Opinion ID: 2524503
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Funding for Special Needs Students

Text: [ถ 26] The 1999 legislation made adjustments allowing additional funds based on a concentration of certain special needs students in a district. The challengers claim that these adjustments are not cost-based and consequently result in either underfunding or no funding at all the actual costs of educating these students.
[ถ 27] If a district has a concentration of limited English speaking students equal to or in excess of 5 percent of its total ADM, it receives 15 percent more funding than the model provides for that grade level for each identified student. No evidence was provided to indicate what additional costs are actually incurred due to higher concentrations of limited English speaking students.
[ถ 28] If a district has economically disadvantaged students (measured by those enrolling in the federally subsidized lunch program) in excess of 150 percent of the statewide average, it receives $500 per economically disadvantaged student. The challengers contend the enrollment is not an accurate measurement of economically disadvantaged students, particularly at the middle and high school levels, the 150% trigger is arbitrary, and the additional $500 per student funding was not cost-based.
[ถ 29] No specific adjustment was made for gifted and talented students. MAP contended the model adequately provided funds for those students by assuming that 3 percent of the student population is gifted and providing an additional $9 per ADM. [ถ 30] The trial court found, while none of these adjustments was based on actual cost data, they were the product of professional judgment and, as such, were adequate. The court also relied upon MAP's contention that the small class size in its model would allow the flexibility to deal with these special needs students as well as behaviorally disordered students.