Source: http://ideamoneywatch.com/balancesheet/?cat=1
Timestamp: 2017-12-12 17:37:05
Document Index: 36361096

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 300', '§ 300', '§ 300', '§1413', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300']

Federal funding for the IDEA gains little in the budget agreement reached by Congress in late April. The deal should be voted on in early May and will fund the federal government for the balance of FY 2017 (until October 1, 2017).
IDEA funds for Part B Sec. 611 (ages 3-21) goes from $11.9 billion in FY 2016 to $12.0 billion in FY 2017 – an increase of .7 percent.
Meanwhile, the number of students served under this program is increasing steadily – growing from 6,697,938 in 2014-2015 to 6,814,410 in 2015-2016, an increase of 1.7 percent. And keep in mind that IDEA allows local school districts to use up to 50 percent of any increase in IDEA funds to offset local spending, so students could see only half of the increase used for special education services.
IDEA funds for Part B Sec. 619 (ages 3-5) stays constant at $368.2 million.
IDEA funds for Part C (infants and families) also stays constant at $458.6 million. The children served under Part C increased from 350,581 in 2014-2015 to 357,715 in 2015-2016, an increase of 2 percent.
Add’t special education appropriations details are here.
Now we wait for the administration to release its budget request for FY 2018, due sometime in May. The “skinny” budget released in March indicated that IDEA funding would be maintained at its current rate, while the U.S. Dept. of Education faces a substantial overall decrease.
STATE Total LEAs # LEAs with disproportionality STATE Total LEAs # LEAs with disproportionality
AL 176 3 MT 422 0
AK 54 0 NC 250 12
AR 279 1 ND 184 0
AZ 685 1 NE 280 0
CA 1,052 50 NH 178 0
CO 245 0 NJ 691 12
CT 197 2 NM 150 2
DC 63 1 NV 19 0
DE 43 4 NY 1,008 78
FL 75 5 OH 1,100 56
GA 203 16 OK 550 0
HI 1 0 OR 208 0
IA 357 8 PA 738 0
ID 153 0 RI 57 28
IL 878 2 SC 109 1
IN 393 58 SD 156 0
KS 293 0 TN 142 0
KY 176 8 TX 1,256 0
LA 144 77 UT 132 0
MA 418 0 VA 151 6
MD 25 3 VT 339 0
ME 259 0 WA 305 0
MI 930 22 WI 456 6
MN 537 8 WV 57 0
MO 573 0 WY 61 2
MS 163 17 National 17,371 489
Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., has intro­duced the Building on Local District Flexibility in IDEA Act, H.R. 2965. The bill makes substantial changes to current maintenance of effort rules governing local educational agencies (or school districts). Below is the text of the bill.
To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to provide
certain exceptions to the maintenance of effort requirement for local
educational agencies, and for other purposes.
Mr. Walberg (for himself, Mr. Moolenaar, Mr. Ribble, Mr. Benishek, and
Mr. Bishop of Michigan) introduced the following bill; which was
This Act may be cited as the ``Building on Local District
Flexibility in IDEA Act''.
SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO THE MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL
Section 613(a)(2) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1413(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking ``subparagraphs
(B) and (C)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (B), (C), and
(E)'';
(A) in clause (iii)(III), by striking ``or'' at the
``(v) improved efficiencies that do not
result in a reduction in special education
``(vi) the reduction of expenditures for
employment related benefits provided to special
education personnel (such as pay, retirement
contributions, annual and sick leave, and
health and life insurance) provided that such
reduction of expenditures does not result in a
reduction in special education services.''; and
``(E) Waivers for exceptional or uncontrollable
circumstances.--The State educational agency may waive
the requirements of subparagraph (A)(iii) for a local
educational agency, for 1 fiscal year at a time, if--
``(i) the State educational agency
determines that the local educational agency
has not reduced the level of expenditures for
the education of children with disabilities for
such fiscal year disproportionately to other
``(ii)(I) the State educational agency
determines that granting a waiver would be
equitable due to exceptional or uncontrollable
circumstances such as a natural disaster or a
precipitous and unforeseen decline in the
financial resources of the local educational
provides clear and convincing evidence to the
State educational agency that all children with
disabilities have available to them a free
appropriate public education and the State
educational agency concurs with the evidence
provided by the local educational agency.''.
