DETAILS
- Lawsuit Ruling & WSSEC Recommendations
- Court's Opinion in Special Ed Lawsuit
- Amicus Declaration of Washington State Special Education Coalition
- WSSEC Public Policy Chair Comments on Special Ed Funding & Current Trial
- Letter on Sp. Ed. Funding Structure
- Response to Letter on Sp. Ed. Funding Structure
- Presentation for House Appropriations
- Fall 2004 Status Report
- Comments on Special Education Lawsuit
- August 2004 Letter
- Open Letter to Superintendents, Citizens and Legislators
- Response to Attacks on Special Ed.
Lawsuit Ruling & WSSEC Recommendations
March 1, 2007
THE LAWSUIT: School Districts' Alliance for Adequate Funding of Special Ed, et al, v. State of Washington, et al
This suit, brought by a dozen school districts, tried to prove that the current state funding formula for special education (0.9309 multiplier and 12.7% provision) was unconstitutional.
The Judge broke the claims down into seven parts; one overarching claim on the amount of special ed funding formula itself, five sub-parts and a seventh issue, requesting that the Judge retain jurisdiction. He ruled for the state in six areas, and for the plaintiffs (the districts) on one. Major points include:
- Judge McPhee ruled that the plaintiffs had not proven that the amount of special ed funding was unconstitutional.
- He agreed with the state saying that basic education dollars are a part of the funding that districts receive to provide programs for special education students. He further stated the funding problem raised by the plaintiffs related to is in the State's basic education formula funding, and not the special education funding system - and that basic education funding was the subject of other lawsuits - not this one..
- He supported the Safety Net in concept, practice and amount.
- He confirmed that before payment of safety net funds, each student must have "a properly formulated IEP, [show] that the district is accessing all available revenue and that it is operating a reasonably efficient special education program."
- The Judge ruled against the school districts that the limit on indirect charges was too low or unconstitutional.
- He ruled against the districts concerning payment of supplemental contracts and the state's use of federal funds to pay for salary obligations.
- He declined to retain jurisdiction.
The Judge referred numerous times to the formula being one that is intended to count the Basic Ed Allocation plus the excess cost allocation. He pointed out that the calculations from districts did not reflect a total amount of the full BEA plus the excess cost allocation.
Judge McPhee went on to support the concept of a "cap" of 12.7% as a "way to control the growth of special education population as a percentage of total student population by compelling school districts to confront over-identification of special education students."
However, he opined that "the formula does not amply provide for a student above the cap who is simply excluded from the funding formula." He also went on to say, "a safety net is not the only approach to addressing the constitutional imperative to provide for students above the cap."
WSSEC RECOMMENDS:
The WSSEC has long supported programs that provide more basic education, research based intervention programs for students BEFORE they need special ed services. This has been shown to not only keep the percent of special ed from growing at a far greater rate than should be expected, but also provides help to students sooner. WSSEC continues this support of quality programs that are separate from special education. Special education should not be the first place or the only place to refer students when they are having difficulties.
The WSSEC recommends that the state also provide "State Placement Impact Aid" through the K 12 Institutions section of OSPI directly to school districts for each student they have enrolled who is placed by the state. This would provide for some funds to off-set some of the additional costs that some students who are at risk of needed additional special services of some kind. This money could be provided quickly and efficiently, without a lot of paperwork and students who are in out of home placements would not count against the 12.7% calculation since the funding would come out of the K 12 Institutions section. In this case, it is being used the same way DSHS uses money for kids who are at risk of being institutionalized. This meets the WSSEC values and priorities as well as providing some recognition and support to districts with this need.
If the 3 and 4 year olds are removed from the 12.7% count, as WSSEC has recommended for a number of years, most school districts would be under the 12.7% "cap" and if this new Impact Aid concept were implemented, all districts would be well below the 12.7% "cap."
The WSSEC has been very vocal in the past supporting the requirement that districts use a special education student's basic education allocation in support of the student's special education program. We have, in the past few months, worked with district and ESD personnel and OSPI staff on a funding system that would create the opportunity for the state to distribute a portion of the basic education dollars into the special education budget. This would reduce the confusion on the part of districts who do not understand that they have a responsibility to use the basic education dollars in this manner.
Finally, before any further changes are considered by the legislature or by OSPI, the WSSEC requests that the Excess Cost Calculation Committee reconvene and review where we are at after the legislature has passed the budget and new calculations have been made by districts.
Questions?
Contact Christie Perkins
WSSEC Public Policy Chair
Send an Email
253.588.0637