA 2004 expanded on the circumstances 

that allow an LEA to adjust its MOE. This additional 

provision, known as the “50 percent rule,” is 

triggered in any fiscal year for which the federal 

allocation exceeds the amount received in the 

previous year and provides that:

■ LEAs may use up to 50 percent of the 

increase in their IDEA grant to reduce 

the level of local expenditures for special 

education.

■ LEAs exercising this option are required 

to use the freed-up funds for “activities 

authorized under the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965” and for 

early intervention services.

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 25
■ States could prohibit an LEA from using 

this option if the LEA did not meet “the 

requirements of this part.”

■ States prohibit the use of this MOE 

exception for LEAs that are “unable 

to establish and maintain programs 

of free appropriate public education” 

or for LEAs that do not meet targets 

in the state’s performance plan 

(i.e., receive less than a “meets 

requirements” rating, including a finding 

of disproportionality).25

This new provision 

allowing an adjustment 

to MOE was intended 

to provide LEAs with 

fiscal relief from the 

costs of local special 

education programs when they received a 

significant increase in federal special education 

funding. Importantly, this new reduced level of 

expenditures can be maintained in subsequent 

years until and unless the LEA voluntarily 

increases its local spending on special 

education.

This provision became significantly more 

important when ARRA passed in 2009. 

ARRA provided an increase in IDEA Part B, 

Section 611 funds of $11.3 billion. ARRA funds 

were considered part of the FY2009 federal 

appropriation and were subject to the 50 percent 

rule in that year.

To track MOE reductions by LEAs, the 

Department of Education instituted new data 

collection beginning with FY2009. The reported 

data shows that relatively few LEAs exercised 

the option to reduce local spending up to 

50 percent of the increase in federal funds. In 

the 2009–2010 school year, LEAs reduced local 

spending by a mere $1.5 billion, a fraction of 

what was allowable given the huge increase 

provided by ARRA. Reductions in subsequent 

years have been limited to LEAs in a handful 

of states amounting to a few million dollars. 

Most recently, districts reduced local spending 

by just $5 million.26 Still, when viewing the 

ongoing shortfall of federal funding for IDEA, it 

is important to keep in mind that any increase 

provided through increased 

appropriations could 

potentially provide only 

half of the increase for 

special education at 

the local level should 

LEAs exercise this 

provision.

Federal Regulations on Maintenance 

of Effort

On April 28, 2015, the Department of Education 

issued new regulations regarding LEA MOE. 

The Department identified a need for LEA MOE 

revisions based on fiscal monitoring, audits, 

and questions from states and others. The 

regulations made no changes to the funding 

formula.

The regulations became effective July 1, 2015. 

The major changes in the revised regulations 

include:

■ Clarification of the eligibility and compliance 

standard, explaining that the SEA must 

determine that the LEA budgeted for the 

education of children with disabilities at least 

the same amount of local, or state and local, 

funds as it actually spent for the education 

The reported data shows that 

relatively few LEAs exercised the 

option to reduce local spending 

up to 50 percent of the increase 

in federal funds

26 National Council on Disability
of children with disabilities during the most 

recent fiscal year for which information is 

available, and that the LEA will maintain the 

same level of funding in order to receive 

federal funds.

■ Explanation of the Subsequent Years rule, 

which clarified that the level of effort that 

an LEA must meet in the year after it fails 

to maintain effort is the level of effort that 

would have been required in the absence of 

that failure and not the LEA’s actual reduced 

level of expenditures in the fiscal year in 

which it failed to meet the compliance 

standard.

■ Specification of the consequences for an 

LEA’s failure to maintain effort, clarifying 

that when an LEA fails to meet the MOE 

compliance standard, the SEA is liable in a 

recovery action to return to the Department 

of Education, using nonfederal funds, an 

amount equal to the amount by which the 

LEA failed to maintain.

SEAs are responsible for ensuring that LEAs 

adhere to these regulations.27

Federal Reports on Maintenance 

of Effort

A 2014 U.S. Department of Education Office of 

the Inspector General’s report, Management 

Information Report on IDEA Maintenance of 

Effort Flexibility,28 provided suggestions for 

the next reauthorization of IDEA designed to 

avoid the unintended consequences of a large, 

one-time increase in appropriations, such as 

that provided by ARRA. Suggestions include the 

following:

■ Congress could limit SEA or LEA spending 

reductions under the flexibility provisions 

at IDEA §§ 613(a)(2)(C) and 613(j) that are 

attributed to a large, yet temporary federal 

funding increase to only the period when 

the flexibility is exercised.

■ Alternatively, Congress could prohibit 

any SEA or LEA spending reduction 

using flexibility for those supplemental 

federal funds received as the result 

of a large, yet temporary funding 

increase. These limitations could be 

accomplished through amendments 

to the IDEA flexibility provisions or as 

part of any future legislation providing a 

large, yet temporary supplemental IDEA 

appropriation.

