Editor’s note: This commentary is by William Bazyk, of Manchester, who has worked in special education for 22 years.
[T]hrough Act 46 the State of Vermont has funded an educational study by Allan Odden, Lawrence Picus and Michael Griffith, an independent school finance consulting agency, to study better ways to regulate educational funding. It emerged from the report that the state is spending 10 percent more than is needed as a total budget with special education as the largest cost driver. The firm has made recommendations for the state to consider to reduce costs. I took particular interest in the study as I have extensive experience in reducing the cost of special education services while providing higher quality education for students in the state of Massachusetts. I have also worked in the field of special education in Vermont and can clearly see why the costs are rising and services are becoming stagnant.
I was disappointed with the recommendations from the consulting firm. The report was 300 pages and extensive, but the general recommendations focused on common myths that exist nationally about special education spending. Issues such as teachers need more training to deal with struggling students in the regular classroom, there are too many paraprofessionals than needed and students are being over identified for special education. While I was disappointed in the common findings, I can also understand why they were put forth. Special education has become so complex it has outpaced those with expertise to understand it. So it is viewed through a regular education lens with regular education solutions.
My success of achieving more efficiency in special education was based on theories of applying special education needs to regular education structures. I would ask the state educational leaders to do the same and consider the following.
People tend to work a little bit harder and be a little more innovative when it comes to their own money. However, the method the state uses to reimburse school districts does not follow that logic. Presently the state special education reimburse rate focuses on monitoring how money is being spent by school districts, not how much they are spending. The special education funding formula is far too generous and encourages school districts to use money to solve problems instead of empirical based practices. This has led to very little quality state level special education programs being developed. It promotes the use of outside service contractors and for-profit schools that charge high rates. The formula leads to an over reliance on out-of-district placements or costly services. Lastly it has created an auditing system that focuses on money spent instead of compliance of practices that would reduce spending and provide better services for students.
The solution would be to revamp the method special education is reimbursed to the school districts by requiring them to contribute more local dollars. This would spur innovation and efficiencies that would lead to better programing for students.
The cutting of special education staffing to provide more efficiencies will just shift the work that is needed to the classroom teachers who a have a job description already that does not include delivering special education services.
There will always be a population of special needs students that need extensive services. Vermont deals with this population by paying the bill they are sent from the local school districts. There is very little collaboration among the districts to deal with how to provide these services. Act 153 consolidated special education from the local school district to the supervisory union level. While it was a good start it did not bring about the desired outcome of unifying services for efficiencies.
Fortunately there is a ready-made solution just waiting to be tapped. Currently each school district in the state belongs to an assigned regional technical education center. Regional special educational consortiums could be created and housed at each technical center. They would build the physical space for their regional members pertaining to high needs students. Staffing needs for hard to fill related services providers such as occupational therapists, assistive technology professionals and analytical behavioral services personnel would be available to districts through the consortium. This would eliminate costly third party contractors and for-profit schools to focus better on students.
According to a Feb. 3 article on VTDigger, William Mathis, of the State Board of Education and an expert of educational funding, had this to say about personnel who work in special education.
“Mathis agreed that Vermont can reduce the number of paraprofessionals working in special education, but he said he doesn’t believe it’s a good idea to ‘categorically’ cut out aides. ‘You still need someone to push a wheelchair or monitor an emotionally disturbed student,’ he said.”
Certainly Mr. Mathis is a well-meaning person who offers a great deal to Vermont and deserves the benefit of the doubt as he has been speaking a lot on this issue lately, but it goes to show the lack of understanding by the general public of what occurs in special education. The reality is the field is struggling nationally to find and keep qualified people to do the most difficult work in our educational system. The public school system is in competition with an aging population that is creating higher paying jobs in health care with better working conditions for the same skilled workers. Vermont needs to recognize the unique work that is required in the special education field to create better morale and reward those who are capable. The cutting of special education staffing to provide more efficiencies will just shift the work that is needed to the classroom teachers who a have a job description already that does not include delivering special education services. A better solution would be to increase the wages of special education staffing to retain and attract the most capable employees and over time this more trained workforce will become proficient and school district will not overstaff.
Granted Allan Odden, Lawrence Picus and Michael Griffith had a very difficult task to perform, but their findings were more based on national trends than the unique education that is provided to Vermont students and their solutions would be questionable for our state. While the solutions I put forth should be considered by state leaders, more consideration should be given to finding solutions that recognize the complex system of special education.
