The panel spent weeks crafting H.859, which it endorsed with an 8-2-1 vote last week.
One provision would streamline the current system of special education payments, cutting down on administrative effort. The bill would also provide funding for a study of a block grant system and set aside resources for a large pilot project using a consulting firm’s instructional methods.
The change to the current funding system would shift special education payment to the supervisory union level, instead of the school level.
Previous education laws, acts 153 and 156, moved the responsibility for special education from school districts to supervisory unions. Before then, if a school employed a specialist such as a speech language pathologist and another school in the supervisory union had a student who needed such services, they could not share the specialist. So a few years ago lawmakers moved such positions to the supervisory union level, but payment did not make the same shift. This means money is passed back and forth and administrators have to keep two sets of books.
Secretary of Education Rebecca Holcombe told the committee she supported the change. “This is in line with completing some of the work you started years ago,” she said.
Nicole Mace, executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association, told lawmakers: “You are addressing a duplication of work at a local level to accomplish a policy goal that has been on the books since 2010.”
Special Education Reimbursements
Two years ago, the school boards association approved a resolution calling for a study of the special education funding formula. It appears the plea was heard, since lawmakers added to the legislation money for a report on census block grants.
Three pots of money are associated with special education, including a block grant based on the number of special education students and a 90 percent state subsidy for students who need intensive support and cost more than $50,000. Those two are the extremes; the smallest pot of money lies in between. It works on a reimbursement system that requires schools to record every penny spent.
This current method forces educators to document their time in 15-minute increments. It is also blamed for cutting down on innovation and tying schools up in red tape. Ned Kirsch, superintendent of Franklin West Supervisory Union, explained to the House education panel how this plays out in the classroom.
“Right now, we are forced into a corner with (paraprofessionals) delivering instruction because you get a reimbursement for them,” said Kirsch.
Franklin West isn’t alone, according to Holcombe, who said that in some parts of Vermont some children are getting 75 percent of their education from para-educators. “That is unacceptable,” she added.
“We have built a culture where schools and families believe that if you enter special education the para-educator is an essential part of what occurs,” said Kirsch. “We have learned that this model doesn’t work. Despite the best intentions of every person, we have not moved our achievement gap in K-8. That is why looking for a new model that would really benefit students and a different way of funding it would be fantastic.”
The legislation provides $40,000 for the Agency of Education to contract with the University of Vermont to explore whether a census block grant model of funding for special education costs would make more sense. That system would use the total school district population — not just those with special needs — to distribute funds.
In the end, UVM would recommend a model for Vermont that may or may not be a census block grant style but would include incentives for best practices and innovations in the delivery of services to special education students.
Transforming the delivery
Vermont has been accused of identifying too many students as having special needs. The state is currently spending $294 million for special education and identifies 16 percent of the students, according to a recent report by consultants Allan Odden and Lawrence Picus that highlighted special education spending as a major driver of education costs.
“It is a huge shift in thinking, and it wouldn’t happen overnight,” he said.
The Picus testimony featured the work of the District Management Council, a consulting service that promises to help educators employ evidence-based methods to better teach special education students while better managing the costs. This bill would provide $250,000 from the education fund for up to 10 supervisory unions or districts to employ DMC for a pilot project.
Nathan Levenson, president of DMC, told lawmakers the pilot program would provide the critical mass needed to start changing the entire state’s way of teaching special education students.
Three of the participating supervisory unions or districts need to have 1,500 students each.
The participants will have to match the funding but will have two fiscal years, 2017 and 2018, in which to do so. The match can be in the form of grant funding.
Levenson said the children with the greatest need should be served by the most qualified teachers. “What we are seeing in Vermont is a culture that is extremely focused on lots of adults — paraprofessionals included — rather than a system of highly targeted support from highly qualified staff,” he said.
Franklin West and Chittenden South have both worked with DMC and shared their experiences with lawmakers.
Kirsch hopes the work Franklin West did with DMC will result in fewer students entering special education. “We are trying to put a lot of effort into learning environments with literacy and math experts working alongside teachers,” he said.
Chittenden South’s Pinckney said: “The results of this work could be transformational for Vermont.”
Jeff Francis, executive director of the Vermont Superintendents Association, supported the pilot program, saying DMC’s work is “critically important” because special education carries such a big price tag. “It is my belief that almost to a superintendent they consider the work of the DMC high value,” he said. “The reason is it focuses on the best pedagogy for special ed, and they show districts how to save money. Chittenden South, Franklin West and Rutland City are all learning how to alter their practices.”
Francis said if similar work can be done in 10 more supervisory unions it will complement the school district consolidation work in Act 46 to get better value for each tax dollar.
“If you can support supervisory unions’ work through Act 46 and also get a handle on special education (costs) at the same time you will have really helped,” he added.
Rep. Emily Long, D-Newfane, a member of the House Education Committee, said she hears from school districts all the time that they are looking for research-based, evidence-based methods to better teach kids. “This is going to change the way we operate, and honestly, if we don’t change the way we operate we are going to see costs escalate more and more,” she said.
The bill envisions the reallocation of one state position to the Agency of Education to implement this program and help with another, if money is made available in the agency’s budget.
The Education Committee had to make a decision on this bill at the same time it needed to set property tax rates for next year using a new method, causing some panel members to recommend tabling it. This roused Chairman David Sharpe, D-Bristol, who said it would be irresponsible not to take action. He cited the Picus report’s damning findings, the complaints from schools about problems with the reimbursement system, and the positive reports from supervisory unions and schools that have worked with DMC.
“If we are serious about helping school districts save money, we have to take action with special education,” Sharpe said.