A report by the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office (GAO)29 in October 2015 

examined the issue of MOE and offered options 

that Congress might consider in the next 

reauthorization of the IDEA regarding MOE. The 

report found that

because the MOE requirement lacks 

flexibility, it can discourage districts from 

altering their baseline of special education 

spending, even when doing so would 

benefit students with disabilities or result 

in more efficient delivery of the same 

services. For example, despite other grant 

provisions in IDEA that promote innovation, 

some district officials commented that 

the MOE requirement can serve as a 

disincentive to districts’ efforts to pilot 

innovative or expanded services requiring 

a temporary increase in funds because it 

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 27
would commit them to higher spending 

going forward. In addition, some district 

officials noted that prioritizing special 

education spending to meet MOE resulted 

in cuts to general education spending that 

affected services for all students, including 

the many students with disabilities who 

spend much of their days in general 

education classrooms.

GAO recommended:

To help districts address key challenges in 

meeting MOE and 

mitigate unintended 

consequences 

that may affect 

services for students 

with disabilities, 

while preserving 

the safeguard for 

funding for students 

with disabilities, 

Congress should 

consider options 

for a more flexible 

MOE requirement. This could include 

adopting a less stringent MOE requirement 

to align with the MOE requirements in 

other education programs or adding to 

or modifying exceptions. For example, 

current exceptions could be changed to 

allow one-time increases in spending 

without changing a district’s MOE 

baseline in order to encourage pilot 

innovations or to allow certain spending 

decreases (e.g., state caps on teacher 

benefits), as long as a district can 

demonstrate the decrease does not 

negatively affect services.30

Congressional Action on Maintenance 

of Effort

A bill introduced in the House of Representatives 

in 2015—H.R. 2965, Building on Local District 

Flexibility in IDEA Act31—sought to expand the 

exceptions to the MOE requirement for LEAs. 

Specifically, under the bill, an LEA may reduce 

its level of expenditures for the education of 

children with disabilities below the level of those 

expenditures for the preceding fiscal year where 

such reduction is attributable to (1) improved 

efficiencies that do not result in a reduction of 

special education services; or (2) the reduction 

of expenditures for 

employment-related 

benefits provided to 

special education 

personnel, provided 

that such reduction of 

expenditures does not 

result in a reduction 

in special education 

services.

Additionally, a state 

could waive the MOE 

requirement for an 

LEA for one fiscal year at a time if the state 

determines that (1) all children with disabilities 

have available to them a FAPE; or (2) the LEA 

has not reduced the level of expenditures for 

the education of children with disabilities for 

such fiscal year disproportionately to other 

expenditures, and granting a waiver would be 

equitable due to exceptional or uncontrollable 

circumstances or a precipitous and unforeseen 

decline in the LEA’s financial resources.

H.R. 2965 received full support from the 

American Association of School Administrators 

(AASA).32 At the same time, a leading special 

“[S]ome district officials 

commented that the MOE 

requirement can serve as a 

disincentive to districts’ efforts 

to pilot innovative or expanded 

services requiring a temporary 

increase in funds because it would 

commit them to higher spending 

going forward.

28 National Council on Disability
education advocacy group for professionals, the 

Council for Exceptional Children (CEC),33 voiced 

more limited support for an expansion to MOE, 

stating, “CEC urges Congress to develop policy 

that includes targeted exceptions that will 

meet the needs of LEAs without jeopardizing 

services for children with disabilities, e.g. 

universal personnel expenditures, technology 

advances, instructional services.”34 It is 

expected that these organizations will 

recommend and support substantial 

changes to the MOE requirement in the next 

reauthorization of IDEA.

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 29
30 National Council on Disability
Chapter 2: Efforts to Obtain Full Funding

Coalitions comprised of education 

organizations have worked for years 

to secure increased appropriations 

for IDEA. In 2002, the IDEA Full Funding 

Coalition—a working group of nine nonprofit 

education associations—developed a proposal 

to make IDEA funding mandatory and increase 

federal appropriations from 17 percent to 40 

percent of the APPE gradually over six years.35

The IDEA Full Funding Coalition annually 

writes to Congressional appropriators urging 

increased funding for IDEA.36 These efforts 

have been supported by the introduction of 

IDEA full funding bills in almost every session 

of Congress.37 In fact, support for increases 

to IDEA funding is largely a bipartisan issue. 

Despite this support, significant increases in 

funding remain elusive.

Increased funding was also a key 

recommendation of the report by the President’s 

Commission on Excellence in Special Education. 

The report, A New Era: Revitalizing Special 

Education for Children and Their Families,38

issued in 2002 to influence the impending 

IDEA reauthorization, contained several specific 

recommendations, which went beyond simply 

increasing federal funding. Most important 

among the report’s recommendations were the 

following:

■ Efforts should be undertaken to determine 

the true excess costs of special education 

and use this information to set a threshold 

percentage of funding.

■ Funding increases beyond the threshold 

should be based on improved academic 

and post-school outcomes of students with 

disabilities.

