Upload
smf-4lakids
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
1/28
Oeriew o SpecialEdcaio i Calioria
MAC TAy lor l e g i s l A T i v e A n A l y s T JA nUA ry 3, 2013
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
2/28
A n L A O R e p O R t
2 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
3/28
COntEntS
Eecie Smmar ..................................................................................................5
Irodcio ..............................................................................................................7
Wha Is Special Edcaio? ......................................................................................7
Who Receies Special Edcaio Serices? ............................................................8
Wha Special Edcaio Serices Do Sdes Receie? .....................................11
Where Are Special Edcaio Serices Proided? ................................................11
How Is Special Edcaio Orgaied i Calioria? .............................................12
How Is Special Edcaio Fded i Calioria? ..................................................14
Wha Are he Sae Special Schools? .....................................................................18
How Are Special Edcaio Laws Moiored ad Eorced? ...............................19
How Do Caliorias Sdes Wih Disailiies Perorm Academicall? ...........20
Coclsio ...............................................................................................................24
Glossar o Commo terms Relaed o Special Edcaio ..................................25
A n L A O R e p O R t
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 3
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
4/28
A n L A O R e p O R t
4 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
5/28
ExECutIvE SuMMARySpecial education is the catch-all term that encompasses the specialized services that schools
provide or disabled students. Tis report provides a comprehensive review o special education
conveying inormation on applicable laws, aected students, services, unding, and student
outcomes.
Public Schools Must Provide Special Support or Disabled Students. Federal law requires
schools to provide specially dened instruction, and related services, at no cost to parents, to meet
the unique needs o a child with a disability. Te law requires schools to provide disabled students
with these special supports rom age 3 until age 22, or until they graduate rom high school,
whichever happens rst. Tese services are in addition to what a nondisabled student receives.
About One in en Caliornia Students Receives Special Education Services. About 686,000
students with disabilities (SWDs) receive special education services in Caliornia, comprising about
10 percent o the states public school enrollment. Specic learning disabilitiesincluding dyslexia
are the most common diagnoses requiring special education services (aecting about 4 percent oall K-12 students), ollowed by speech and language impairments. While the overall prevalence o
students with autism and chronic health problems still is relatively rare (each aecting 1 percent
or less o all public school students), the number o students diagnosed with these disabilities has
increased notably over the past decade.
Special Education Services Vary Based on Individual Student Needs. Federal law only
requires schools to provide special education services to students with diagnosed disabilities that
interere with their educational attainment. o determine a students need and eligibility or special
education, schools must conduct a ormal evaluation process. I schools determine that general
education programs cannot adequately meet a disabled students needs, they develop Individualized
Education Programs (IEPs) to dene the additional services the school will provide. Each students
IEP diers based on his or her particular disability and needs. Specialized academic instruction is
the most common service that schools provide. Tis category includes any kind o specic practice
that adapts the content, methodology, or delivery o instruction to help SWDs access the general
curriculum. Other commonly provided services include speech and language assistance and various
types o therapies or physical and psychological needs that may be impeding a SWDs educational
attainment. Although ederal law encourages schools to educate disabled students in mainstream
settings, most (about three-quarters) o special education services are delivered in settings other
than regular classrooms.
In General, the State Uses a Regional Structure to Organize Special Education. Becauseeconomies o scale oen improve both programmatic outcomes and cost-eectiveness, special
education unding and some services are administered regionally by 127 Special Education Local
Plan Areas (SELPAs) rather than by the approximately 1,000 school districts in the state. Most
SELPAs are collaborative consortia o nearby districts, county oces o education (COEs), and
charter schools, although some large districts have ormed their own independent SELPAs, and
three SELPAs consist o only charter schools.
A n L A O R e p O R t
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 5
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
6/28
Te Excess Costs Associated With Providing Special Education Services Are Supported by
Federal, State, and Local Funds. Schools receive billions o dollars to provide a basic educational
programincluding teachers, instructional materials, academic support, and enrichment
activitiesor allstudents, including SWDs. Te average annual costs o educating a SWD, however,
are more than double those o a mainstream studentapproximately $22,300 compared to $9,600.(It is important to note that most SWDs require less severe, less costly services, whereas some
students require intensive interventions that cost notably more than $22,300 per year.) Schools
receive categorical unds to cover a portion o these additional, or excess costs, associated with
addressing students disabilities. Because ederal and state special education unds typically are not
sucient to cover the costs o all IEP-required services, however, schools spend rom their local
unrestricted general unds to make up the dierence. In 2010-11, special education expenditures
totaled $8.6 billion. State special education categorical unds covered the largest share o these costs
(43 percent), combined with spending rom local general purpose unds (39 percent) and ederal
special education unds (18 percent). Over the past several years, a combination o increasing special
education costs and relatively fat state and ederal special education unding has resulted in local
budgets covering an increasing share o these costs.
Special Education Funds Allocated to SELPAs Based on Overall Student Population,
Not Number o Disabled Students. Caliornia relies primarily on a census-based unding
methodology that allocates special education unds to SELPAs based on the totalnumber o students
attending, regardless o students disability status. Tis unding model implicitly assumes that
SWDsand associated special education costsare relatively equally distributed among the general
student population and across the state. Te amount o per-pupil unding each SELPA receives
varies based on historical actors. In 2011-12, the weighted statewide average per-pupil rate was
$645 per student (including both state and ederal unds). Aer receiving its allocation, each SELPAdevelops a local plan or how to allocate unds to the school districts and charter schools in its
region based on how it has chosen to organize special education services or SWDs.
Mixed Academic Outcomes or Disabled Students. Some perormance indicators suggest
SWDs generally are perorming well, whereas other indicators are less encouraging. For example,
perormance on standardized tests (including those specically designed or SWDs) has improved
over the past several years, but a majority o SWDs still ail to meet state and ederal achievement
expectations. As SWDs near the end o their time receiving speicial education services, data show
that about 60 percent o SWDs graduate on time with a high school diploma and about two-thirds o
SWDs are engaged productively aer high school (with about hal enrolled in an institute o higher
education and 15 percent competitively employed within one year aer high school).
A n L A O R e p O R t
6 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
7/28
IntRODuCtIOn
signicant areas o K-12 expenditures, supported by
a combination o the single largest state categorical
allocation, one o the biggest ederal education
grants, and a substantial portion o local school
budgets.
Tis report is intended to provide the
Legislature and public with an overview o the
states approach to educating disabled students.
It provides a primer-style reviewconveying
inormation on special education laws, aected
students, services, and unding. We also describe
the academic outcomes o the students who receive
these special services. Additionally, the end o thereport includes a glossary dening some common
terms related to special education.
Special education is the catch-all term that
encompasses the specialized services that schools
provide or disabled students. Policymakers
might have several reasons or seeking a deeper
understanding o the states approach to delivering
special education. First, a notable shareroughly
10 percento Caliornias K-12 students
receive special education services. As such, the
eectiveness o these services relates directly to
the academic outcomes o almost 700,000 o the
states children. Second, special education is one o
the most complicated and regulated areas o K-12
education, with multiple sets o ederal and statelaws governing how schools must provide services.
