Sue Gamm, , Esq. SueGamm@aol.c .com Educatio ional Strategies - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sue Gamm, , Esq. SueGamm@aol.c .com Educatio ional Strategies & Support

2

 Special Ed Funding, Generally  Special Ed Categorical Aid  LSD Special Ed Demographics  Special Ed Extraordinary Aid  Impact of Charter Schools  Conclusions  Remedies

Special Education Funding Sources

• 1. Census Methodology based on 14.92%

assumption of disability incidence (+ 1.63% speech/language services only)

• 2. 2/3 from General Funding base (i.e., general

fund tax levy & Equalization Aid - if any)

• 3. 1/3 based on Categorical Aid
• 4. Extraordinary Costs

Special Education Census Methodology

 Prior funding based on 1 of 4 tiers of intensity per each SwD  2003 - expert testified that student file sample showed rules

incorrectly applied to determine intensity level

 Census methodology introduced

• Would not incentivize overidentifying SwDs
• Used by U.S. Department of Ed to distribute IDEA funds
• Easy for state and districts to administer

Special Education Census Methodology

Determined based on presumed 14.92% sped incident rate + 1.63% for speech/language services

• A. 6,092 student enrollment x 14.92% = 909 students (regardless of

intensity of need) x state average cost for sped

+

• B. 6,092 x 1.63% = 99 students x state average cost for speech

2/3 funded with general state fund (EA = Adequacy – Local Share 1/3 funded with Categorical Aid (100%)

Special Education Census Methodology

 SwDs = only NJ student group based on census

methodology

 Limited English proficiency & at-risk based on

student counts with associated weights

Impact of Special Education Census Methodology

14.92% of LSD’s enrolled students = 909

909 census-funded SwDs = 57% of LSD’s students with IEPs (1,592 students) 43% of LSD’s students with IEPs are effectively disenfranchised (684 students)

Federal IDEA Census Methodology

NOT based on SwD or district student census

 1997 IDEA funding changed from prior special ed child count

• 85% of grant: ALL 3 - 21 year olds attending any school in

district boundaries (for Lakewood, @ 36,000+ students)

• 15% of grant: Based on children/youth living in poverty

 Hold Harmless. Retained FY 1999 base allocation; new

applied to funding over FY1999 allocation

• increased by @ $8+ billion since FY1999

Classification Rates Depend on Numerator & Denominator Used

IEPs of Lakewood Students Service Plans

• f PP

Students IEPs + SP of Lakewood Students SPs + IEPs of LSD Enrolled IEPs of LSD Enrolled IEPs Using NJ Census Method Student Count 1,346 5,849 7,195 7,195 1,592 909 Percent of Group 3.9% 20.0% 20.3% 59.9% 25.3% 14.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000

3.9% 25.3% 909 7195 59.9% 20.3%

PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 All Sped 173 118 139 126 128 131 115 108 96 99 80 51 50 95 % Sped 40% 25% 29% 28% 24% 27% 21% 23% 21% 25% 22% 16% 18% 32% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

LSD: Number/Percent Students with IEPs by Grade

40%

Autism SLI ED ID MD OHI PCD SLD LSD 9% 28% 1% 9% 10% 11% 13% 17% New Jersey 8% 21% 3% 2% 7% 20% 5% 32% Nation 9% 20% 5% 6% 2% 14% 9% 35% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Percent SwD by Disability Area for LSD, NJ, and Nation

 No concerns noted about LSD’s high classification rate of LSD’s students w/IEPs (20.5%) compared to state’s 16.7%, and nation’s 13.0%  No question about any student’s disability classification  No issue related to inappropriate evaluation processes  No reference of any prior state monitoring report mentioning any

• f these issues

 My review of 27 student records revealed no “red flags”

Independent Review of LSD Sped Evaluations & Eligibility

Based on 2011-14 monitoring reports; 100+ sped files; 140+ interviews

Timely Evaluations. Noted various issues for delays, although progress.  Referenced LSD’s reliance on contractual evaluation services, the “… time devoted to case management issues with the given population of students; and time devoted to the high number of referrals at the preschool and the contentious issues that sometimes accompany them.”  No reference to disproportionately low state funding and impact on employing sufficiently sized/trained child study team required to carry

• ut case management responsibilities, including completion of timely

(re)evaluations -- and relationship to issues mentioned in report re: retention, stress, management, and morale