■ The Federal Government should assume a 

significant responsibility for funding of the 

most expensive students.

■ Allow states and LEAs to pool Part C and 

Section 619 funds to create seamless 

systems of early intervention services.

■ The Federal Government should conduct 

studies on special education spending and 

spending on general education and other 

special needs programs for students with 

disabilities to inform the nation about the 

costs and expenditures of special education 

and related services.

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 31
The recommendations of the President’s 

Commission were largely ignored in the 2004 

reauthorization of IDEA. They remain worthwhile 

to explore in the next 

IDEA reauthorization.

NCD’s 2008 

report, The No Child 

Left Behind Act and 

the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education 

Act: A Progress Report,39

recommended increased 

funding for IDEA and also expressed concern 

regarding the CEIS provision incorporated in 

IDEA 2004, stating that “Helping students with 

disabilities access a higher-level curriculum 

requires more support services, potentially 

more learning time, 

better-trained teachers, 

collaborative teaching, 

and new instructional 

approaches. The current 

requirement to spend 

15 percent of IDEA 

on early intervention 

services on nonspecial 

education students diverts funding from an 

already needy population.”40

The recommendations of the 

President’s Commission were 

largely ignored in the 2004 

reauthorization of IDEA. They

remain worthwhile to explore in the 

next IDEA reauthorization

32 National Council on Disability
Chapter 3: Cost of Special Education

A discussion of federal funding for special 

education is not complete without a 

serious examination of what is known 

about the true costs of providing special 

education and related services to the nation’s 6.0 

million school-aged students with disabilities.

The last comprehensive study of special 

education costs was conducted 15 years ago 

and published in 2004.41 The 1997 reauthorization 

of IDEA required data collection and studies to 

measure and evaluate the impact of IDEA and the 

effectiveness of state efforts 

to provide a FAPE to all 

children with disabilities. The 

resulting Special Education 

Expenditure Project (SEEP) 

was conducted by the 

Center for Special Education 

Finance at the American Institutes for Research. 

SEEP produced a series of reports examining a 

range of issues associated with special education 

expenditures.

While actual expenditures reported by SEEP 

are unhelpful in 2017, SEEP also reported on 

the expenditure ratio of special education to 

general education. SEEP reported that, overall, 

the expenditure ratio was 1.9. In other words, 

the nation spent 90 percent more on a special 

education student than on a regular education 

student using data collected during the 1999–

2000 school year.42

SEEP also reported this expenditure ratio 

by disability category and found wide variance 

in the additional costs. Expenditures for 

students with specific learning disabilities 

were 1.6 times the expenditure for a regular 

education student, whereas expenditures 

for students with multiple disabilities were 

3.1 times higher.43

This finding is particularly relevant when 

taken in the context of the 

significant changes that have 

occurred within the overall 

population of students with 

disabilities over the past 15 

years. In particular, there has 

been a dramatic decline in 

the number of students in the category of special 

learning disabilities and explosive growth in the 

category of autism.

The two disability categories with the lowest 

expenditure ratios—specific learning disabilities 

(1.6) and speech/language impairments (1.7)—

have both declined in the number of students 

served between 1999 and 2014.44 Meanwhile, 

disability categories with significantly larger 

expenditure ratios have shown substantial 

growth.

The last comprehensive study 

of special education costs was 

conducted 15 years ago and 

published in 2004

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 33
For example, the category of autism 

represented just 1 percent of all special 

education students in 1999. In 2014, autism 

accounted for 9 percent of all students served by 

IDEA. Given the autism expenditure ratio of 2.9, 

this shift in the makeup of the population served 

would result in a significant increase in the overall 

cost of special education in schools and districts.

Similarly, the category of other health 

impairments accounted for 4 percent in 1999 and 

increased to 14 percent in 2014. Here, too, the 

expenditure ratio is higher than the overall average 

at 2.0. Thus, while the 

special education schoolaged population increased 

only 4.5 percent between 

1999 and 2014,45 the shift 

in disability categories is 

likely driving up the overall 

cost of special education 

because the increases are 

coming from categories 

whose students have typically cost significantly 

more to educate, while the declining categories 

had the lowest expenditure ratios.

The difficulty of studying special education 

expenditures and reporting what is truly the 

excess cost of providing special education 

and related services to students also shows 

in attempts to provide reliable data on statelevel education funding. For example, the 

2016 Michigan Education Finance Study, a 

data-focused analysis of the revenues and 

expenditures of school districts in the state, 

found that there was no way to fully and 

accurately account for all special education 

expenditures at the per-student level using 

current state-collected data. The report 

suggested creating a system to track actual 

special education expenditures for districts at the 

district level.

Without reliable data from a large-scale 

national study on special education expenditures 

and expenditure ratios, it is impossible to:

■ Draw conclusions about the amount of 

federal funding needed to support states 

and local districts in their efforts to provide 

FAPE for students with disabilities. In 1975, 

when lawmakers arrived at the authorization 

level of 40 percent of APPE as part of 

EAHCA, the speculation was that students 

with disabilities would, 

on average, double 

the cost of general 

education students. NCD 

has no reliable data to 

substantiate whether this 

ratio would be accurate, 

let alone sufficient.