Finally, special education is among the most
WHAt IS SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn?
Public Schools Must Provide Special Support
or Disabled Students. Since 1975, ederal law
has required public schools to make special
eorts to educate disabled students. Revised andreauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) in 2004, ederal special
education law requires local educational agencies
(LEAs) to provide specially dened instruction,
and related services, at no cost to parents, to meet
the unique needs o a child with a disability.
(Troughout this report, we use the term special
education to reer to both special instruction
and related services, such as speech or behavioral
therapy.) Tese services are in addition to what a
nondisabled student receives. Te IDEA requires
schools to provide these special supports to
children with disabilities rom age 3 until age 22,
or until they graduate rom high school, whichever
happens rst. (Te IDEA also guarantees some
early intervention services or inants and toddlers
with developmental disabilities, but the states
Regional Centers, not schools, typically are taskedwith providing these services.)
Both Federal and State Laws Govern Special
Education. Most special education requirements
are contained in ederal law, although the state
Legislature also has passed some additional laws
governing how Caliornia schools must serve
disabled students. Generally, state special education
laws make relatively minor additions to the more
substantial ederal requirements. For example,
whereas the ederal entitlement or services ends
on a students 22nd birthday, Caliornia law extends
services or 22-year-old students through the end o
that school term.
A n L A O R e p O R t
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 7
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
8/28
WHO RECEIvES SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn SERvICES?
intereres with the students education. Federal law
only requires schools to provide special education
services to students who meet both o these
criteria.
Students IEPs Dene Teir Special Education
Services. Once an evaluator recommends that
special education services would be appropriate,
a team o stakeholders come together to prepare
an IEPan individualized written statement
dening the services the LEA will provide or the
student. Federal and state laws outline the IEP
process, including setting timelines or completing
and reviewing the plan (at least annually, butmore requently i a students needs change);
speciying what the plan should include (described
in Figure 1); and designating required IEP team
participants. An IEP team typically includes the
students parents, a school administrator, a special
education teacher or service provider, the students
general education teacher, the evaluator who
determined the students eligibility or services,
andwhen appropriatethe student. Te IEP
becomes a legal document requiring the LEA
to provide the services described or the SWD.
(Troughout the remainder o this report, we use
the term SWD to reer to disabled students who
have ormally qualied to receive special education
services.)
Section 504 Plans Describe Noninstructional
Accommodations. Some SWDs who need other
special accommodations to ully participate in
school activities may have a Section 504 Planin addition to, or instead o, an IEP. Section
504 Plans, which also are ederal entitlements or
eligible students, typically cover noninstructional
modications like wheelchair ramps, blood sugar
monitoring, or tape recorders or taking notes.
Not all disabled children need special
education services. Below, we discuss the process
or identiying which students require special
education services and the types o disabilities that
commonly aect these students.
How Do Schools Decide Which Sdes
Reqire Special Edcaio Serices?
Schools First Must ry to Meet Students
Needs Within the General Education Program.
A student cannot qualiy to receive special
education services until aer the school has tried
to meet his or her needs within the parameterso the general education program. Educators
typically attempt a series o inormal strategies
to address struggling students needs beore
employing the ormal special education process.
wo such approaches include Student Study
eams (SSs) and Response to Intervention
(RtI). Te SSa group that usually includes the
students school-site administrator, teacher, and
parenttypical ly discusses the students progress
and identies in-class strategies or the classroom
teacher to try. Te RtI is an instruct ional approach
designed to identiy struggling students and
provide interventions explicitly targeted to meet
their needs.
Schools Evaluate Whether Student Has
Disability Tat Requires Special Education
Services. I LEAs determine that general
education programs cannot adequately meet
a students needs, they next reer the studentor a proessional evaluation to see i he or she
qualies to receive special education. Once the
LEA makes the reerral and the parent consents,
the law requires that the evaluation be conducted
within 60 days. Te evaluator assesses whether the
student has a disability and whether that disability
A n L A O R e p O R t
8 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
9/28
Students Attending Private Schools Also Are
Entitled to Special Education Services. Students
with disabilities attending private schools also
have the right to access publicly unded special
education services. Tose services, however,
requently are provided in the public school setting
and may be less extensive than what would be
available i the student opted to enroll in public
school ull time.
Wha tpes o Disailiies Afec Sdes?
Federal Law Has 13 Disability Classications.
o be eligible or special education services under
ederal law, students must have a primary disabilitythat alls into one o the 13 categories listed in
Figure 2 (see next page). Te gure shows that
about 686,000 SWDs ages 3 to 22 receive special
education services in Caliornia. About 618,000 are
in grades K-12, comprising about 10 percent o the
states overall K-12 public school enrollment.
Learning Disabilities Are Identied Most
Frequently. As shown in the gure, 41 percent
o the states SWDs and over 4 percent o all
K-12 students are identied as having specic
learning disabilities. Tese are disorders aecting
one or more o the basic processes involved in
understanding/using language or perorming
mathematical calculations. (Dyslexia is one
commonly identied learning disability.) Te
next largest categoryspeech or language
impairmentsaects almost one-quarter o
SWDs. Autism aects 10 percent o SWDs. Rarer
disability categories include students who are
blind, dea, or have traumatic brain injuries.Students with these less common disabilities oen
require more intensive and expensive special
education services.
Prevalence o Some Disabilities Has Changed
Over Past Decade. Figure 3 (see next page) displays
the number o Caliornia students identied in
various disability categories over the past ten years.
Figure 1
Required Components of Individualized Education Programs
9 Current Status. The childs present level o academic achievement and unctional perormance.
9 Goals. Measurable annual goals or the childs academic and unctional perormance.
9 Progress Measures. How progress towards meeting annual goals will be measured.9 Services to Be Provided. Special education and related services to be provided, such assupplementary services and/or program modifcations or the child. Details must include the projected
beginning date, requency, location, and duration o the services to be provided.
9 Inclusion in Mainstream Setting. The extent to which the child will/will not participate with nondisabledchildren in the regular class.
9 Assessment Plan. Accommodations necessary or child to participate in state and district assessmentsor alternate assessments necessary to measure the childs academic achievement and unctionalperormance.
9 Additional Considerations. As appropriate: employment or career goals, alternative course ostudy or grade promotion and high school graduation, plan or transitioning to general education or
postsecondary activities, specialized equipment or transportation needs, goals or learning English, and/
or extended school-year services.
A n L A O R e p O R t
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 9
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
10/28
Figure 2
About 10 Percent o Caliornia Students HaveDisabilities Aecting Their Education
2011-12
Disability
Number o
SWDsaPercent o
SWDs
Percent o Total K-12
Population
Specic learning disabilityb 278,698 41% 4.4%
Speech or language impairment 164,600 24 2.1
Autism 71,825 10 1.0
Other health impairmentc 61,843 9 0.9
Mental retardation 43,303 6 0.5
Emotional disturbance 25,984 4 0.4
Orthopedic impairment 14,261 2 0.2
Hard o hearing 9,991 1 0.1
Multiple disability 5,643 1 0.1
Visual impairment 4,327 1 0.1
Dea 3,946 1 0.1
Traumatic brain injury 1,771 d e
Dea and blind 160 d e
Totals 686,352 100% 9.9%a Refects students with disabilities (SWDs) ages 3 to 22 receiving special education services.b Includes disorders resulting in diculties with listening, thinking, speaking, reading, writing, spelling, or doing mathematical
calculations.c Includes having chronic or acute health problems (such as a heart condition, asthma, epilepsy, or diabetes) that adversely aect
educational perormance.d Less than 0.5 percent.
e Less than 0.05 percent.
