Regarding last week’s edition, I’d like to send kudos to Rhonda Silence and ISD 166 Superintendent Beth Schwarz for even attempting to explain Minnesota’s Special Education (SpEd) funding. It is a complex system, with layers of federal and state regulation woven into the already confusing conglomerate of education finance. While the article didn’t misrepresent any facts, I’m writing to add some context and perspective that I hope will help people understand this issue more completely.
In the 1970s, the federal government established the right for all children to receive a free, appropriate public education regardless of disability. This increased public schools’ obligations, and additional funding (arguably not enough) came along to support them.
When charter schools were introduced in the 1990s, they shared the charge as public schools to serve all students, regardless of disability. However, they were also intended to be local, experimental, and even transitory (about as many charter schools close each year as new ones open). As a result, Minnesota legislators decided that the traditional school district where a child resided (their “resident district”) would continue to receive the SpEd funds for students who qualified for these services, and that those funds would flow through those districts to the local charter schools that incurred the expense. The requirement for charter schools to now absorb a portion of these costs is in recognition that there is some inefficiency inherent with separating service providers.
That said, here are a few thoughts:
School choice exists for all students, including those with disabilities, and the fact that each of the charter schools in the county has a higher percentage of students with disabilities than the resident district means that many of our families are seeking educational settings they feel can better meet the needs of their children. In general, charter schools serve higher proportions of minority students, English language learners, and students in poverty than traditional districts – students who find that a different approach, not just a different location, is important for them to succeed.
Because there is no control over the enrollment or eligibility of students in Special Education, a high degree of variability in SpEd revenue and expense exists regardless of where students enroll, and is consequently a budgeting challenge – affecting staffing, scheduling, and other areas – for all public schools, not just for resident districts.
Along with differences in responsibilities, there are differences in the funding of resident districts and charter public schools, with charter schools statewide averaging over $1,000/student less in funding than their public school peers. Looking at only one aspect of these differences distorts the picture of an issue that exists for all public schools: there is inadequate funding to meet all the responsibilities legislators have imposed.
The bottom line: our public schools need to communicate well with one another, collaborate to find efficiencies, and seek opportunities to pursue shared goals around adequate funding, streamlined compliance procedures, and community support. Regardless of their school, the success of our county’s students needs to remain most important.
Peter James
Director, Great Expectations School
Grand Marais
Leave a Reply