■ Understand what, if any, level of 

encroachment exists. NCD knows that 

the public investment in K–12 schools has 

declined dramatically in many states over 

the last decade. According to the Center 

on Budget and Policy Priorities, cuts at 

the state level force local school districts 

to scale back educational services, raise 

more local revenue to cover the gap, or 

both.46 What is not known is the impact 

this lack of spending is having on the 

delivery of special education, including 

whether local districts are encroaching 

on general education budgets to maintain 

special education services and whether 

services to special education students are 

being reduced arbitrarily to fit the available 

funding.

[T]he category of autism 

represented just 1 percent of all 

special education students in 1999

In 2014, autism accounted for 

9 percent of all students served 

by IDEA

34 National Council on Disability
Chapter 4: Impact of Lack of Federal Funding

Because states and districts recognize 

their legal obligation to provide FAPE for 

all eligible students regardless of the 

level of federal funding, officials are not prone to 

associate a lack of federal funding with student 

outcomes. However, federal officials have 

discovered that in some states, unlawful caps 

have been placed on either the number of eligible 

students or the amount of services provided, or 

both. A recent example of 

this is the special education 

identification and eligibility 

cap imposed by the Texas 

Education Agency, which 

was exposed in 2016 

through in-depth reporting 

by the Houston Chronicle.47

While much advocacy has 

been and continues to be 

spent on increasing federal funding for IDEA, the 

past several decades have seen few significant 

increases and, more important, a decline in 

funding as a percentage of APPE, which peaked 

at 18 percent in 2004. In addition, as reported by 

the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the 

austerity brought about by the Budget Control 

Act and sequestration has resulted in a loss of 

8 percent of purchasing power between 2010 and 

2017 in both large federal education programs, 

Title I and IDEA.48 Meanwhile, as noted in this 

report, the relative costs of serving children in 

special education is escalating.

Parent Insight

Through the regional focus groups and/or the 

national forum, parents reported that schools and 

districts have openly admitted that resources 

are limited, and therefore the school is unable 

to provide a comprehensive set of services and 

supports to the child. Some 

parents reported that after 

an individualized education 

program (IEP) meeting, 

the principal, teacher, or 

other school personnel has 

privately admitted or even 

apologized to them about 

their inability to provide 

more to the child, citing a 

lack of resources, predetermined limits, specific 

caps, or maximums placed on certain services by 

schools or districts. The following are just some 

of the statements made by parents:49

■ “She [the child] also needed speech therapy, 

but even if it’s necessary, the school district 

doesn’t pay for it.”

■ “[The school] district has an agenda, a plan 

for what they will offer and it has to do with 

the school district’s budget.”

[F]ederal officials have 

discovered that in some states, 

unlawful caps have been 

placed on either the number of 

eligible students or the amount 

of services provided, or both

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 35
■ “I was told there is no continual placement 

for three-year-olds and no ability to offer 

an area of inclusion. I was also told if I 

wanted my daughter to be around typicaldeveloping peers, I would have to pay for 

that myself.”

■ [With an already identified child suspected 

of additional disabilities] “I was told it [the 

evaluation] could not be done. The school 

said, ‘we cannot 

afford to pay for the 

evaluation(s) and 

we cannot afford 

another teacher 

to pull her out for 

resources.’”

■ “There is an acrossthe-board watering 

down of related 

services. So many of these students are 

either getting their services watered down 

or they’re not getting the related services 

and support they actually need.”

■ [For a student with autism] “The default is, 

‘well, I’m sorry we don’t have something 

for higher functioning kids on the autism 

spectrum with behavioral problems.’ They 

don’t want to do even the minimal stuff, and 

there is no continuum of placement.”

■ “My child was getting five hours a week, 

but at the last IEP meeting the supervisor 

said they would only be able to offer four 

hours—because the state only pays for four 

hours.”

■ A parent of a student with autism, pragmatic 

disorder, articulation disorder, Tourette 

syndrome, and attention deficit hyperactivity 

disorder said: “Right now, my child is 

receiving four hours of parent training and a 

bus. And that’s it.”50

The shortage of special education teachers 

and related service providers is often cited as 

a reason why districts are unable to deliver 

services. These shortages can be the product 

of personnel shortages, budget constraints, 

or both. One parent 

reported that “the 

school principal 

apologized [when they 

couldn’t provide a 

needed support] and 

said, ‘we only have one 

counselor for the entire 

school, and we are 

trying to hire another 

one.’”51 Other parents reported that qualified 

staff were unavailable for in-home education. 

Generally, the forums reinforced that parents 

are discouraged about the availability of trained 

staff to teach children with a broad range of 

disabilities and needs.