Four methods available to LEAs to meet the eligibility and compliance standards
The regulations now makes clear that the an LEA may meet the compliance standard using one of four methods and that SEAs must permit LEAs to do so. The four methods are:
Existing exceptions and adjustment in §§ 300.204 and 300.205
The regulations establish that LEAs may include any allowable MOE reductions (as laid out in §§ 300.204 and 300.205) that it is eligible to take preparing a budget for the upcoming year. It had previously been unclear if this was allowable.
What, exactly, is “full funding” of IDEA?
The term is misleading, and, therefore, the funding “promise” made by Congress in IDEA is often misrepresented. It’s really pretty simple, however.
Back in 1975 when Congress enacted original special education law – then called the Education of All Handicapped Children Act and later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act – Congress set a maximum target for the federal contribution to special education spending equal to 40 percent of the estimated excess cost of educating children with disabilities. At the time, Congress estimated that educating children with disabilities would cost approximately twice as much as it costs to educate non-disabled children. So, Congress committed to providing 40% of the excess cost of providing special education (not 100% as is often reported), and set the federal contribution at 40% of the average per pupil expenditure (APPE) nationwide. (Note: One nationwide study showed that special education costs are 1.9 times that expended on general education students.)
So then, if IDEA were “fully funded,” the annual federal appropriation would be 40% of the national average per pupil expenditure – referred to as “APPE” – for elementary and secondary education times the number of children with disabilities served. To be clear, when sent off to local school districts around the country, that amount would not be 40% of the excess cost in every district – the percent would vary depending on how much each local district spends on education. The amount districts spend “per pupil” varies significantly across the nation!
Check out your state’s IDEA funding gap below:
Source: National Education Association The Federal Funding Gap under IDEA. Chart reprinted with permission.
Information on the reductions to maintenance of effort (MOE), determinations of IDEA compliance and use of IDEA Part B funds for Coordinated Early Intervening Services* for the 2011-2012 school year for every local educational agency (LEA) or school district was released to the public in February 2015.
States are required to report this information annually to the U.S. Dept. of Education as part of a larger data submission required under Section 618 of the IDEA. The data files are available from this website.
Using the data reported under Maintenance of Effort Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services for 2011-2012, IDEA Money Watch has compiled three separate reports. (Information on how to access the data file appears at the end of this report.)
Report One: MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT (MOE) REDUCTIONS
This is a complete listing of the LEAs that reduced MOE in the 2011-2012 school year. Under certain conditions, LEAs are allowed to reduce the amount spent on special education by up to 50% of an increase in federal or state and federal funds from one year to the next. The freed-up funds must be used for activities authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
– the LEA/ESA allocation amounts for IDEA Part B 611 (school age) and 619 (3-5 year olds) for the reference Federal fiscal year and the previous Federal fiscal year
– the LEA/ESA determination under 34 CFR § 300.600(a)(2)
– the Amount of the MOE Reduction the LEA/ESA took under Section 613(a)(2)(C) for the reference school year.
A RECAP OF MOE REDUCTIONS:
Across all states and territories, 304 LEAs took MOE reductions totaling $10.1 million. States with one or more LEAs taking an MOE reduction include:
AL (9), CA (25), IN (13), KY (13), LA (4), MA (15), MO (10), NE (50), NM (56), OH (8), OK (48), PA (35), TX (12), UT (3) and WI (3).
Not all of these LEAs were eligible to take a reduction in MOE. To be eligible to reduce MOE, an LEA must have:
– received an increase in the Part B allocation between 2010 and 2011 AND
– received a “meets requirements” determination.
LEAs that took an MOE reduction and DID NOT have a “meets requirements” determination are highlighted in yellow on the listing. The vast majority of these LEA are in the state of New Mexico, where 24 LEAs reduced MOE unlawfully.
Some LEAs took an MOE reduction without the requisite increase in annual allocation, indicated by a (-) sign in the far right column on the listing. In Nebraska, 36 LEAs reduced MOE without having received an increase in funding.
Report Two: MANDATORY PROVISION OF COORDINATED EARLY INTERVENING SERVICES (CEIS)
This is a complete listing of the LEAs that were required to spend 15% of Part B funds in the 2011-2012 school year due to having significant disproportionality. Disproportionality is the overrepresentation of minority or ethnic students in special education identification, placement, or disciplinary actions. In such cases, the local district must use all of the CEIS funds and must devote most but not all of the CEIS funds to serve children in the over identified group or groups. LEAs required to use 15 percent of their IDEA Part B federal funds on CEIS due to significant disproportionality may not reduce their local expenditures by any amount.