Independent Audit of LSD Sped Evaluations & Eligibility

Impact of Management Structure on Timely Capacity  Audit considered child study team interviews and review of districts across two counties  Found the LSD child study team staff may be understaffed  LSD has

• Higher than average case management load (64)
• More referrals: 400+ (2015-16) & 600+ ( 2016-17)

Negatively impacts LSD’s ability to meet required evaluation/eligibility timelines

LSD’s Child Find Scope Compared to other Urban Big School Districts

Lakewood: 35,414 Cleveland, OH: 37,890 DesMoines, IA: 31,654

• St. Paul, MN:

38,086 Tacoma, WA: 32,414 Under federal/state law, LSD’s obligation extends to all 35,414 students attending school in Lakewood:

• Find all SwDs
• Offer each a free appropriate public education

By 2020-21, Lakewood’s student population expected to increase by 24% to 43,800

Comparison of Lakewood & Cleveland

Lakewood: 35,414 students 7,195 SwDs (20.3%) Cleveland: 37,890 enrollment 7,767 SwDs (20.5%)

Cleveland & Lakewood Referral & Classification Rates

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Cleveland Classified 81% 70% 67% 88% IEP Implemented 86% 82% 73% IEP Not Implemented 14% 18% 27% Students Referred 274 402 633 850

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Lakewood Enrollment = 93.5% of Cleveland Referrals = 75%

• f Cleveland

Applies to:

 Special education IEP costs >$40,00 for public schools &

>$55,000 for OOD services

 Excessive costs reimbursed at 90% (public schools) & 75% (OOD)

OODs: Districts must fund $55,00 of tuition + 25% of cost with general & sped categorical funds (difference with EA)

 Each year EA prorated  With LSD’s disproportionately high number of expensive OOD

placements (compared to only LSD classified enrolled students), proration has significant adverse impact

Extraordinary Aid (EA) Methodology

EC Most of Time Special Class Separate School LSD 17% 19% 28% State 16% 35% 5% Nation 45% 23% 2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Early Childhood Settings

At Least 80% GenEd 40-79% GenEd < 40% GenEd Separate School LSD 24% 12% 39% 24% State 45% 28% 14% 7% Nation 63% 18% 13% 3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

6-21 Year Old Educational Settings

6-21 Year Old Educational Settings Of LSD IEPs Of Lakewood IEPS & SP Of NJ IEPs Of Nation's IEPs Special Schools 24% 5% 7% 3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Percent of Students in Special School (OOD)

LSD “N” = 371

PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number 45 28 28 27 23 22 30 33 13 19 18 14 19 49 Percent 25% 28% 20% 21% 18% 17% 26% 31% 14% 19% 23% 27% 38% 52% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 10 20 30 40 50 60

Out of District Placements by Grade

Autis tic SLI ED ID MD OHI PCD SLD Othe r Number OOD 49 7 13 65 116 50 60 7 10 % OOD 13% 2% 3% 17% 31% 13% 16% 2% 3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Out of District Placements by Disability Area

Based on review of 36 IEPs, staff interviews, and 3 state monitoring reports

 NJDOE recently found LSD to be in compliance  Made several suggestions re: clarity of basis for placement

justification

 Due process cases based on program/placement disputes results in

increased OOD placements Audit Team: no comments or examples of students placed in OOD without educational justification. I reached same finding.

Independent Audit of LSD Placements

 Continue LSD plan to increase placement/program options at

each school.

 Further develop/create in-district high-quality programs, e.g.,

postsecondary programming, to compete with more restrictive OODs and potentially stem tide of litigation/associated costs “The current high-quality preschool programs should serve as a model for new or existing programs.”

 Further train child study team case managers re: IEP

development

Audit Recommendations

 Need significant financial capital to expand high quality LSD

instruction & support for students otherwise placed in OOD

 Although eventually could use money otherwise for tuition

payments, program development requires upfront financial support [Materials/supplies, hiring/training staff, additional physical space (LSD schools are near/at capacity), etc.]