A 2016 complaint filed against Trenton 

Public Schools52 illustrated the impact of such 

shortages. In these cases, parents were 

frequently forced to resort to taking action 

through complaints to the U.S. Department of 

Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). In fact, 

the 2016 report from OCR reported the largest 

year-over-year increase in complaints—more 

than 60 percent.53 In 2016, OCR received nearly 

6,000 complaints alleging violations of disability 

laws. One-third (2,141) of those complaints 

alleged a violation of FAPE. According to one 

“I was told there is no continual 

placement for three-year-olds 

and no ability to offer an area of 

inclusion. I was also told if I wanted

my daughter to be around typicaldeveloping peers, I would have to 

pay for that myself.

36 National Council on Disability
OCR official interviewed for this report, a 

majority of the complainants are IDEA-eligible 

children.

Medicaid in Schools

One growing method 

local districts use to 

cope with the lack 

of federal funding 

to support special 

education and related 

services is Medicaid. 

Since 1988, Medicaid 

has permitted payment to schools for certain 

medically necessary services provided to children 

under IDEA through an IEP or individualized 

family service plan. According to a 2017 report 

by the AASA,54 districts rely on Medicaid to pay 

for nurses, therapists, and other key personnel 

that provide IDEA services for students with 

disabilities, as well 

as equipment and 

technology. IDEA-eligible 

students and others 

benefit from Medicaid’s 

Early and Periodic 

Screening, Diagnostic, 

and Treatment, which 

provides screenings and 

treatments for things such as immunizations, 

hearing and vision problems, developmental 

delays, and more.

[T]he 2016 report from OCR reported 

the largest year-over-year increase 

in complaints—more than 60 

percent ... nearly 6,000 complain

alleging violations of disability laws

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 37
The National Alliance for Medicaid in 

Education estimates that 1 percent of all 

Medicaid reimbursement goes to local school 

districts—between $4 and $5 billion annually. 

Parents reported 

specific conversations 

with schools where 

discussions occurred 

during IEP meetings 

to determine first the 

level of reimbursement 

from health insurance, 

including Medicaid, which then helped decide 

what level of service to provide the child. In 

one parent’s words, “any decision made by 

the district mainly comes down to money. So, 

when making their decisions, they consider 

what will be covered. This typically takes 

priority over the individual educational needs of 

the child.”55

While Medicaid provides revenue that districts 

can use to help fund 

related services such as 

speech/language therapy 

and occupational therapy, 

obtaining such funds 

also creates additional 

paperwork. One national 

association reported that 

its therapists spend 25 to 35 percent of their 

time on Medicaid paperwork—time that could 

be spent serving students. This additional burden 

also contributes to staff turnover.56

One national association reported 

that its therapists spend 25 to 35 

percent of their time on Medicaid 

paperwork—time that could be 

spent serving students

38 National Council on Disability
Chapter 5: Perspectives of Key Stakeholders

I

nterviews were conducted with a cross section 

of more than 25 key stakeholders, including 

Department of Education officials; state and 

local administrators; and representatives from 

disability rights organizations, professional 

associations, and parent organizations. These 

interviews, combined with input taken from 

parents participating in the regional focus groups 

and national forum, revealed that there is a 

constant and common refrain that IDEA funding 

matters greatly. Highlights of these interviews 

include:

■ Unanimous support for a substantial 

increase in federal funding of IDEA. Most 

agree that additional federal funding would 

allow districts to improve outcomes for 

students with disabilities. In addition to 

providing more intensive services, districts 

could use freed-up local funds to support all 

students, including those with disabilities.57

■ Recommendation that additional federal 

funding should also include the expectation 

for improved outcomes for students with 

disabilities. More funding should not simply 

support the status quo and should be tied to 

full compliance with IDEA.58

■ Reports that lack rigorous compliance with 

IDEA’s Child Find59 requirement is used to 

limit the numbers of students needing to be 

served due to costs associated with special 

education.60

■ Agreement that the lack of federal funding 

contributes to the ongoing “silo” approach 

to educating students with and without 

disabilities, resulting in inappropriate 

segregation of students with disabilities 

away from their peers.61

■ Agreement that the full impact and 

potential of IDEA is hard to determine when 

adequate funding has never been provided 

by Congress.62

■ Concern for the ongoing and pervasive low 

expectations by adults for students and 

that students with disabilities are doing 

about as well as should be expected. This 

persistent mind-set continues when, in fact, 

special education supports and services 

are intended to allow students to meet the 

same expectations as all other students.63,64

■ Agreement that parents of students 

with disabilities continue to need more 

information and support.65

■ Worry and acknowledgement that there is 

a lack of personnel to provide specialized 

instruction and methodology, and that the 

lack of qualified personnel leads to large 

caseloads, which in turn contributes to the 

high turnover of staff. As a result, new, 

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 39
inexperienced, and overloaded personnel 

are too often teaching students with 

disabilities.66

■ Recognition that there is an increasing need 

for more behavioral supports, services, and 

implementation of evidence-based practices 

to support the growing number of students 

who need help.67 Without more support, 

students encounter negative consequences, 

such as excessive disciplinary actions, and 

aversive practices such as restraint and 

seclusion, as confirmed by the Civil Rights 

Data Collection.68

■ Acknowledgment of the increasing overlap 

of special education and poverty that 

demand services delivered via a “whole 

child” perspective.69

■ Recommendation that MOE requirements 

should provide more flexibility and fully 

support the civil rights of students.70

40 National Council on Disability
Chapter 6: Findings

Utilizing key questions to examine the 

history of IDEA funding from the Federal 

Government to states, identifiable 

impacts in districts and schools resulting from 

a lack of full funding, and the effect a lack of 

funding has had on services to students, in this 

report NCD finds the following:

Impact: Federal Underfunding

The lack of federal support to meet the original 

commitment Congress made to meet the excess 

cost of special education places considerable 

pressure on state and local budgets, resulting in 

a range of actions including:

■ One state placing an illegal cap on IDEA 

identification of students

■ Districts and schools limiting hiring of 

personnel and providers, which contributes 

to high turnover and shortages in the field

■ Districts and schools restricting service 

hours

■ Districts and schools reducing or eliminating 

other general programs

Current IDEA law allows states to use 

CEIS funds for students not eligible for special 

education (under certain conditions), which limits 

availability of IDEA funding for eligible children. 

Additionally, MOE provisions often undermine 

innovation and can serve as disincentives to 

districts wishing to pilot advanced or expanded 

services to IDEA-eligible students.

There is unanimous support and agreement 

among stakeholders to encourage policymakers to:

■ Increase annual federal IDEA funds with the 

expectation to see an increase in student 

achievement.

■ Examine ways to create more flexibility with 

funding increases while protecting students’ 

civil rights.

Such increases would allow districts and 

schools to improve outcomes and use freed-up 

local funds to support all students.

Finally, schools and districts now over-rely on 

federal funding such as Medicaid to help offset 

the costs of key personnel such as nurses, 

psychologists, and counselors; to provide district 

and schoolwide services such as screenings and 

therapies; and to provide assistive technology 

and physical equipment for children.

Impact: No Large-Scale National 

Study

No large-scale national study on the impact 

of IDEA funding on districts and schools as it 

relates to the provision of services to students 

has been conducted since the early 2000s. 

The lack of verifiable data limits researchers’ 

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 41
and policymakers’ ability to understand the true 

costs of special education. Available civil rights 

data does show an increasing overlap of special 

education and poverty, which demand services 

delivered via a “whole child” perspective. 

Moreover, stakeholders acknowledged that 

there is an increasing demand in schools to 

provide behavioral supports and evidencebased practices. Considering the school-level 

data showing that students with disabilities are 

at greater risk of disciplinary actions including 

suspension, expulsion, restraint, and seclusion, 

there is no available data connecting the provision 

of IDEA services or lack of services provided to 

IDEA-eligible children, especially those living in 

poverty.

Congress’ historical approach to flat funding 

IDEA creates apathy and acceptance in school 

buildings each day where—until there is more 

funding—families generally have to take what 

they are offered. School administrators, teachers, 

and families are yoked together because children 

qualify for and need individualized, specially 

designed instruction and support. Yet, this is 

generally not available because a substantially 

underfunded mandate hamstrings everyone.

42 National Council on Disability
NCD has long recommended that Congress 

provide the federal funds authorized 

by IDEA to support the excess cost of 

special education. As evidenced by the findings 

of this report, not only has Congress failed to 

provide such funds, but in fact has decreased 

funding in recent years.

The recommendations that follow are 

based on independent reports and input from 

stakeholders interviewed to inform this report.

Chapter 7: Recommendations

The U.S. Congress should:

1. Authorize funding levels that gradually increase funding to the maximum amount of 

40 percent of APPE (or use a more evidence-based funding formula).

2. Tie full funding of IDEA to full enforcement and compliance with IDEA, including 

meeting the requirements of Results Driven Accountability, as implemented in 2014.

3. Establish a funding threshold beyond which increases will be tied to improved results 

for students with disabilities.

4. Scrutinize the impact and effectiveness of policies that allow the use of IDEA federal 

funds for services to students not eligible for special education, for example CEIS.

5. Examine ways to help states and districts support and serve high-cost students.

6. Explore ways to provide more flexibility in IDEA’s MOE requirements that also protect 

student civil rights.

7. Add a provision that addresses adjustments to MOE and more for any large, one-time 

increase in federal funding (e.g., the 2008 ARRA, which provided states a substantial, 

one-time, annual increase in IDEA and other federal funds).

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 43
The U.S. Department of Education should:

8. Commit to conducting frequent, large-scale studies regarding the true costs of special 

education to inform policy.

9. Strengthen ways to connect IDEA funding to state compliance requirements including 

using its authority to withhold funding from states with ongoing, unaddressed 

noncompliance issues and findings.