– LEAs identified as having significant disproportionality during the reference school year
– the amount required to be reserved for Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)(15 percent of Part B funds)
– the amount of Part B funds spent on Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)
– the number of students who received CEIS during the reference school year and the number of children who received CEIS at any time during the reference school year and the two preceding school years and received special education and related services during the reference school year.
A RECAP OF MANDATORY CEIS USE:
A total of 347 LEAs were required to use 15% of Part B funds for CEIS due to significant disproportionality. These LEAs were in 25 states. The amount spent totaled $107.2 million. The states and number of LEAs within each state are as follows:
AK (1), AR (6), AZ (1), DC (5), DE (7), FL (11), GA (31), IA (7), IL (5), IN (1), KY (10), LA (104), MD (1), MI (36), MS (25), NC (3), NJ (12), NM (2), NY (36), OH (2), OR (1), RI (24), UT (1), VA (9), WI (5)
The following states had no LEAs identified as having significant disproportionality: AL, CA, CO, CT, HI, ID, KS, ME, MA, MN, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, ND, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VT, WA, WV, WY.
The number of LEAs required to provide CEIS in 2011-2012 was very similar to the number required in the previous school year (2010-2011). In that year 356 LEAs were required to provide CEIS.
The uneven pattern of LEAs identified as having significant disproportionality is reflective of the varied definitions states have been allowed to develop. This issue was explored in great detail in a 2013 report from the Government Accountability Office entitled “IDEA: Standards Needed to Improve Identification of Racial and Ethnic Overrepresentation in Special Education.” A new report from The Civil Rights Project, Are We Closing the School Discipline Gap?, provides extensive data that underscores the need for federal oversight and the comments submitted by the Civil Rights Project in 2014 articulate specific recommendations.
Report Three: VOLUNTARY USE OF PART B FUNDS TO PROVIDE COORDINATED EARLY INTERVENING SERVICES (CEIS)
This is a complete listing of the LEAs that elected to voluntarily use up to 15% of their Part B funds in the 2011-2012 school year to provide Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS).
– LEAs that voluntarily used Part B funds to provide CEIS during the reference school year
– the amount of Part B funds the LEA voluntarily spent on Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)
– the percent of Part B funds the LEA voluntarily spent on Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)(may not exceed 15 percent of Part B funds)
– the number of students who received CEIS during the reference school year.
A RECAP OF VOLUNTARY CEIS USE:
A total of 44 states and territories had LEAs that voluntarily used Part B funds for CEIS. Across these 1243 LEAs, the amount spent totaled $109.3 million. The amount an LEA may reduce its MOE (Report One) is reduced by any amount the LEA voluntarily uses for CEIS (not to exceed 15%).
The states and number of LEAs within each state that voluntarily used Part B funds for CEIS are as follows:
AL (3), AR (33), AZ (20), BIA (71), CA (11), CT (16), DE (3), FL (16), GA (5), HI (1), IA (12), IL (198), IN (18), KS (1), LA (21), ME (22), MI (19), MN (133), MS (46), MO (7), NE (34), NV (35), NH (10), NJ (8), NM (11), NY (30), NC (9), ND (8), OH (77), OK (18), OR (14), PA (10), RI (6), SC (31), SD (13), TN (7), TX (148), UT (16), VA (8), VI (1), VT (9), WA (8), WI (86), WY (24).
The number of LEAs voluntarily using Part B funds for CEIS in 2011-2012 is similar to the number in the previous year when 1265 LEAs provided CEIS voluntarily.
*Coordinated Early Intervening Services are services provided to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on students in kindergarten through grade three) who are not currently identified as needing special education or related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral supports to succeed in a general education environment. The IDEA (20 U.S.C. §1413(f)(2)) and its regulations (34 CFR §300.226(b)) identify the activities that may be included as: (1) professional development for teachers and other school staff to enable such personnel to deliver scientifically based academic and behavioral interventions, including scientifically based literacy instruction, and, where appropriate, instruction on the use of adaptive and instructional software; and (2) providing educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports, including scientifically based literacy instruction.
To access the entire set of data, download this file. NOTE: To open this file in Excel, right click on the link, select “save link as” then select “all files” under save as. This should allow you to save the file to your computer and open in Excel.
Additional information about this data collection is available in this documentation (WORD).
Yesterday, April 29, 2014, Education Secretary Arne Duncan appeared before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce to discuss the President’s FY 2015 Budget Request. (See our earlier blog about the level of IDEA funding included in the President’s Budget.)