Figure 3
Prevalence of Some Disabilities
Has Changed Over Past Decade
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12
All Other
Other Health ImpairmentaAutism
Speech or Language Impairment
Specific Learning Disability
Students With:
a Includes chronic or acute health problems that adversely affect educational performance.
Te gure shows that
while the prevalence o
many disabilities has
stayed relatively constant,
the number o students
identied with speciclearning disabilities
has dropped by almost
20 percent. In contrast,
while the overall prevalence
o autism and other
health impairments still is
relatively rare, the number
o students diagnosed
with these disabilities
has increased notably
over the past decadeby
241 percent and 120 percent,
respectively. While
Caliornias identication
rates vary somewhat rom
other states, these general
trends also are visible
across the nation. Experts
believe these changesare partially related to
evolving diagnoses and
instructional practices. For
example, some children
who might previously
have been classied with
learning disabilities now
are receiving early and
intensive instructional
interventions and
avoiding special education
designations. Some o
the trendssuch as
the dramatic growth in
autismremain more
dicult to explain.
A n L A O R e p O R t
10 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
11/28
WHAt SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn SERvICES
DO StuDEntS RECEIvE?
100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000
Specialized Academic Instruction
Speech and Language Therapy
Occupational Therapy
College Awareness
Career Awareness
Adapted Physical Education
Vocational Assessment
Behavior Treatment Services
Individual Therapy
Most Common Special Education Services
Provided to Students With Disabilities
Figure 4
Number of Students Receiving Servicesa
a Some students may receive more than one type of service.
Services or SWDs
Vary Based on IndividualStudent Needs. Figure 4
displays the most
requently provided
special education services.
As shown, specialized
academic instruction is
the most common service.
Tis category includes any
kind o specic practice
that adapts the content,
methodology, or delivery
o instruction to help
SWDs access the general
curriculum. Examples
include one-to-one
tutoring, specialized
instruction in a separate
classroom, or modied
assignments. Othercommonly provided services include speech and
language assistance, career and college awareness
activities, and various types o therapies or
physical and psychological needs that may be
impeding a SWDs educational attainment.
Older SWDs Receive Services to Help
ransition to Adulthood. One o the IDEAs
goals is to prepare SWDs or success in lie aer
high school, when the ederal entitlement to
special education services typically ends. As such,beginning when students are age 16, LEAs are
required to develop specic services in IEPs to help
SWDs prepare or the transition to postsecondary
activities. ransitional services typically include
vocational and career readiness activities, college
counseling, and training in independent living
skills. Te state provides some unding specically
targeted or these types o activities, including the
WorkAbility program and specialized Regional
Occupational Center/Program services.
WHERE ARE SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn SERvICES PROvIDED?
Federal Law Encourages LEAs to Educate
SWDs in Mainstream Settings. Federal law
requires that SWDs be educated in separate
settings only when the nature or severity o their
disabilities is such that the regular educational
environment is not practical, even with the use o
A n L A O R e p O R t
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 11
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
12/28
supplementary aids and services. Educating SWDs
alongside their nondisabled peers oen is reerred
to as inclusion or mainstreaming. Based on
this principle o the least restrictive environment
(LRE), around hal o Caliornias SWDs spend at
least 80 percent o their time in regular classrooms.Tis rate is somewhat lower, however, than most
other states. On average, about 60 percent o SWDs
across the country spend at least 80 percent o
their instructional time in regular classrooms.
Accordingly, Caliornias annual ederal
perormance review or special education has set a
goal o increasing inclusion rates even urtherto
at least three-quarters o SWDs being in the regular
classroom or 80 percent o the day.
Most SWDs Receive Specialized Services
in Settings Other Tan the Regular Classroom.
Rather than ocusing on student time, a somewhat
dierent but related metric ocuses on the extent
to which special education services are delivered
in the regular classroom. One reason Caliornia
ails to meet ederal LRE targets is that only about
one-quarter o its special education services are
delivered in the regular classroom. By comparison,
about hal o specialized services are delivered at
SWDs regular schools but in separate classrooms.
Tese latter services consist o part-day pull-
outs rom or supplements to regular classroominstruction (or students with less severe needs)
as well as special day classes (or students who
need more intensive accommodations). Students
in special day classes typically spend most or all
o their days in a specially designed instructional
setting. Te remaining one-quarter o special
education services are provided at locations other
than the regular school. For students with very
severe disabilities, services sometimes are oered
at district-operated disability centers, specially
certied nonpublic schools, or residential acilities.
Other typical o-site locations include therapists
oces. eachers and service providers who work
with SWDs must holdor be supervised by
someone who holdsspecial credentials rom the
Caliornia Commission on eacher Credentialing.
HOW IS SPECIAL EDuCAtIOnORGAnIzED In CALIFORnIA?
In General, State Uses Regional Structure
to Organize Special Education. Providing
individualized services or SWDsparticularly or
students with severe or low-incidence disabilities
can be costly and dicult or individual LEAs,
especially small LEAs with limited scal and
stang resources. Because economies o scale
oen improve both programmatic outcomes and
cost-eectiveness, special education unding
and some services typically are administered
regionally rather than by individual school districts
or charter schools. Te state distributes special
education unding to 127 SELPAs, rather than to
the approximately 1,000 LEAs in the state. State
law requires that every school district, COE, and
charter school belong to a SELPA.
SELPAs Organized in One o Four Ways. As
shown in Figure 5, LEAs have arranged themselves
into our distinct types o SELPA congurations.
Most (81) are consortia o nearby districts, COEs,
and charter schools. In these consortia, one
entityoen the COEis designated to receive
unding, acilitate coordination, and meet state and
ederal data reporting requirements. In contrast to
the consortia model, 42 school districts, including
many o the states largest, have opted to orm their
own independent SELPAs. (A LEA must provide
one-year notice i it plans to leave one SELPA and
A n L A O R e p O R t
12 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
13/28
join another, and it must receive approval rom
the state in order to establish a new SELPA.) Tree
SELPAsrun out o COEs in El Dorado, Los
Angeles, and Sonoma countiesconsist exclusively
o charter schools. Finally, one SELPA consists
solely o court schools in Los Angeles County. Testates SELPAs vary notably in size. In 2011-12, the
states largest SELPA (Los Angeles Unied) served
almost 82,300 SWDs, while the smallest (Sierra
County SELPA) served 44 SWDs.