 Current physical environment challenges to better address

physical/sensory mobility issues

 New Jersey’s special education funding framework as applied

to LSD doesn’t allow for such capital expenditures

Financial Capital Needed

2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- 13 2013- 14 2014- 15 2015- 16 2016- 17 EA Received $3,107 $3,669 $2,976 $3,610 $3,147 $4,162 $4,543 EA Not Received $592 $1,095 $1,466 $1,816 $2,279 $3,406 $3,569 Prorated % of EA Grant 84% 77% 67% 63% 58% 55% 56%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000

$4,54 3 $3,56 9 56% $3,10 7 $592 84% Extraordinary Aid Received, EA Not Received, Percent of Prorated EA Grant

With EA proration, LSD

• perating cost

was 5X higher last year than 6 years prior

Extraordinary Aid Received, EA Not Received, Percent of Prorated EA Grant

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2016-17 Tuition Base & Full EA $16,094 $17,927 $20,855 $21,651 $27,863 $27,142 EA Received $3,669 $2,976 $3,610 $3,147 $4,162 $4,543 EA Not Received $1,095 $1,476 $2,120 $2,279 $3,406 $3,569 Number OOD 206 245 275 295 369 346

100 200 300 400 500 600

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000

 OOD costs

by 69% ($11 M)

 EA by

24% ($874,000)

 EA lost by

326% ($2.5M)

Proportion of LSD Special Education Costs (2015-16 through 2017-18) Total Sped Instructio n Tuition Contracte d Child Study Teams Speech, OT, PT, RS Other Expenditure 13% 57% 9% 2% 7% 6% Budget 13% 62% 5% 2% 5% 8% Budget 14% 60% 5% 3% 6% 7% Tuition increased from 57% of sped costs (2015-16) to 62% & 60% next two SYs

July 2017 NJDOE approved charter school (2017-18) not to exceed 160 students & up to 340 (2020-21). About 150 previous LSD students attend charter school.  Students had attended each of LSD’s 5 elementary schools  Transfer had little impact on class size or personnel need  BUT - collective transfer resulted in $2.1 M state aid loss  AND - LSD must pay increased transportation costs of almost $500 thousand for 6 new routes for the charter  As transfers - LSD state aid while transportation costs

Impact of Charter Schools in Lakewood

NJ funding formula not inclusive of community having

• nly 15% of students enrolled in school district

 Drives artificially high local fair share  Artificially decreases LSD equalization aid  Contributes to spending below adequacy target (even with

full funding of school aid), exacerbated by charter school costs

Conclusion 1

Use of so-called census methodology to calculate special education funding exacerbates LSD’s monetary problems

 14.92% census rate covers only 896 SwDs - only a little more than half (59%) of LSD’s students w/IEPs  Methodology disenfranchises 41% of students w/IEPs Circumstance was predictable -- independent recommendations for different approaches ignored

Conclusion 2

2/3 of special education grant - folded into general funding (based on adequacy budget calculation)

 Theoretically, special ed driven funds embedded in general funds formula not needed for mandated services could be used for other program areas, e.g., literacy generally  With LSD’s high sped costs and litigiousness, fungible funds required for mandated sped services even if other program areas must be cut, e.g., those nearly lost last school year (crowding out)  A 2015 Task Force predicted “crowding out” but NJDOE and legislature ignored warning

Conclusion 3

Extraordinary aid proration escalated with rate decreasing from 84% to 56% in 6 years (since 2010-11)

 Transferred from NJ to LSD almost $3 million in extraordinary costs  LSD’s operating share of extraordinary costs grew 5-fold  NJDOE failed to deliver assertion that funding formula would provide districts predictable level of special education funding

Conclusion 4

• 1. Legislatively or administratively, have funding calculation take

into account Lakewood’s low 15% LSD enrollment of all municipality students

• 2. For any district with disproportionately low public school

enrollment, have funding formula be inclusive to support all federal/state mandates applying to all children/youth attending school within boundaries, e.g., child find, evaluations, eligibility, transportation, etc.

• Address fiscal issues related to charter school in Lakewood

Remedies

• 3. Use IDEA census methodology for NJ funding, i.e., total school-age

count for students enrolled in Lakewood schools + poverty weight

• 4. Correct NJ classification methodology for published district rates:

students w/IEPs + service plans divided by ONLY LSD Students (59.9% ) INSTEAD

Remedies

IEPs + service plans (7195) All Lakewood students

US Ed Department’s IDEA Annual Report to Congress

Students w/IEPs(1592) All LSD Students 20.3% 25.3% OR

Questions?