Duncan was peppered with questions regarding the persistent lack of funding for IDEA throughout the hearing. Following the hearing, Chairman Klein issued a press release stating that “Years ago the federal government pledged to provide critical support to special needs children, yet Republicans and Democrats alike have repeatedly failed to keep that promise. As I told Secretary Arne Duncan earlier today, parents and school leaders aren’t asking for new competitive grants or funding for duplicative early childhood programs – they’re begging for more support for the nation’s most vulnerable students. It’s time to reassess our priorities, and I am going to do everything in my power to advocate for a renewed federal commitment to children with disabilities.”
Klein and other Republican leaders issued a formal request for a $1.5 billion increase in IDEA Part B funding in the Fiscal Year 2015 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, bringing the total funding to $13 billion.
The Committee also issued the chart below, detailing the IDEA funding gap in every state, with this explanation:
The assumption underlying the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its predecessor legislation is that, on average, the cost of educating children with disabilities is twice the average cost (measured as the national average per pupil expenditure or APPE) of educating other children. Congress determined that the federal government would pay up to 40 percent of this “excess” cost, which is referred to as full funding. Since 1981, the first year for which full funding was 40 percent of APPE, the federal share has remained less than half of the federal commitment based on regular appropriations. As a result, states and school districts are forced to absorb the additional costs not funded by the federal government to meet the needs to which these students are legally entitled. In 2014 alone this cost is almost $17.6 billion.
There’s a big mess brewing in the Land of Enchantment. And it could cost the state dearly in Federal funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
State auditor Hector Balderas, following a detailed audit of the NM Education Dept. (available here), directed the education dept. to provide details on why it failed to provide adequate state funding for special education in two consecutive years, in violation of the IDEA’s “maintenance of effort” or MOE requirements.
STATE MOE REQUIREMENTS
Under 34 CFR §300.163(a), “a State must not reduce the amount of State financial support for
special education and related services for children with disabilities, or otherwise made available
because of the excess costs of educating those children, below the amount of that support for the
preceding fiscal year.” If a State fails to maintain the required level of financial support for special education and related services, under 34 CFR §300.163(b); the Secretary of Education reduces the
allocation of funds under section 611 of the IDEA for any fiscal year following the fiscal year in
which the State fails to comply with the requirement of34 CFR §300.163(a) by the same amount
by which the State fails to meet the requirement. (Letter to states clarifying MOE)
IDEA authorizes very limited waivers to the State MOE requirement. The Secretary of Education may find that a waiver is equitable due to exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as a natural disaster (e.g., Hurricane Katrina) or precipitous and unforeseen decline in the financial resources of the state, or the State meets the exceptionally high standards for a waiver of the supplement not supplant requirement – i.e., an SEA can establish that a free appropriate public education is provided to all eligible children with disabilities in the State. (This type of waiver has never been granted.) USED issued guidance on the process and criteria used to evaluate a request by states to waive maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements in 2009.
Balderas said his office wants to find out why the department didn’t comply and why it took so long to disclose what was happening.
The New Mexico Education Dept. requested a waiver (as allowed under IDEA) for two years – 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. In June 2013 the US Dept. of Ed informed New Mexico that it was granting the waiver for 2009-2010 but not for 2010-2011 hence the potential loss of funds.
According to a story in the Santa Fe New Mexico paper, New Mexico has appealed the denial of the waiver for 2010-2011. Lawyers from both sides will meet in Washington, D.C., on April 8 to lay out the legal groundwork.
Documents regarding New Mexico’s MOE waiver requests:
NM Waiver Request for 2010-2011
NM Waiver Request for 2009-2010
“Do you know what Sequestration is and what it is doing to your child’s right to a Free Appropriate Public Education? It is imperative that you do.
As an advocate considered to have advanced training, I say the following. Lay, Education, Parent Advocates (we have many names) cannot advocate on a child by child basis without being an activist and fighting/lobbying to change the state and federal, rules, laws, policies, appropriations and attitudes that have continued to set the very lowest bar of expectations for our nation’s children with disabilities. We need to be in the thick of discussions at our state and federal level and as Ghandi so eloquently once said, ‘Be the change you want to see….’
Source: State-by-State IDEA Impact retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/blog/2013/02/sequestration-would-hurt-students-teachers-and-schools/
The Labor, HHS, Education Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations voted Tuesday, June 12, 2012, to provide additional funding for the IDEA and other programs that go to assisting children with disabilities.
