The Politics of IDEA Funding
With the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act up for reauthorization, policymakers have a chance
to end the stalemate over special education spending while
funding the law differently and smarter than we do now, writes
Andrew J. Rotherham.
by Andrew J. Rotherham, Education
Week, October 9, 2002
For more articles on disabilities and special ed visit
www.bridges4kids.org.
Despite all the attention being paid to Iraq, the fight
against terrorism, and the economy, a must-do item that
remains on the congressional agenda in Washington is passage
of spending bills to fund the federal government for the
coming year. Not surprisingly, education spending will again
cause partisan contention, especially when it comes to special
education. A bruising fight is likely with, for the most part,
Democrats demanding "full funding" for the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act and Republicans and the Bush
administration resisting. However, the IDEA itself is also in
the process of being reauthorized, giving policymakers a
chance to end this stalemate and seize the opportunity to
increase IDEA funding while funding the law differently and
smarter than we do now.
The politics of special education funding are bizarre. Only a
few years ago, it was Republicans demanding that the federal
government make IDEA funding paramount, and Democrats arguing
the other way. During the mid- to late-1990s, almost every
time President Clinton proposed a new education initiative,
Republicans responded with calls to instead fund IDEA first.
Democrats were often bewildered when local educators were
sympathetic to the Republican position. How, they wondered,
could anyone prefer IDEA funding to initiatives for smaller
classes, after-school programs, or school construction?
Of course, from the point of view of superintendents and
principals, the chronic underfunding of special education was
part of the cause for shortfalls in these other areas. Local
educators care little whether Republicans or Democrats are
championing IDEA funding when they're struggling to make ends
meet in their budgets. During the late 1990s, Republicans
astutely picked up on this demand and made it part of their
agenda on education.
However, as recent events show, some Republicans were probably
motivated less by the policy problems of IDEA finance than a
desire to champion some education spending plan as an
alternative to the Clinton agenda. As Democrats began to rally
around IDEA funding during debate about the "No Child Left
Behind" Act of 2001, and the possibility of substantial
funding boosts grew, Republicans began arguing that other
reforms should take precedence instead.
This turnabout had two causes. As a policy issue, the primary
proposal before lawmakers to "fully fund" the IDEA would have
made funding a mandatory spending item, rather than subject to
annual appropriations. This means that, instead of deciding
budget priorities each year, the spending amounts would be
fixed. While superficially attractive, this approach is
ill-conceived and could wreak havoc on an already strained
federal budget. For this reason, even some Democrats
sympathetic to increased education spending, like Rep. David
Obey, D-Wis., the ranking member of the House Appropriations
Committee, opposed it.
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, did complicate matters, but the
fiscal outlook for nondefense domestic programs was not rosy
on Sept. 10, 2001, either.
As a political matter, there was not much money in the wake of
President Bush's tax cut for almost any domestic program. The
terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, certainly complicated
matters, but the overall fiscal outlook for nondefense
domestic programs in the federal budget was not rosy on Sept.
10, 2001, either. By arguing against large spending increases
beyond the No Child Left Behind deal, Republicans were
protecting the president from an awkward political situation.
After all, although Sen. James M. Jeffords voted in the end
for the tax cut, part of the Vermont Republican's cri de coeur
when he switched to the Independent label and lined up with
the Democrats was a call for more spending on special
education.
So now, instead of new funding, Republicans argue that special
education needs reform. They've reversed themselves on their
Clinton-era stance of pitting special education funding
against proposed new initiatives by arguing that President
Bush's Reading First program will reduce the demand for
special education dollars. This is partially right, and more
recent research supports their claim. Moreover, the IDEA does
need more than just a few nips and tucks in the way of reform,
and better preventive measures are essential.
But reform will not obviate the need for additional resources.
Last year, Chester E. Finn Jr., Charles Hokanson, and I
published Rethinking Special Education for a New Century, an
ideologically diverse volume of papers and essays about
special education. Although we did not specify a dollar
amount, we concluded that while many aspects of special
education are in dire need of reform, a reformed IDEA still
must be adequately funded.
Republicans now argue that the explosion in the number of
students inappropriately identified as learning-disabled is
the IDEA's primary fiscal culprit. There is plenty of evidence
that in addition to those with genuine learning problems, this
loosely defined category has become a catchall for students
who were not taught well in the first place or are just
struggling academically. But fixing this situation, while an
imperative for policymakers, will not solve the funding
problem. Even as students are needlessly referred to special
education, others who do need help are falling through the
cracks because of poor screening and intervention. And it's
worth remembering that prevention itself is costly, and that
early-intervention programs are notoriously underfunded.
