Superintendents wary of special education overhaul

Superintendents need to see the impact on their schools before deciding whether to back a statewide overhaul of special education funding, the chairman of the group said Thursday morning.

“For us to say ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ we really have see the impact on our districts,” said Michael Faulk, chairman of the 21-member public Superintendents Advisory Council.

State Superintendent of Education John White said simulations that spell out the initial effect of the changes on the state’s 70 school districts will be available next week.

White wants to revamp Louisiana’s funding method so that state aid for special education students is based on the type of disability, what setting is used to educate the student and academic performance.

Under current rules, the state allocates dollars strictly on the basis of whether a student is classified as special education.

Those students qualify for 150 percent of what rank-and-file students get in state aid.

“Today’s model is you put a label on a child and you get money,” White said.

The high school graduation rate for special education students in Louisiana is 29 percent, which is the second-lowest rate in the nation and a key driving force behind the plan.

White told local superintendents that he wants the changes phased in over three years starting with the 2013-14 school year.

However, the proposal sparked questions and concerns during a meeting that lasted for more than two hours.

“I am not sure where we are headed,” said Doris Voitier, superintendent of the St. Bernard Parish school system and one of the most outspoken members of the council.

“I am not saying I am in favor or opposed,” Voitier said. “I don’t know enough.”

Winn Parish school Superintendent Steve Bartlett was more blunt.

“I think it is a good system that we are operating under now,” Bartlett told the group.

He said his views on the plan will largely depend on whether the Winn Parish school system gains or loses state dollars.

“I really can’t talk intelligently about it because I don’t know how it affects my district,” Bartlett said.

White told local school leaders that the impact would be minimal, especially since it would be phased in over three years.

The state spends $313 million a year to assist about 82,000 special education students.

White said 12 states, including Texas, use weighted models similar to what Louisiana is considering.

Louisiana is one of seven states that allocate dollars strictly on the basis of the special education student head count.

Last Friday, the Special Education Advisory Panel, which assists Louisiana’s top school board, voted to delay action on any overhaul in favor of more study.

In addition Shawn Fleming, deputy director of the Louisiana Developmental Disabilities Council, told the group Thursday that his organization favors a task force study on the issue.

Duties of the council include advocacy for those with developmental disabilities.

Jacob Landry, chief strategy officer for the Jefferson Parish school system, said officials there are open to the kind of changes proposed by White.

Landry said his district has about 5,000 special education students.

Patrick Dobard, superintendent of the Recovery School District, also made positive comments about the plan.

Landry formerly oversaw charter schools for the state Department of Education. Dobard was named to his post by White.

The only states with special education graduation rates lower than Louisiana are Mississippi and Nevada.

Both are at 23 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

The state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education is scheduled to review the issue during its March 7-8 meeting.

BESE is about to make its public school funding request to the Legislature, which could include changes in how special education students are financed.

Comments

1) Comment by Traveler - 15/02/2013

The devil is ALWAYS in the details. It occurs to me that if traditional public schools are "encouraged" by a new funding formula to outsource certain special education services [speech/language pathology, audiology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, social work, psychology work], the school systems may have to pay more "up front" for the services from private providers, but Mr. White figures that the state will save lots of money in the long run, because the school systems won't have to pay for such current employee benefits as the employer-portion of health insurance and retirement plan contributions. In order to stretch the special ed dollars available from the state, the systems will have to specify that the outsourced services are part-time. The outcome, of course, is that the systems will have to limit the number of private-provider hours they can pay for (according to how much money they get from the state), thus increasing the therapist-student ratio of service [no 1:1 contact sessions]. Large therapy groups will reduce the amount of individual attention to students who need these services, thus diminishing the overall quality of the therapy provided, but that won't matter to Mr. White, because it is difficult to prove that these [excellent] services impact the graduation rate. My suspicion here is that, overall, there's going to be LESS money available for special education services when all the shouting's done. If Mr. White's plan is adopted, then all those special education service providers currently employed in school systems around the state will have to start polishing their resumes.