An Increasing Number o Charter Schools
Participate in Charter-Only SELPAs. Charter
schools can choose to organize special education
services in three dierent ways: as a school o its
authorizing school district, as an independent
LEA member o a consortia SELPA, or as a
LEA member o one o the three charter-only
SELPAs. Charter schools that opt or LEA
statuseither within a consortia SELPA or as a
member o a charter-only SELPAassume legal
responsibility or ensuring their SWDs receive
the special services to which they are entitled
under ederal law. Charter schools increasingly
are opting or the third option. Te El Dorado
County charter-only SELPA grew rom 23 charterschool members in 2008-09 to 138 charter school
members in 2011-12. Tese schools are located
across the
state, not just
in El Dorado
County. Te
Caliornia
Department
o Education
(CDE) also is
anticipating
increased
membership
in the two
more newly
established charter-only SELPAs in Los Angeles
and Sonoma counties.
Consortia SELPAs Frequently Ofer Some
Regionalized Services. While single-district
SELPAs typically serve all o their SWDs directly,
consortia SELPAs oen pool resources to oersome regionalized special education services on
behal o member LEAs. For example, consortia
SELPAs requently organize proessional
development or teachers, preschool programs, and
services or students with low-incidence disabilities
at the regional level. Even i members o consortia
SELPAs decide to provide some special education
services on a regional basis, ederal law still holds
each LEA ultimately responsible or ensuring
SWDs are served appropriately.
Charter-Only SELPAs Service Model
ypically Difers From Regional Consortia
SELPAs. Because charter-only SELPAs can include
charter schools rom across the state, their service
model typically diers rom those o traditional
consortia SELPAs, which contain members rom
the same geographic region. Specically, individual
members o charter-only SELPAs typically run
their own special education services, by eitherhiring or contracting with qualied sta. Some
charter schools do seek economies o scale by
Types of SELPA Arrangements
Figure 5
SELPA = Special Education Local Plan Area.
Consortia Only Charter Schools Single District Only Court Schools
81 3 42 1
A n L A O R e p O R t
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 13
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
14/28
orming special education service collaboratives
outside o the traditional SELPA structure, either
with other charter schools or nearby school
districts. Unlike with traditional SELPAs, however,
the COEs that administer charter-only SELPAs
typically do not organize such collaborative
arrangements.
HOW IS SPECIAL EDuCAtIOnFunDED In CALIFORnIA?
Special education is among the most signicant
areas o K-12 expenditures. Below, we discuss the
sources that und special education, how much
special education services cost to provide, how the
state distributes unds to SELPAs, and how SELPAs
distribute unds to LEAs.
Which Fdig Sorces
Sppor Special Edcaio?
Services Supported by Federal, State, and
Local Funds. Special education services are
subsidized by a combination o three unding
sourcesederal, state, and local. Federal IDEA
and state unds each are provided through discrete
special education categorical grants. Te state grant
(which is comprised o both state General Fund
and local property tax revenues) counts towards
the Proposition 98 school unding requirement.
Te local contribution represents spending rom
LEAs unrestricted general unds.
How Mch Do Special Edcaio Serices Cos?
Dedicated Special Education Funds Intended
to Support the Excess Costs o Educating SWDs.
Local educational agencies are allocated billions
o dollars to provide an educational programincluding teachers, instructional materials,
academic support, and enrichment activitiesor
allstudents, including SWDs. o the degree their
disabilities cause SWDs to require additional
services beyond what mainstream students receive,
LEAs use ederal IDEA and state special education
categorical unds to provide such services. Tat is,
ederal and state special education unds are not
intended to support theullcosts o educating a
SWDjust the excess costs resulting rom the need
to address his or her disabilities. (See the nearby
box or a discussion o this and another common
misconception regarding local special educationexpenditures.) Because ederal and state special
education unds typically are not sucient to cover
the costs o all IEP-required services, local LEAs
spend rom their local unrestricted general unds to
make up the dierence.
Average Costs o Educating SWDs More Tan
Double Tose o Mainstream Students. Figure 6
illustrates the concept o excess costs. Te gure
shows that in 2010-11, LEAs spent an average o
roughly $9,600 in total unds per nondisabled
student and more than twice as much, about
$22,300, per SWD. Te additional $12,700 to
provide special IEP-required services or SWDs
was supported by an average o about $2,300 in
ederal unds, about $5,400 in state unds, and
about $5,000 local unds. While $12,700 was the
approximate statewide average excess cost or an
SWD, it is important to note that most SWDs
require less severe, less costly services, whereassome students require intensive interventions that
cost notably more than $12,700 a year.
Excess Costs o Educating SWDs Have Slowly
Increased Over Past Several Years. Figure 7
(see next page) displays total special education
expenditures rom ederal, state, and local unds
A n L A O R e p O R t
14 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
15/28
between 2004-05 and
2010-11, adjusted or
infation. (While these
data are sel-reported by
LEAs and may contain
some inconsistencies,they represent the best
available proxy or
calculating the excess
costs associated with
educating SWDs.) In
2010-11, total special
education expenditures
were covered by
$3.7 billion in state
unds (including local
property tax revenues),
$3.4 billion in local
general purpose unds,
and $1.6 billion in ederal
unds. As illustrated
in the gure, infation-
adjusted expenditures increased by an average o
2 percent annually over the period, growing by a
total o about 9 percent. Te increases likely are
Figure 6
Special Education Funds Support the Excess CostsOf Educating Students With Disabilities
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
$25,000
Nondisabled Students
Statewide Average Spending Per Pupil, 2010-11
Students With Disabilities
aIncludes American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding.IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Federal IDEAa
State SpecialEducation
Local GeneralPurpose
Excess Costs
TotalBase Support
TotalBase Support
Miscocepios Ao Ecroachme
Some local educational agencies (LEAs) complain that local contributions or special education
encroach upon their general education programs, sometimes implying that anylocal dollar spent
towards educating a student with disabilities (SWD) imposes unair expenditure requirements on
their general purpose budgets. Tis argument, however, is a mischaracterization o both ederal and
state laws. Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and state special education
categorical unds never were intended to cover theullcosts o educating a SWDinstead the bulk
o the regular education costs are intended to be covered using local revenue limit and categorical
unding, just as or nondisabled students. Moreover, ederal IDEA and state special education
categorical unds never were intended toullycover the excess costs o educating a SWDthe
special education unding model always has been predicated on a three-way cost-sharing model,
including local sources. Despite this basic design o the unding model, LEAs sometimes express
rustration that their local share o special education costs is too high. Tis rustration tends to
increase as their local share o special education costs increases, as this leaves them with ewer
resources to serve other students.
A n L A O R e p O R t
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 15
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
16/28
due to a variety o actors, including the increasing
prevalence o students with severe disabilities like
autism who require more intensive and expensive
services. Notably, adjusted expenditures dropped
slightlyby 3 percentbetween 2009-10 and
2010-11. Te gure also shows that the ederalgovernment provided additional short-term unds
or special education through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in
2009-10 and 2010-11.
Local Budgets Have Covered an Increasing
Share o Special Education Costs. Figure 8
compares the proportion o special education
expenditures covered by local, state, and ederal
unds in 2004-05 and in 2010-11. As shown in the
gure, the share o overall costs unded through
local contributions grew rom 32 percent to
39 percent, while the shares covered by state and
ongoing ederal unds each declined. Tis is due
to the combination o increasing overall costs and
relatively fat state and ederal unding. Moreover,
even i costs have remained fat in 2011-12 and
2012-13 (years or which data are not yet available),
the local share o costs likely has grown since LEAs
have had to backll or the expiration o short-term
ederal ARRA unds.