States should:

10. Provide greater oversight and guidance to districts to help maximize federal funds 

flowing to schools and avoid caps, maximum level, or other efforts to limit services and 

supports.

11. Rigorously monitor LEA compliance with IDEA and use its authority to withhold funds 

until noncompliance is corrected.

12. Provide training and technical assistance to IEP teams on Child Find, FAPE, and LRE, 

which are research-based practices that support the academic and behavioral needs of 

students.

13. Advocate for an increase to IDEA funding.

44 National Council on Disability
Endnotes

1 National Council on Disability, NCD Statement on the 40th Anniversary of IDEA. (Washington, DC: Author, 

2015), accessed October 29, 2017, http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/2015/ncd-statement-40th-anniversary-idea.

2 National Council on Disability, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Reauthorization: Where Do We Really 

Stand? (Washington, DC: Author, 2002), accessed October 18, 2017, http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2002/

July52002.

3 National Council on Disability, Improving the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Ed Act: 

Making Schools Work for All of America’s Children, (Washington, DC: Author, 1995), accessed October 18, 

2017, https://ncd.gov/publications/1995/09051995.

4 There is no demographic information from the 23 email responses.

5 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647 

(December 3, 2004).

6 Kyrie E. Draggo, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Funding: A Primer (Washington, DC: 

Congressional Research Service, 2016).

7 Pub. L. 89–750, 80 Stat. 1191 (November 3, 1966).

8 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Education of the Handicapped Act as 

Amended Through December 31, 1975. Report No. 72–611, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (June 2, 1975).

9 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. 105–17, 11 Stat. 37 (June 4, 1997).

10 U.S. Department of Education, Twenty-first Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1999, accessed October 18, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/about/

reports/annual/osep/1999/index.html.

11 Ibid.

12 Supra at 8.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647 

(December 3, 2004).

16 Ibid.

17 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Topic Brief: Early Intervening Services, 

2006, accessed October 18, 2017, http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p-old/,root,dynamic,TopicalBrief,8,.html.

18 U.S. Department of Education. “IDEA Section 618 State Level Data Products: Maintenance of Effort 

Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services, 2014–2015,” August 31, 2016, accessed October 18, 

2017, https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html#bmoeceis.

19 U.S. Dept. of Education. Fact Sheet: Equity in IDEA, 2016, accessed October 18, 2017, https://www.ed.gov/

news/press-releases/fact-sheet-equity-idea.

20 Pub. L. No. 112–25, 125 Stat. 240 (August 2, 2011).

21 Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94–142, 89 Stat. 773 (November 29, 1975).

22 Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99–457, 100 Stat. 1145 (October 8, 1986).

23 Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101–476, 104 Stat 1103 (October 30, 1990).

24 Supra at 8.

25 Supra at 14.

26 U.S. Department of Education, IDEA Section 618 State Level Data Products, Maintenance of Effort Reduction 

and Coordinated Early Intervening Services, 2014–2015, August 31, 2016, accessed October 18, 2017, https://

www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html#bmoeceis.

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 45
27 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, OSEP Memo 15–10, 

2015, accessed October 18, 2017, https://osep.grads360.org/#communities/pdc/documents/8628.

28 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, Management Information Report on IDEA 

Maintenance of Effort Flexibility, 2014, accessed October 18, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/

auditreports/fy2014/x09n0006.pdf.

29 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Special Education: More Flexible Spending Requirement Could 

Mitigate Unintended Consequences While Protecting Services, 2015, accessed October 18, 2017, 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-2.

30 Id. at 37.

31 Building on Local District Flexibility in IDEA Act, H. B. 2965, 114th Congress, 2015, accessed October 18, 2017, 

www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2965.

32 American Association of School Administrators, Support HR 2965: The BOLD (Building on Local District) 

Flexibility in IDEA Act, n.d., accessed October 18, 2017, http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_

Advocacy/files/IDEA%20MoE%201-Pager.pdf.

33 Council for Exceptional Children, Issue Brief, Maintenance of Effort, 2015, accessed October 18, 2017, https://

www.specialeducationlegislativesummit.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IDEA-Maintenance-of-EffortFINAL-2015.pdf.

34 Id. at 1.

35 National Education Association, “IDEA Funding Coalition Offers Proposal,” n.d., accessed October 18, 2017, 

http://www.nea.org/home/18750.htm.

36 AASA: The School Superintendents Association et al. Letter to Members of the Senate and House 

Appropriations Committees to Increase IDEA Funding for FY2017, March 10, 2016, accessed October 18, 2017, 

https://www.nassp.org/Documents/nassp/Letters%20to%20Policymakers/IDEA%20letter%20031116%20

FINAL.pdf.

37 For example, IDEA Full Funding Act, H. R. 4136, 113th Congress, 2014, accessed October 18, 2017, https://

www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4136; IDEA Full Funding Act, H.R. 551, 114th Congress, 

2015, accessed October 18, 2017, https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/551; IDEA Full 

Funding Act, H.R. 2902, 115th Congress, 2017, accessed October 18, 2017, https://www.congress.gov/

bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2902.

