Opinion ID: 2375882
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State underfunds special education

Text: ¶ 19 Accepting the funding scheme at face value, the State has underfunded education in violation of article IX, section 1 on its face. ¶ 20 The very legislative scheme at issue for funding for special education students in Washington begins with each student's Basic Education Allocation (BEA) distributed to school districts based on enrollment of full time equivalent students. RCW 28A.150.250. This includes special education students. Moreover, [s]chool districts shall ensure that special education students as a class receive their full share of the general apportionment allocation.... Laws of 2005, ch. 518, § 507(1). The BEA funds basic education. See RCW 28A.150.250 (providing [b]asic education shall be considered... fully funded by the basic education allocation). ¶ 21 Special education is funded in addition to basic education. The special education funding statute directs: Funding for programs operated by local school districts shall be on an excess cost basis from appropriations provided by the legislature for special education programs for students with disabilities and shall take account of state funds accruing through RCW 28A.150.250, 28A.150.260, federal medical assistance and private funds ..., and other state and local funds, excluding special excess levies. RCW 28A.150.390 (emphasis added). The 2005 education appropriations act provides, [t]o the extent a school district cannot provide an appropriate education for special education students ... through the general apportionment allocation, it shall provide services through the special education excess cost allocation funded in this section. Laws of 2005, ch. 518, § 507(1). The section provides 0.9309 of the BEA for every special education student in the district in addition to the BEA for every enrolled full-time equivalent student. Id. § 507(5)(a)(ii). ¶ 22 The additional 0.9309 is an average cost funding formula similar to the BEA the lower special education costs of one student offset the higher costs for providing special education to another student. However, it does not purport to cover the full amount of special education costs. To help reduce the deficit, districts may also apply for safety net awards. Id. § 507(8). The safety net oversight committee considers awarding funds when a district demonstrates that all legitimate expenditures for special education exceed all available revenues from state funding formulas. Id. § 507(8)(a). After a district demonstrates need, the committee shall then consider the extraordinary high cost needs of one or more individual special education students. Id. § 507(8)(b). The current threshold for state funding for an extraordinary high cost student is $15,000. Sch. Dists.' Alliance for Adequate Funding of Special Educ. v. State, 149 Wash. App. 241, 251, 202 P.3d 990 (2009). ¶ 23 If a student's special education costs are above the 0.9309 of BEA average but are not offset by another student's lower costs, the district can recover the deficit from the State only if the student has extraordinarily high costs, i.e., above $15,000. In 2005-2006, eligible school districts recovered only $35 million from the safety net funds (out of a demonstrated need for $147 million). Id. at 265, 202 P.3d 990. The underfunded gap was therefore $112 million. Id. ¶ 24 The district must provide an appropriate special education with the general apportionment allocation (the BEA), and only when a district exhausts the BEA will the State provide an excess cost allocation under the appropriations law. See Laws of 2005, ch. 518, § 507(1). This appears to support the majority's position that the BEA for each special education student counts toward a district's special education funding. Majority at 6. ¶ 25 However, the majority disregards the very premise of the BEA. The BEA provides basic education services, services the special education student may, to some degree, use every day and throughout the day. See Laws of 2005, ch. 518, § 507(2)(a)(i), (iii) (Special education students are basic education students first; ... and ... [s]pecial education students are basic education students for the entire school day.). A district exhausts a special education student's share of the BEA when it provides the student's basic education services. To the extent a district cannot provide the appropriate education to any student through basic education services and curriculum, the district must provide adequate and ample special education services. See id. § 507(1). All special education services are additional to a basic educationan excess cost the State must fund. See RCW 28A.150.390; Laws of 2005, ch. 518, § 507(1). The BEA is simply not a source of State funding for special education and cannot be as a matter of law. ¶ 26 The majority claims, [f]or us to conclude the BEA should not be included in calculations of how much funding goes to special education, we would have to agree with the Alliance's contention that basic education and special education are in entirely separate realms. Majority at 6. Basic education and special education are not in separate realmsa student often receives basic education with additional special education servicesbut they are funded separately. ¶ 27 Excluding the BEA from special education funds acknowledges a special education student receives a fully funded basic education throughout the day as required by law. See Laws of 2005, ch. 518, § 507(2)(a)(i), (iii). A basic education student's share of the BEA is expended on his or her basic education. Accordingly, a special education student can only receive his or her full share of the general apportionment allocation as required by section 507(1) if the school district expends his or her share on basic education services and only basic education services. See id. § 507(1). ¶ 28 Instead, the majority asserts, [t]he BEA need not be used only for the basic education of special education students. Majority at 7. But that is exactly what the BEA isit is the amount it costs to provide the average student a basic education. Leftover funding from educating a cheaper student offsets the more expensive basic education of another student. The BEA fully fund[s] basic education. See RCW 28A.150.250. In a formula based on averages, there is no leftover pot of BEA funds to pay for nonbasic education services such as special education. ¶ 29 [F]or special education students, special education and basic education are inextricably linked. When special education students are receiving special education services, they are also receiving basic education. Majority at 8. Although a special education student may receive some basic education, the special education is in addition to the basic education as a matter of law. But the majority does not allow for the legislative scheme that the student's basic education is funded by the BEA, and his or her special education is an excess cost the State must fund additionally. A school district exhausts a special education student's BEA share on basic education. See Laws of 2005, ch. 518, § 507(1), (2)(a)(i), (iii). When the BEA is excluded, eligible school districts faced a funding deficit of $112 million for special education in the 2005-2006 school year. Sch. Dists.' Alliance, 149 Wash.App. at 254-55, 202 P.3d 990. ¶ 30 This court's role is not to micromanage education but rather to provide broad constitutional guidelines in which the legislature may operate to fulfill the mandate of article IX, section 1. See Tunstall, 141 Wash.2d at 223, 5 P.3d 691; Seattle Sch. Dist., 90 Wash.2d at 518, 585 P.2d 71. Only arithmetic, not micromanagement, is needed to determine that a deficit of $112 million in special education funding is a violation of this State's paramount duty by application of the very statutes the State claims are constitutionally adequate. ¶ 31 I dissent.