Federal Share Has Never Reached IntendedContribution Level. As shown in Figure 8, ederal
IDEA unds typically cover less than 20 percent
o overall special education expenditures. Tis
is notably lower than the amount the ederal
government originally committed to provide in
support o special education services. Te IDEA
expresses intent to appropriate unding or each
SWD up to 40 percent o the national average
expenditure level per K-12 pupil, which would
equate to roughly 40 percent o Caliornias overall
special education expenditures. Te ederal budget,
however, has never come close to providing states
with this amount. We estimate that Caliornia
would receive roughly $2 billion more annually i
the ederal government were to ully und the
intended level articulated
in the IDEA.
How Are FdsDisried o SELPAs?
wo Distribution
Models Exist. Across the
nation, states generally
use one o two approaches
to distribute special
education unding to the
local level. Some use a
cost-based model, with
unding allocations driven
by how many SWDs are
served or the magnitude
o special education costs
incurred. In contrast,
other states rely primarily
on a census-based unding
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
$10
04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Figure 7
Special Education Expenditures Have Slowly Increased
IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; ARRA = American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
a Includes local property tax revenues.
(In Billions, Inflation-Adjusted 2010-11 Dollars)
Local General Purpose
State Special Educationa
Federal IDEA ARRA
Federal IDEA Ongoing
A n L A O R e p O R t
16 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
17/28
methodology that is not linked to particular
SWDs. Under this model, the state allocates special
education unds based on the totalnumber o
students enrolled, regardless o students disability
status. Tis unding model implicitly assumes
that SWDsand associated special educationcostsare relatively equally distributed among the
general student population and across the state.
While the majority o ederal special education
unds are distributed using a census-based model,
the IDEA ormula does allocate a small portion
(typically around 10 percent) o unds based on
counts o economically disadvantaged students, on
the assumption that this group contains a greater
proportion o SWDs.
Caliornia Now Uses Census-Based Model.
Beginning in 1998-99, Caliornia switched rom
a cost-based to census-based allocation model,
which is commonly reerred to as the AB 602
ormula aer the authorizing legislation. Since that
change, more than three-quarters o state special
education unds are allocated based on a SELPAs
total average daily attendance (ADA), with the
remainder distributed based on specic students
and circumstances. In general, data support the
incidence assumptions underlying the census-
based approachthat is, most SELPAs do report
serving proportionally similar numbers and typeso SWDs. (Charter-only SELPAs, however, tend
to serve proportionally ewer SWDs than most
traditional consortia or single-district SELPAs.)
While SELPAs receive AB 602 unds based on
overall ADA counts, they use them to support the
IEP-driven excess costs o educating SWDs.
Te AB 602 Formula Blends State and Federal
Funds to Provide Each SELPA a Unique Per-Pupil
Rate. Each SELPA has a unique per-pupil special
education unding rate consisting o both state and
ederal unds. Tese AB 602 rates vary across
SELPAs rom about $500 per ADA to about $1,100
per ADA, based primarily on what the SELPA
received beore the AB 602 legislation was adopted.
(In prior years the state invested some unding
to equalize AB 602 rates, but large discrepancies
Local Budgets Have Covered an Increasing Share ofSpecial Education Costs
Figure 8
17%
51%
32%
2004-05
Federal (ARRA)
State Special Educationa
Local General Purpose
13%
43%
39%
2010-11
Federal IDEA (ongoing)
5%
a Includes local property tax revenue.
IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; ARRA = American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
A n L A O R e p O R t
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 17
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
18/28
remain.) In 2011-12, the weighted statewide average
AB 602 rate was $645 per ADA, with charter-only
SELPAs having the lowest rates in the state. Te
exact mix o ederal and state unds making up
each SELPAs AB 602 rate varies based on a number
o actors, however IDEA unds average about$180 per ADA, with state unds making up the
dierence.
State and Federal Funds Also Support
a Number o Discrete Special Education
Subprograms. Te AB 602 base allocationwhich
in 2012-13 includes about $2.9 billion in state unds
and $1 billion in IDEA moniesis the largest
source o unding SELPAs receive or special
education. Te SELPAs, however, also receive
almost $1 billion in additional state and ederal
special education unds targeted or more specic
purposes. Te largest o these special education
categorical programs allocates over $400 million
or SELPAs to provide educationally necessary
mental health services to SWDs. Other separately
unded initiatives include services or inants and
preschoolers with disabilities, vocational education
programs or SWDs, and sta development. Some
SELPAs also receive supplemental unding i theyhave sparse population density or i they are located
near licensed childrens institutions (based on the
assumption that these group homes will have
higher rates o SWDs). In addition to SELPA-level
grants, state and ederal unds support state-level
special education activities, including compliance
monitoring and technical assistance.
How Are Fds Disried o LEAs?
Consortia SELPAS Determine How to Allocate
Funding Amongst LEA Members. Each SELPA
develops a local plan or how to allocate unds in
its region, based on how it has chosen to organize
services. Tis process is relatively straightorward
in the 42 single-district SELPAs, as they receive
unding directly rom the state and oer or contract
or services on their own. Te two-thirds o SELPAs
that contain multiple LEAs work internally to
decide how best to divvy up unding or all the
SWDs in their region. Tese allocation plans dier
notably across SELPAs based on local preerences
and the service plans they have adopted. In most
cases, consortia members opt to reserve someunding at the SELPA level to operate some shared,
regionalized services, then distribute the remainder
to LEA members to serve their own SWDs locally.
In a slightly dierent approach, some consortia
SELPAs choose to allocate essentially all unding
to member LEAs, then und any regionalized
services on a ee or service basis or those LEAs
who choose to participate. (Because charter-only
SELPAs do not usually oer regionalized services,
they tend to distribute the bulk o AB 602 unds
directly to member charter schools.) Te SELPAs
are not required to use the states census-based
AB 602 ormula to distribute unding to member
LEAs. Rather, internal SELPA allocation plans can
be based on ADA, specic student populations (or
example, counts or characteristics o SWDs), or any
other local priority or consideration.
WHAt ARE tHE StAtE SPECIAL SCHOOLS?State Uses Diferent Model to Serve Some
Dea and Blind Students. Like students with
other disabilities, most hearing and visually
impaired students attend and receive special
education services rom their local school district
or COE. Te state, however, also operates three
specialized residential schools or dea and blind
students. Te Caliornia Schools or the Dea in
Riverside and Fremont each serve around 400
students ages 3 to 22, totaling about 6 percent
A n L A O R e p O R t
18 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
19/28
local districts. In contrast to the SELPA unding
model, these schools are unded through a direct
state appropriationnot linked to the school s
enrollmentat a rate that ar exceeds the amount
SELPAs receive to serve comparable students.
HOW ARE SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn LAWS
MOnItORED AnD EnFORCED?
wo Statutory Processes Help Ensure
Compliance With Special Education Laws.
While the IDEA was established to ensure all
SWDs receive the special support they need tobenet rom their education, the best approach
to meeting those goals or an individual SWD
can be complicated, subjective, and contentious.