The bill was approved by the full Appropriations Committee on June 14, 2012.
The Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill also includes “new language clarifying that the level of effort under part B that an LEA must meet in the year after it fails to maintain its fiscal effort is the level that it should have met in the prior year. This language clarifies congressional intent and is consistent with OSEP’s April 4, 2012, informal guidance letter on the issue.” (Page 179 of bill text)
A summary of the increases proposed in the bill is below.
Education for Individuals With Disabilities (IDEA).—The bill provides $11.678 billion, an increase of $100 million, under section 611 of part B grants to States for educating students with disabilities between the age of 3 and 21.
The bill also includes $463 million, an increase of $20 million, to support statewide systems of coordinated and early intervention services for children with disabilities two years old and younger, as well as their families. (Part C of IDEA)
Promoting School Readiness for Minors in SSI (PROMISE).—In fiscal year 2012, Congress created PROMISE, an interagency effort to improve outcomes for children, and the families of children, receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. This program will encourage State-level innovations that can help young people with disabilities enter and succeed in competitive, integrated employment. The bill includes nearly $12 million and the authority to allocate unspent vocational rehabilitation State grant funds within the Department of Education for this effort, in addition to $7.2 million at SSA.
Special Education Research.—The bill includes $59.9 million, an increase of $10 million, to support research on how children and adults with disabilities learn and how best to meet their learning needs. (This increase restores half of the cut made to Special Education Research (NCSER) in 2011 – see chart at right.)
Assistive Technology.—The bill provides $37.5 million, an increase of $4.7 million, for State assistive technology programs. These programs support a range of activities to serve people with disabilities, including State financing programs, device reutilization and loan programs, and device demonstrations.
Bill summary: http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=3c7490eb-8227-4152-84ea-2d65b683accf
Bill text: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112srpt176/pdf/CRPT-112srpt176.pdf
State or Other Area 2011 Actual 2012 Estimate 2013 Estimate Change from 2012 Estimate
Alabama 179,981,063 181,561,826 181,566,991 5,165
Alaska 36,063,773 36,471,208 36,472,320 1,112
Arizona 183,462,799 188,005,122 188,010,939 5,817
Arkansas 111,004,304 111,979,248 111,982,511 3,263
California 1,213,998,591 1,224,661,067 1,224,697,480 36,413
Colorado 152,891,940 154,234,781 154,239,478 4,697
Connecticut 131,612,076 132,768,017 132,771,675 3,658
Delaware 33,614,205 34,446,453 34,447,519 1,066
District of Columbia 16,901,322 17,319,779 17,320,315 536
Florida 625,657,364 631,152,474 631,170,487 18,013
Georgia 322,524,945 328,077,842 328,087,956 10,114
Hawaii 39,504,872 39,851,841 39,853,020 1,179
Idaho 54,740,479 55,221,261 55,222,921 1,660
Illinois 501,248,821 505,651,259 505,665,544 14,285
Indiana 255,333,586 257,576,165 257,583,335 7,170
Iowa 120,849,314 121,910,726 121,914,069 3,343
Kansas 105,763,719 106,692,635 106,695,678 3,043
Kentucky 156,513,462 157,888,110 157,892,564 4,454
Louisiana 187,317,380 188,962,577 188,968,227 5,650
Maine 54,165,727 54,641,461 54,642,959 1,498
Maryland 198,176,263 199,916,833 199,922,464 5,631
Massachusetts 280,997,908 283,465,895 283,473,669 7,774
Michigan 396,402,364 399,883,942 399,895,690 11,748
Minnesota 187,882,322 189,532,481 189,537,810 5,329
Mississippi 118,935,556 119,980,160 119,983,708 3,548
Missouri 224,855,045 226,829,933 226,836,168 6,235
Montana 36,814,020 37,221,455 37,222,567 1,112
Nebraska 73,914,997 74,564,188 74,566,233 2,045
Nevada 68,994,755 70,702,984 70,705,172 2,188
New Hampshire 46,976,599 47,389,192 47,390,494 1,302
New Jersey 357,803,082 360,945,645 360,955,543 9,898
New Mexico 90,213,359 91,005,697 91,008,220 2,523
New York 751,403,381 758,002,911 758,023,986 21,075
North Carolina 323,238,888 326,077,875 326,087,594 9,719
North Dakota 27,294,331 27,970,106 27,970,971 865
Ohio 433,153,992 436,958,357 436,971,107 12,750
Oklahoma 146,388,454 147,674,175 147,678,405 4,230
Oregon 127,639,189 128,760,236 128,763,928 3,692
Pennsylvania 422,715,133 426,427,814 426,440,201 12,387