2) Comment by jeffsadow - 15/02/2013

@iamhopeful2, can you answer these questions: (1) how does the current flat rate only method best match resources to need when there is no accountability mechanism to ensure that? (2) how does the current system encourage charter, and now voucher, schools to want to enroll more special education students? (3) how does the current standard benefit children? (4) why should the state stick with its current plan with its abysmal graduation/progress rate when others, using the model White suggests, do much better? If you can't give me good answers for these, then you'd start considering the merits of the plan (although it's the execution that really will matter most); see http://jeffsadow.blogspot.com/2013/02/special-education-funding-change.html. "He said his views on the plan will largely depend on whether the Winn Parish school system gains or loses state dollars." Unfortunately, that's what it's all about to too many policy-makers -- money, not children.

3) Comment by Iamhopeful2 - 15/02/2013

1. White presented a PowerPoint and printed document detailing this proposal and others for changes to the MFP (student funding mechanism/formula). Where is that document? Not on the LDE website - nor was the Supt. Advisory Council agenda to be found on the new site. 2. The Special Education Advisory Council which met a week or so prior was not happy with the proposal. That's where you will find not only the spec ed experts but the parents of spec ed students. 3. White's comment, “Today’s model is you put a label on a child and you get money,” White said. Crass and obviously lacking in any personal experience, knowledge or understanding of special needs children. The comment was meant to criticize the funding of special education children but EXACTLY describes what White intends to do. 4. This article, as usual, fails to present questions and concerns voiced by other members of the council or the public that show serious problems with the plan or reval the real intent of the plan. My rhetorical questions is: How many of the superintendents on the council realize they are BEING HAD by White. 5. My comments made at the meeting: "This policy continues the move away from individualized education services that address the needs of all children, under the guise of efficiency, autonomy and budget constraints. True - some students cost more than others, but to define the needs of a child in terms of dollarrs, value or efficiency has nothing to do with improving a child's learning opportunities. Seems to me there is a guiding PRINCIPLE that this group should be asing its decision on. If this were truly to benefit students, the money necessary to serve ah child would be provided for that child - we don't have that model and we don't have unlimited funds. BUT, this strategy simply moves from one set STANDARD of funding based on speciail education classification to multiple set STANDARD of limited funds and attempts to do what even highly qualified, experienced, special education experts and parents cannot do - predict a child's future success based on a BUDGET. An IEP does not have a balance sheet section. I then gave examples of just two gifted/special needs students I had previously taught and how guesstimating their "VALUE" was not only predictable nor possible. This is a BUSINESS PLAN, not a plan to address the needs of special education or gifted students (also on the chopping block folks). It's all about the money! There's nothing in this plan about improving education outcomes or services, and it certailny won't alleviate the pain of writing IEPs (White always presents his cockeymamie ideas under the guise of giving locals their own decisionmaking and simplifying paperwork. That part of the discussion which included "guaranteeing" that districts would not lose money and that they could actually elect to lock in their current funding for three years to avoid the ensuing classifying and paperwork.

4) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 14/02/2013

And in case anyone actually cares about WHY Louisiana might be next to the bottom in terms of its graduation rate, a few points are in order. First, don't believe the rate. Second, we DO have a low graduation rate, and let's examine one of the main reasons why. First, ALL graduation rates are impacted by family income, in every state, in every country. Students from lower income homes graduate at a lower rate that students from higher income homes... and we all know that the rate of low income families in Louisiana's public schools are second only to Mississippi. In addition, in every state, across our country, Black-non-Hispanic and Hispanics (along with some smaller groups of students) graduate at much lower rates than Asians and Whites. Before someone says I am being racist, I will assure you that there is nothing racist about talking about these patters. But they do explain why Louisiana has one of the lowest graduation rates.

5) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 14/02/2013

According to Will Sentell, "Despite concerns and questions some superintendents said they think the plan carries some positives, including Recovery School District Superintendent Patrick Dobard and Jacob Landry, an official of the Jefferson Parish school system." Would it surprise ANYONE that the head of the Recovery School District, serving at the pleasure of the State Superintendent of Education, is in support of this plan? Is this a joke? And who joins him, but Jacob Landry, who is NOT a Superintendent, but who was summarily fired from his 99K+ position over charter schools after the state was forced to close the Abramson Charter in New Orleans. I remember when he was fired, and left quietly, I told others he would get a cushy job, wonder what stories they got him NOT to tell! He immediately got a cushy job in Jefferson, a parish that is just about directly run by White and the Broad Foundation groupies... Not exactly independent confirmation of the validity of the new plan...

6) Comment by crazycajun - 14/02/2013

Like L'il booby's going to let them have any say in the matter. Where in the world have they been the last five years. JEEEEEZ