Anticipating diculties and disagreements,
ederal and state laws speciy two detailed
processes or enorcing compliance with the
IDEAone process to ensure LEAs include
appropriate contentand services in students IEPs
and another process to ensure LEAs appropriately
implementIDEA processes and IEP-requiredservices. Disputes regarding the ormer are
handled by the states Oce o Administrative
Hearings (OAH), whereas the latter is monitored
and enorced by CDE. (Te ollowing paragraphs
describe each process in more detail.) Te ederal
government unds Family Empowerment Centers
and Parent raining Institutes to educate and
assist parents o SWDs in supporting their
children and navigating the legal and logistical
acets o the special education system.
Federal Law Provides Parents the Right to
Dispute Which Special Education Services Teir
Child Is Entitled to Receive. Sometimes parents
and LEAs disagree over the contents o a students
IEP. I parents ail to convince the IEP team that
dierent or additional services are necessary
to ensure their child receives an appropriate
education, they can le a ormal complaint with
the OAH to revise the IEP. Federal and state laws
detail the dispute resolution process, typicallybeginning with dual-party resolution sessions,
progressing to ormal mediation sessions with an
OAH acilitator, and ultimatelyi necessaryto
due process hearings with an OAH administrative
law judge. Although the number o ormal cases
led with OAH represents less than one percent
o all SWDs, the dispute resolution process can
be costly and contentious or both amilies and
LEAs. Both parties thereore have incentives to
avoid lengthy and litigious disagreements. O the
roughly 3,100 dispute cases led with OAH in
2011-12, only 3 percent ultimately were decided
through a due process hearing and legal ruling.
Te rest were resolved through mediation, settled
beore the hearing, or withdrawn. Te state also
provides small unding grants to some SELPAs
to pursue alternative dispute resolution strategies
and try to settle disagreements outside o the
OAH process.
Te CDE Monitors LEA Compliance With
IDEA Requirements. Te CDE is tasked with
investigating and resolving allegations that a LEA
is ailing to comply with ederal or state special
education laws. Parents, students, or teachers
might le individual complaints, or CDE might
identiy problems while conducting LEA reviews
o the states dea and hard o hearing students.
Te Caliornia School or the Blind in Fremont
serves around 70 students, or about 2 percent o
the states visually impaired students. Parents and
IEP teams determine whether to send children
to these schools in lieu o being served by their
A n L A O R e p O R t
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 19
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
20/28
and audits. Commonly cited complaints include
LEAs ailing to provide IEP-required services or
ailing to meet statutorily required timelines (such
as timelines or evaluating students eligibility
or services or holding IEP meetings). Te CDE
tries to correct ndings o noncompliance
by implementing corrective action plans and
increasing monitoring.
HOW DO CALIFORnIAS StuDEntS WItH
DISAbILItIES PERFORM ACADEMICALLy?
In addition to monitoring how well LEAs meet
required special educationprocedures, ederal and
state laws also hold LEAs accountable or SWDs
academicperormance. Below, we provide outcome
data on how SWDs perorm on state assessments
and how prepared older SWDs are to transition toadult lie.
How Do SWDs Perorm o Sae Assessmes?
Federal and State Accountability Systems
Based on Standardized Assessments. Te ederal
and state governments each have established
systems to hold schools accountable or student
achievement. While the two systems are somewhat
dierent, both require schools to measure
the academic perormance o all students in
grades 2 through 11regardless o disability
statususing standardized assessments based
on state content standards. (Caliornia uses the
Standardized esting and Reporting, or SAR,
assessments.) Additionally, each accountability
system establishes perormance expectations
both or overall school perormance and or the
perormance o specic student groups within the
school, including SWDs. (Te ederal system alsosets expectations or overall student perormance
and SWD perormance at the LEA level.) Te
ederal system sets Annual Yearly Progress
(AYP) benchmarks whereby progressively higher
proportions o students must reach academic
prociency each year until 2014, at which point
allstudents are to display prociency. For example,
in 2011-12 the AYP target was or 78 percent o
students to display prociency. (In Caliornia,
students meet ederal prociency requirements i
they score at the procient or advanced levels
on the states SAR assessments.) Te LEAs and
schools that ail to meet expectations or multipleyears ace increased monitoring and sanctions. In
contrast to the ederal system that sets the same
annual prociency requirement or all schools and
LEAs, the states accountability systemknown as
the Academic Perormance Index (API)requires
individual schools to display annual improvements
in student perormance relative to their prior-year
perormance.
Tree Options or SWDs to Participate
in States Assessment System. Because
academic outcomes understandably may vary
depending upon the nature and severity o a
students disability, both the ederal and state
accountability systems al low some SWDs to
meet perormance expectations using modied
or alternate assessments. As shown in Figure 9,
Caliornia has developed three dierent sets o
SAR tests or SWDs to meet ederal and state
testing requirementsthe Caliornia Standardsests (CSs), the Caliornia Modied Assessment
(CMA), and the Caliornia Alternate Perormance
Assessment (CAPA). Which assessment an
individual SWD takes depends on the severity o
his or her disability and the decision o the IEP
team. Te selected assessment must be clearly
dened in the students IEP. Te gure shows
A n L A O R e p O R t
20 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
21/28
that in 2011-12 almost hal o special education
students in grades 2 through 11 took the CSs,
although in many cases with IEP-specied
accommodations or modications. (Such
accommodations might include assistive devices,
such as audio recorders or calculators, or havingan extended period o t ime to complete the test.)
Slightly more than 40 percent o special education
students, or about 4 percent o all students in
grades 2 through 11, took the CMA. Only about
10 percent o SWDsthose with the most severe
cognitive disabilitiestook the CAPA.
Te CMA Is a Unique Option or the States
SWDs. Caliornia is one o only 15 states to
have developed a special assessment or SWDs
with moderate disabilitiesthe CMA. (Federal
law requires states to develop an alternative
assessment such as the CAPA or students with the
most severe disabilities, but leaves it up to states
whether to develop another a lternative or SWDs.)
While the CMA covers the same grade-level
content standards as the CSs, questions are
presented in a more accessible ashion, including
ewer questions and ewer possible answers,
simplied language, more pictures, and larger
type. o qualiy to take the CMA in lieu o
the CSs, the IEP team must determine thatstudents cognitive disabilitiespreclude them
rom accurately demonstrating their knowledge
and achieving prociency on the CSs, even with
testing modications. Te state rst administered
CMA tests with prociency level standards or
grades 3 through 5 in 2008-09, introducing
tests or additional grades in subsequent years.
Correspondingly, an increasing number o SWDs
have taken the CMA in lieu o the CSs in recent
years. (Specically, 20 percent o SWDs in grades
2 through 11 took the CMA in 2008-09, compared
to 42 percent in 2011-12.)
Federal Accountability System Seeks to Limit
Over-Reliance on Alternative Assessments. In
an eort to ensure SWDs are held to the same
Figure 9
Three Options or Assessing Students With Disabilities (SWDs)
Profciency in Meeting Caliornia Content Standards
2011-12
Test Description
Number oSWDs
Testeda
Percent oTotal SWDs
(Grades 2-11)
CaliorniaStandards Tests
(CSTs)
Assess students prociency in Caliornia content standards or grades 2
through 11. Taken annually by majority o students. Some SWDs allowed sometest-taking accommodations or modications.