Rhode Island 43,287,960 43,668,156 43,669,354 1,198
South Carolina 175,288,806 176,828,357 176,833,330 4,973
South Dakota 32,514,649 33,319,673 33,320,704 1,031
Tennessee 234,411,003 236,469,821 236,476,603 6,782
Texas 972,140,502 980,678,753 980,708,315 29,562
Utah 108,500,873 109,453,830 109,457,116 3,286
Vermont 26,316,947 26,968,524 26,969,358 834
Virginia 279,025,194 281,475,855 281,483,895 8,040
Washington 219,029,685 220,953,409 220,959,927 6,518
West Virginia 75,177,002 75,837,277 75,839,357 2,080
Wisconsin 206,053,221 207,862,974 207,868,824 5,850
Wyoming 27,609,085 28,292,653 28,293,528 875
American Samoa 6,297,058 6,358,510 6,297,058 (61,452)
Guam 13,962,402 14,098,659 13,962,402 (136,257)
Northern Mariana Islands 4,785,135 4,831,832 4,785,135 (46,697)
Puerto Rico 112,146,753 114,923,374 114,926,930 3,556
Virgin Islands 8,874,264 8,960,866 8,874,264 (86,602)
Freely Associated States 6,579,306 6,579,306 6,579,306 0
Indian set-aside 92,011,750 92,909,676 92,909,676 0
Other (non-State allocations) 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 0
Total 11,465,960,975 11,577,855,236 11,577,855,000 (236)
Posted in Balance Sheet | Comments Off on Can You Say “Sequestration?”
LEVENSON: “The lackluster results for students with special needs are not from lack of effort; school districts are spending an increasing percentage of their total budget on special education.”
IDEA Money Watch: Let’s not equate spending with effort. As Levenson correctly points out, students with special needs have fared poorly academically even in the best of financial times. Parents often wonder what all that money is providing their student. Sometimes we even speculate that special education costs are overstated by districts because they can use the “federal mandate” argument to defend any amount of spending.
No Harm No Foul? No Way …
The IDEA Part B Grants to States federal funding for FY 2011 dodged a bullet last week. When the final “Continuing Resolution (CR)” was hammered out in the U.S. Congress (the one that prevented the dreaded government shutdown), IDEA funding remained mainly in tact – providing essentially the same level of funding for FY 2011 as FY 2010 – $11.5 billion (a slight reduction of $23 million resulting from a .2% across-the-board cut)*. So, should we be grateful for not being slashed, despite the fact that the initial proposal (H.R. 1, which we reported in an earlier blog post) contained a reduction of $557.7 million for IDEA grants to states? Remember, we dodged that bullet only by the good graces of Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R, Washington 5th), who offered an amendment to restore the IDEA funding cut. And, the final amount for FY 2011 still leaves a IDEA “funding gap” the size of Texas – the difference between what is promised in IDEA (called “full funding”, explained in this blog post) and what is actually appropriated by Congress (see chart below).
UP NEXT: the debate over the FY 2012 budget, when, as one member of Congress put it, “we’ll be playing with real bullets.” The federal budget process goes something like this:
The President submits a proposed budget to Congress. That happened back in February. The proposed budget requests $200 million more for federal funding of the IDEA – a meager increase in the face of a funding shortfall that measures some $15 billion.
The Budget Committees of the House and the Senate release a budget resolution. Once complete, the budget resolutions go to the House and Senate floors, where they can be amended (by a majority vote). A House-Senate conference then resolves any differences, and a conference report is passed by both houses.
The Appropriations Committees of the House and the Senate divvy up the amount specified in the Budget Resolution to produce Appropriations bills laying out the funding across agencies.
Technically, all of this is suppose to happen by the time the fiscal year begins on October 1, 2011. If not, more CRs will be required to keep the government up and running.
What does all of this mean for supporters of IDEA federal funding to help local school districts provide special education and related services to students with disabilities? If the President’s budget request is the high-water mark for IDEA funding in FY 2012 – which it is likely to be – than the funding gap will persist. An estimated amount of the funding gap for each state (based on the FY 2010 level of Federal funding) – appears below.
*A listing of all education programs impacted by the final FY 2011 CR is available here.