Moreover, high-cost medical and intensive instructional
services are also straining school budgets. The explosion of
students classified as learning-disabled should not obscure
the high-cost services more severely disabled students need
and are entitled to. More specifically, analysis about the
relation of the special education caseload to rising medical
costs and recent legal decisions about the responsibility of
schools to provide these services is urgently needed.
To be sure, many Democrats are focused on IDEA spending at the
expense of special education reform, but at the same time, too
many Republicans are just trying to come up with
rationalizations to forestall funding increases or argue for
vouchers. Fortunately, because Congress is considering both
IDEA funding and changes to the IDEA statute as part of the
reauthorization process, the opportunity is at hand to discuss
not only how much more to spend overall, but also how to spend
it differently and more effectively.
There are immediate steps the president and Congress can take
toward this end. First, both Democrats and Republicans must
acknowledge that special education is expensive, frightfully
so, and that the chronic underfunding adversely affects school
district budgets. But, if we're serious about "leaving no
child behind," it's time to ante up and meet that challenge by
providing the necessary resources for the IDEA. That does not
mean Congress must create a new budget-busting entitlement,
but it's wishful thinking to try to improve special education
without increasing spending.
However, despite demonstrated need for more spending, it's
also time for an honest recognition that no one knows exactly
how much is necessary. While President Bush's Commission on
Excellence in Special Education did a lot of valuable work
overall and examined the finance issue in particular, it
skirted the question of just how much money is required.
Considering the recent history and politics of IDEA funding,
it's hard to see this omission as anything other than an
administration-sanctioned attempt to duck the issue. That's
unfortunate. Contrary to much of the rhetoric, God did not
hand down the oft- cited 40 percent federal-funding target for
the IDEA. It's not sacred, but based on a generation-old
political compromise; and, because of the peculiarities of
state and local school finance, it may in fact be too little
for Washington to contribute or, conversely, more than is
required.
To find out, the president and Congress should establish
another bipartisan commission or task force specifically to
look at special education finance. That commission should be
made up of local, state, and national educators, policy
analysts, and school finance experts and charged with figuring
out, not what we are spending now but rather how much local
districts and states can and should pay toward special
education and how much the federal government must contribute.
Such a commission might also make recommendations to help
resolve ancillary funding disputes—for example, about
Medicaid—so that school officials have a clear understanding
of what revenue is available to fund special education and
medical costs. It could also consider preventive costs and
other strategies so that policymakers can more comprehensively
consider special education funding.
Realistically, reauthorization will not be finished until at
least 2003, so there is still time for such a commission. We
know a lot more about special education finance now than a
quarter-century ago, when the IDEA was first passed. And we
should use this information to inform policy.
But even when there is consensus about how much to spend, the
money should not be allocated exactly as it is now. It is
important to maintain federal formulas that are neutral with
regard to identification, to neither encourage nor discourage
special education identification. But high- cost students,
particularly in small and rural districts, can cause fiscal
strains that cannot be adequately addressed through national
formulas. Several states have programs to help address this
problem, but national action will be more efficacious, and a
new funding mechanism should be incorporated during the IDEA
reauthorization. In Rethinking Special Education for a New
Century, we recommended that, on an individualized basis, the
federal government pick up the full cost of education for
these students. While education is primarily a state and local
function, this is a small subset of students with clear rights
in federal law who could be helped by a new way of funding the
IDEA. At the same time, such a strategy would help alleviate
budget problems in smaller communities.
Just as special education students should be integrated into
the life of their schools, policymakers must not take a myopic
view of IDEA funding.
Finally, just as special education students should be
integrated into the life of their schools, policymakers must
not take a myopic view of IDEA funding. Funding for the IDEA's
smaller program for infants and toddlers as well as the pre-K
program should be considered in tandem with the primary IDEA
funding stream. It's also long past time to heed the evidence
showing that good prekindergarten programs reduce special
education referrals and improve the haphazard approach that
most states and the federal government now take toward
early-childhood education.
The politicizing of IDEA funding has hindered rather than
advanced a solution to the finance problem and distracted from
other important reform issues in special education. Congress
and the president can advance the debate by investing more in
special education, but doing so based on policy instead of
politics. That will require the president to lead and both
parties in Congress to make concessions, but action on this
issue is long overdue. The interminable special education
funding fight is good for Washington partisans, but it does
not benefit the students the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act is supposed to help, or their peers adversely
affected by current funding shortfalls.
Andrew J. Rotherham is the director of the 21st Century
Schools Project at the Progressive Policy Institute (www.ppionline.org)
and served as a special assistant to the president for
domestic policy in the Clinton administration.
|