236,000 47%
Caliornia
Modifed
Assessment
(CMA)
Covers same content standards as the CSTs but designed to be moreaccessible or SWDs (or example: ewer questions, simpler language, more
pictures). Taken by students whose disabilities preclude them rom achieving
grade-level prociency on the CSTs, even with accommodations.
210,000 42
Caliornia AlternatePerormance
Assessment
Presents a series o tasks designed to display prociency on those portions ocontent standards accessible to students with severe cognitive disabilities. The
K-12 standards are grouped into ve grade-span levels, and the Individualized
Education Program team decides which level is most appropriate or eachstudent to take. Taken by students whose disabilities prevent them rom
participating in either the CSTs or CMA.
48,400 10
Totals 494,400 99%b
a Displays counts or English Language Arts exams.b As with nondisabled students, a small percentage o SWDs do not take assessments, due primarily to absences or disenrollments.
A n L A O R e p O R t
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 21
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
22/28
high standards as mainstream students, the
ederal government attempts to discourage states
rom having exceptionally high proportions o
SWDs take alternative assessments. While ederal
law does not cap how many SWDs maytake
the alternative assessments, the percentage oprofcient scores LEAs can count towards meeting
ederal AYP benchmarks is limited to 2 percent
o all students or the CMA and 1 percent or the
CAPA. (I greater numbers o students take the
tests and score at the procient level, their scores
are counted as not procient.) In contrast to the
ederal system, the states accountability system
does not limit the share o students who may
take the CMA or CAPA and have their associated
scores count towards meeting annual API
requirements.
Perormance Has Improved, but Majority
o SWDs Score Below Procient Level on State
Assessments. Figure 10 displays the percentage
o ourth-grade SWDs and nondisabled students
that met ederally required prociency targets
in English Language Arts over the past several
years. (Te gure excludes results rom the CAPA,
as they are not based on grade-level specic
standards and thereore are not comparable.) Asshown, both groups have displayed improvements
in recent years. Improvements or SWDs in
recent years may be partially due to increasing
proportions o students taking the CMA in lieu o
the CSs. A majority o SWDs, however, still ail
to meet ederal perormance standards with either
test. In 2011-12, only 49 percent o SWDs who
took the CSs scored at the procient or advanced
levels. Tis compares to 68 percent o nondisabled
students. Moreover, only 39 percent o the
students who took the CMAwhich is specially
tailored or SWDsmet prociency targets.
Many Schools and Districts Struggle to
Meet Perormance argets or SWDs. As might
be expected given the
perormance levels
displayed in Figure 10,
a majority o LEAs are
ailing to meet ederalprociency requirements
or their SWDs. In
2011-12, only 11 percent
o LEAs met ederal
AYP benchmarks (that
78 percent o students
score procient or
advanced in both
English Language Arts
and Mathematics) or
their disabled student
groups. Tis compares
to 29 percent o LEAs
that met this AYP
Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or AdvancedOn Fourth Grade English Language Arts Assessments
Figure 10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80%
02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12
CST: Nondisabled Students
CST: Students With Disabilities
California Modified Assessment
CST = California Standards Test.
A n L A O R e p O R t
22 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
23/28
benchmark or their overal l student population.
Schools perorm somewhat better on the states
accountability system, but SWD gains still lag.
In 2011-12, 52 percent o schools met state API
growth targets or their SWDs, compared to
67 percent that met the targets or their overallstudent populations. As described in the nearby
box, however, these statistics exclude about hal o
the states LEAs (or AYP) and almost 90 percent
o schools (or AYP and API), as their populations
o SWDs are deemed too small to report as
discrete groups or accountability calculations.
Wha Happes o SWDs Aer High School?
Even With Exemption From Exit Exam
Requirement, Many SWDs Struggle to
Complete High School. o meet ederal testing
requirements, all studentsincluding SWDs
must take the Caliornia High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE) in 10th grade. State law also requires
that most students pass the CAHSEE in order to
graduate rom high school. However, in 2011-12
only about 40 percent o SWDs passed the ex it
exam as 10th graders, compared to 87 percent o
nondisabled students. For the class o 2012, only
56 percent o SWDs had passed the CAHSEE by
the end o 12th grade, compared to 95 percent o
nondisabled students. Because o such low passage
rates (and an associated lawsuit), state law waschanged in 2009-10 to allow certain SWDs to
receive diplomas without passing the CAHSEE.
Specical ly, students IEPs or Section 504 Plans
can explicitly exempt them rom the requirement
to pass CAHSEE i they meet all other local
graduation requirements. Te state currently is
investigating alternative measures or SWDs to
demonstrate the same content knowledge as the
CAHSEE, but no new requirements have yet been
adopted. Even with the CAHSEE exemption,
Figure 11 (see next page) shows that only
59 percent o SWDs graduate on time and almost
one-h drop out o school.
Data Suggest More Tan Hal o SWDs
Successully ransition to College or Career
Activities. As discussed earlier, the IDEA
requires that LEAs oer plans and services to
Sie thresholds Mea Majori o Disrics ad Schools
no Held Accoale or Disaled Sde Grop Perormace
Because a majority o the states local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools serve smaller
populations o students, many o them are not subject to ederal and state accountability
requirements and perormance benchmarks or students with disabilities (SWDs). Specically, to
be held accountable or SWD group perormance under both the ederal and state systems, LEAs
and schools must have valid test scores rom either (1) at least 50 SWDs who make up at least
15 percent o the total number o valid scores or(2) at least 100 SWDs. I a school or LEA does not
meet these thresholds, state law deems its SWD population too small to be numerically signicant
or ederal Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and state Academic Perormance Index (API) calculations.In 2011-12, 521 o the states 1,016 LEAs (51 percent) did not have numerically signicant groups o
SWDs or AYP calculations. Even more notably, 8,759 schools out o 9,905 schools (88 percent) did
not meet the threshold or calculating AYP or API targets or their SWDs. Tus, just over hal o
the states LEAs and almost nine out o ten schools did not ace achievement targets, monitoring, or
sanctions related to how their SWDs perormed.
A n L A O R e p O R t
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 23
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
24/28
help prepare SWDs or
lie aer high school.
While comprehensive
inormation on these
eorts is somewhat
limited, data suggestmany SWDs are
successully transitioning
to postsecondary
education and careers
(some even without a
high school diploma).
Specically, CDE
estimates that about hal
o SWDs enroll in an
institute o higher education aer high school. Te
CDE estimates an additional roughly 15 percent o
Figure 11
Students With Disabilities (SWDs)Struggle to Complete High School
Cohort Data for Class of 2010-11
All
Students SWDs
Graduate high school in our years 76% 59%
Drop out beore completing high school 14 18
Remain enrolled past expected graduation date 9 19
Receive GED or certifcate o completiona 1 4
Totals 100% 100%a Certifcates o completion are oered to SWDs who have not met the requirements to receive a high
school diploma, but have completed prescribed alternative courses o study or met the goals o theirIndividualized Education Programs. Students with certifcates o completion do not qualiy or admissionto postsecondary educational institutions.