38 President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education 

for Children and Their Families, 2002, accessed October 18, 2017, http://ectacenter.org/~pdfs/calls/2010/

earlypartc/revitalizing_special_education.pdf.

39 National Council on Disability, The No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: 

A Progress Report, 2008, accessed October 18, 2017, https://ncd.gov/publications/2008/01282008.

40 Id. at 19.

41 Thomas Parrish and Phil Esra. The Special Education Expenditure Project (SEEP): Synthesis of Findings and 

Policy Implications, inForum, April 2006, accessed October 18, 2017, http://nasdse.org/DesktopModules/

DNNspot-Store/ProductFiles/217_d5fd28bb-dd1f-4b11-abb5-cbdd9e7e1583.pdf.

42 Jay G. Chambers, Thomas B. Parrish, and Jenifer J. Harr, What Are We Spending on Special Education 

Services in the United States, 1999–2000? (Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral 

Sciences, 2002), accessed October 18, 2017, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED471888.pdf.

43 Jay G. Chambers, Jamie Shkolnik, and María Pérez, Total Expenditures for Students with Disabilities, 

1999–2000: Spending Variation by Disability (Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral 

Sciences, 2003), accessed October 18, 2017, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED481398.

44 Thomas Parrish and Phil Esra, The Special Education Expenditure Project (SEEP): Synthesis of Findings and 

Policy Implications, inForum, April 2006, accessed October 18, 2016, http://nasdse.org/DesktopModules/

DNNspot-Store/ProductFiles/217_d5fd28bb-dd1f-4b11-abb5-cbdd9e7e1583.pdf.

46 National Council on Disability
45 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 38th Annual Report to 

Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Washington, DC: Author, 

2016), accessed October 18, 2017, http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2016/parts-b-c/index.html.

46 Michael Leachman, Kathleen Masterson, and Marlana Wallace, After Nearly a Decade, School Investments 

Still Way Down in Some States, 2016, accessed October 18, 2017, http://www.cbpp.org/research/

state-budget-and-tax/after-nearly-a-decade-school-investments-still-way-down-in-some-states.

47 Brian M. Rosenthal, “Denied,” Houston Chronicle, September 10, 2016, accessed October 18, 2017, http://

www.houstonchronicle.com/denied/.

48 David Reich and Chloe Cho, Unmet Needs and the Squeeze on Appropriations, 2017, accessed October 18, 2017, http://

www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/unmet-needs-and-the-squeeze-on-appropriations#elementary_secondary.

49 Participants, 2016, Regional Focus Group or National Forum.

50 Palaich Augenblick and Associates, Michigan Education Finance Study, 2016, accessed October 18, 2017, 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/budget/Michigan_Education_Finance_Study_527806_7.pdf.

51 Participant, 2016, Regional Focus Group or National Forum.

52 David Foster, “Civil Rights Complaints Filed Against Trenton Schools, DOE for Discrimination,” The 

Trentonian, October 21, 2016, accessed October 18, 2017, http://www.trentonian.com/article/TT/20161021/

NEWS/161029927.

53 U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Securing Equal Educational Opportunity: Report to the 

President and Secretary of Education Under Section 203(b)(1) of the Department of Education Organization 

Act, FY2016 (Washington, DC: Author, 2016), accessed October 18, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/

annual/ocr/report-to-president-and-secretary-of-education-2016.pdf.

54 Sasha Pudelski, Cutting Medicaid: A Prescription to Hurt the Neediest Kids, (Alexandria, VA: AASA, The School 

Superintendents Association, 2017), accessed October 18, 2017, http://aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_

Advocacy/Resources/medicaid.pdf.

55 Participant, 2016, Regional Focus Group or National Forum.

56 Telephone interview, 2016.

57 Telephone interview, 2016.

58 Telephone interview, 2016.

59 34 C.F.R. § 300.111: Child find. (a) General. (1) The State must have in effect policies and procedures to ensure 

that—(i) All children with disabilities residing in the State, including children with disabilities who are homeless 

children or are wards of the State, and children with disabilities attending private schools, regardless of the 

severity of their disability, and who are in need of special education and related services, are identified, 

located, and evaluated; and (ii) A practical method is developed and implemented to determine which children 

are currently receiving needed special education and related services.

60 Participant. Regional Focus Group or National Forum, 2016.

61 Telephone interview, 2016.

62 Telephone interview, 2016.

63 Telephone interview, 2016.

64 Participant, Regional Focus Group or National Forum 2016.

65 Telephone interview, 2016.

66 Telephone interview, 2016.

67 Telephone interview, 2016.

68 U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. Civil Rights Data Collection: Data Snapshot (School 

Discipline), 2014, accessed October 18, 2017, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-disciplinesnapshot.pdf.

69 Telephone interview, 2016.

70 Telephone interview, 2016.

Broken Promises: The Underfunding of IDEA 47
National Council on Disability 

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850 

Washington, DC 20004