GED = General Educational Developmentthe high school equivalency test.
SWDs are competitively employed within one yearo leaving high school.
COnCLuSIOnDeveloping a more thorough understanding
o how Caliornias disabled students are served is
the rst step towards improving their educational
outcomes. In this report, we provide a high-level
review o special education laws, services, delivery
models, unding ormulas, and outcomes. In
almost all o these areas, special education is
characterized by the complex interplay o policies
and practices at the ederal, state, and local levels.
A n L A O R e p O R t
24 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
25/28
GLOSSARy OF COMMOn tERMS
RELAtED tO SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn
Term Acronym Description
Assembly Bill 602unding model
AB 602 Caliornia legislation passed in 1997 that implemented a census-based special educationunding model. The ormula allocates unding based on total K-12 student counts rather thanon the number o students identied to receive special education services.
Behavioral
Intervention
Plan
BIP A written document developed or students with serious behavior problems that signicantlyinterere with implementing IEP goals. The BIP becomes part o the IEP.
CaliorniaAlternate
Perormance
Assessment
CAPA State assessment designed or students with severe cognitive disabilities that preclude them
rom taking the Caliornia Standards Tests (CSTs) or Caliornia Modied Assessment.
Caliornia
ModifedAssessment
CMA State assessment designed or students whose disabilities preclude them rom achieving grade-
level prociency on the CSTs, even with accommodations.
Child Find Federal requirement that school districts identiy, locate, and assess all children in need o
special education services, regardless o school setting or disability. Also reerred to as
search and serve.
Due process Due process requirements specic to special education outline the right o parents to participate
inand challengetheir childrens special education assessments, identications, andplacements. These requirements speciy processes or handling disputes, including resolution
sessions, mediation sessions, and hearings.
Encroachment Colloquial term reerring to expenditures local school districts make rom their general unds to
serve SWDs.
Excess costs The dierence between the average expenditures or a SWD and those or a general education
student.
ExtraordinaryCost Pools
ECPs Two allocations o supplemental state unding available to: (1) SELPAs that incur
disproportionately high costs or students whose IEPs require placement in nonpublic schoolsand (2) exceptionally small SELPAs that incur high costs or students whose IEPs require
placements based on educationally related mental health needs.
Free andAppropriate
Education
FAPE Federal requirement that eligible students have the right to special education and related
services at no cost to the parent.
Individualized
EducationProgram
IEP A written statement describing the education program, including special services or
accommodations, that a SWD shall receive. Pursuant to ederal law, the IEP is a legaldocument entitling the student to receive the services and accommodations it describes.
IndividualizedEducation
Program team
IEP team Group typically consisting o a students parents, school administrator, special education
teacher or service provider, general education teacher, the evaluator who assessed thestudents eligibility or services, andwhen appropriatethe student. Convened to develop,
review, and revise an IEP.
(Continued)
A n L A O R e p O R t
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 25
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
26/28
Term Acronym Description
Individual FamilyService Plan
IFSP Similar to an IEP but describes early intervention services or inants or toddlers with disabilities
and their amilies.
Individuals withDisabilities
Education Act
IDEA Federal law governing how states and public agencies must provide services to children with
disabilities. Part B requires special education and related services or children ages 3 to 22.
Part C requires early intervention services or children ages birth to 2 and their amilies.
Least restrictive
environmentLRE Federal requirement that, to the maximum extent appropriate, SWDs should be educated
alongside nondisabled children. Incorporating SWDs into regular classrooms also is reerred
to as inclusion and mainstreaming.
Licensedchildrens
institution
(group home)
LCI Residential acilities licensed by the state to serve six or more youth. Residents typically include
oster youth (dependents o the state), wards o the court, and/or youth with serious emotionaldisturbances. Because children living in LCIs requently require special education and related
services, SELPAs that contain LCIs within their region receive additional unding.
Low-incidence
disability
LID Less commonly occurring disabilities such as hearing impairments, vision impairments, and
severe orthopedic impairments.
Nonpublic schoolor nonpublicagency
NPS/NPA Private schools and other entities that are certied by the state to provide services to SWDs.
Ofce o
Administrative
Hearings
OAH State agency designated to provide mediation and hearing services in special education dueprocess cases.
Reerral Formal request to identiy and assess a childs possible special education needs. A reerral
may be made by a parent, teacher, medical personnel, or anyone with specic knowledge o
the child. Triggers ederally required timelines or conducting assessments and holding IEPmeetings.
Related services Developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as required to assist SWDs in
beneting rom special education. Services can include (but are not limited to): speech-language pathology and audiology services, psychological services, physical andoccupational therapy, and counseling.
Response to
InterventionRtI Tiered process o instruction designed to identiy struggling students earlybeore reerrals to
special educationand provide targeted instructional interventions.
Section 504 Plan Individualized plans detailing accommodations necessary to meet the special needs o disabledstudents. Unlike IEPs, which govern the provision o specialized educational services,
Section 504 plans (required under the ederal Rehabilitation Act, not IDEA) typically concernnoninstructional accommodations.
Special education Specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs o a SWD.
Special EducationLocal Plan Area SELPA Collaborative o one or more school districts, county oces o education, and/or charter schoolsthat coordinate to provide special education services or SWDs in their service area.
Special day class SDC Special classes that serve pupils with severe disabilities whose more intensive educational
needs cannot be met in regular classrooms. Typically located on a regular school campus.
(Continued)
A n L A O R e p O R t
26 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
27/28
Term Acronym Description
Specifc learning
disability
SLD Disorder aecting one or more o the basic processes involved in understanding/using language
or perorming mathematical calculations. Most common disability diagnosis or students
receiving special education services. Dyslexia is one commonly identied SLD.
State Special
Schools
SSS Three state-run residential schools or dea and blind students: the Caliornia Schools or the
Dea in Riverside and Fremont, and the Caliornia School or the Blind in Fremont.
Students withdisabilities
SWDs Term used to reer to disabled students who have ormally qualied to receive special educationservices covered under the IDEA.
Student SuccessTeam or Student
Study Team
SST A team o educators convened at the request o a classroom teacher, parent, or counselor,that designs in-class interventions to meet the needs o a particular student prior to a special
education reerral or development o an IEP.
Transitionservices
Federal requirement that IEPs or SWDs ages 16 and older include a coordinated set o servicesto improve the transition rom secondary education to postsecondary education, work
programs, and/or independent living.
WorkAbility
Program
State vocational education program that provides grants to about 300 middle and high schools
to oer pre-employment skills training, employment placement, work-site training, and ollow-up services or SWDs.
A n L A O R e p O R t
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 27
7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS
28/28
LAO Publications
This repo rt was prepared by Rachel Ehlers and reviewed by Jennier Kuhn. The Legislative Analysts Ofce (LAO) is a
nonpartisan ofce that provides fscal and policy inormation and advice to the Legislature.
To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This repo rt and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service,
are available on the LAOs website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000,
Sacramento, CA 95814.
A n L A O R e p O R t