In Day 2 of the National School Boards Association annual conference, the first session I attended today was on NCLB, IDEA, and the law of unfunded federal mandates. Moderated by Ron Wenkart, who serves as General Counsel for Orange County, it was a lot of information that all of us already knew (unfunded mandates are wrecking our budgets), but some key information about the details that I, for one, didn’t know.
The big one for us is IDEA — the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It’s pretty easy to agree that individuals with disabilities should be educated, and that accommodations must be made for some students. That’s not the problem. The problem is that the law is so far-reaching in terms of what public school systems must pay for — nursing care for a student with a feeding tube, occupational therapy for students with motor skills issues, even the cost of a residential treatment facility for students with severe emotional disturbances.
I’ve asked more than once in our Board meetings, "where is the line between educational services and medical services, and at what point is the family or their insurance company responsible for these costs?" The answer I received today was that the courts have held that all services except those of a physician are the responsibility of the school system. When the IDEA originally passed (in the 1970’s, I think), the intent was for the federal government to cover 40% of the cost. But they don’t. For many years, they covered only 8%, and today it’s up to about 16%. While that sounds like progress, the problem is that the number of students identified as special ed has skyrocketed — and local school districts are stuck with taking money out of general education to pay for special education services.
Wenkart got into the details of the "spending clause" in the US Constitution — Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 — under which the IDEA and NCLB were enacted. In short, that means that Congress can require states (and local governments) to do things not specifically enumerated in the powers of the federal government when those requirements are in the form of strings attached to money allocated. In South Dakota v. Dole, the Supremes broadly interpreted the spending clause and upheld Congress’ conditioning of federal highway funds on a state’s enactment of a minimum drinking age of 21.
In South Dakota v. Dole, Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the dissenting opinion, holding that the clause was too broadly interpreted, and that there should be a more direct and immediate correlation between the mandated action and the purpose of the funding, but it was the minority opinion, so the ruling held and has been subsequently used as precedent for other, similar cases.
As an example, it would make sense if a school system simply said "we’re not going to accept any NCLB grants (which we don’t get anyway), and we’re not going to abide by the mandates." Unfortunately, that would mean the system would lose ALL federal funding, not just the NCLB funding that they already don’t receive. Worse, it’s likely that they would also lose all State funding.
Although Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995, the gaping loophole is that it does not apply to legislation or grant programs which were a condition of federal assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary federal program — funding with strings attached. IDEA does not take into account the growing and heavy burden placed upon local school systems to comply, nor the impact on general education from dollars being sucked out of it every year to cover special services for a few students.
The State seems fixated on the schools’ role in solving the obesity epidemic, when the incidence of autism is skyrocketing (costing an average of $40,000 per student, as opposed to a rate of about $9,000 per student otherwise). How much more positive it would be to identify the causes and cures of disabling factors, than to simply keep bullying local school districts into solutions we are not equipped to provide.
* * *
Today’s general session featured Bill Clinton as the headline speaker, whose primary message was that schools must play a greater role in preventing childhood obesity. Once again, trying to foist upon us a responsibility that does not fit well with our primary mission.
I realize that his motives are noble, but the whole nutrition and lack of exercise problem is a problem at home, not at school. Our job is to educate — yes, even educate about proper diet and exercise within the confines of wellness classes — but the school system cannot take over the raising of every child.
You really don’t want that.
Thanks for posting this during Autism Awareness Month. As I have two autistic sons myself, I’m hoping that by May there will be a lot more people around willing to give these kids a break.
Best wishes
Hopefully more than a break; a cure would be the ultimate goal. At the very least, identifying the cause so as to prevent it from affecting so many kids.
you couldn’t be more right. on the one side of the coin, i have an autistic child who i want to have the best services available. on the other side, i have 3 typically developing kids who deserve no less, either. the schools have to start bracing themselves for the huge influx of autistic kids to come over the next few years or all of the childen are bound to suffer.
“…the school system cannot take over the raising of every child. You really don’t want that.”
i second that.
Good on you, sumgirl, to have the personal resources to take care of your autistic child without asking for any support from the state.
There are others who have autistic children, but who lack your means. Should we expect to consign these kids to the margins of society because their parents lack your resources?
Joel, you know better than that. The point is that the federal government has promised funding for IDEA for the last 35 years or so, and still hasn’t come through. None of us are arguing that special needs children shouldn’t be educated.
The federal government simply cannot continue to require what they are unwilling to pay for, or it will crush public education as we know it.
i appreciate the praise there, joel (was it praise … i never can tell), but read what i wrote again … we “WANT” for our child, i didn’t say we can either afford or provide what we know to be the best services around. people have fought this school in the past and lost. besides that, for lack of funding, it’s not even fair to expectthat from school at this point. we are middle class working people who have busted butt for every ounce of progress we have had with our son. that involves self-education and lots and lots of nagging.
i like to think that my child(ren) aren’t being consigned to the margins of society, as you put it, but that schools need to wake up … federal government needs to wake up … and smell the autism.
“…the school system cannot take over the raising of every child. You really don’t want that.â€
This is a straw man. The Feds don’t mandate that the schools ‘raise every child.’ They mandate accommodations for the education of every child.
“None of us are arguing that special needs children shouldn’t be educated.”
Where do you draw the line, NM? A child who is ambulatory gets educated, but one in a wheel chair doesn’t? Should a child who needs nursing care and a feeding tube be educated? Should a child who needs occupational therapy for motor skills issues be educated? Should a child with severe emotional disturbances be educated? If so, what role does society play in insuring such children receive an education?
“The point is that the federal government has promised funding for IDEA for the last 35 years or so, and still hasn’t come through.”
Netmom, you know better than that. The problem with unfunded mandates is two-fold. One problem is the mandate. But public schools have a responsibility to educate all children, irrespective of any federal mandates. The other part is the unfunded part. As a long-time champion of the incessant Republican battle cry for tax cuts, you are partly responsible for why there is no federal money to help local schools meet the mandate. What is it you really object to, Netmom? The lack of funding, or the mandates?
Sumgirl, the school and the government could do better. There was a time when Americans believed that government could and did help improve their circumstances. Beginning with Ronald Reagan, it has become fashionable to say the government is the cause of the problem, not the solution. The party the represents this attitude has controlled the federal government for the past six years. When they came to power in 2001, there was a federal budget surplus, some of which could have been used to fund educational mandates. Maybe you could ask the formal head of your local Republican Party here where she thinks the money to help you educate your child should come from. Bake sales? Raffles?
I read with interest a blog on child obesity and thought you may be intersted in a product called the Fun Pod which is a new product out in the UK which actively promotes getting kids (as young as 12 months) into the kitchen, teaching them all about food and nutrition. I met them at an exhibition and they’ve got some high profile people behind them including the UK’s leading professor of child obesity and nutrition. Check out http://www.littlehelper.co.uk – I think this is a great idea for getting toddlers safely involved in the kitchen pre-school years.
No, the government is not paying what they promised. The schools don’t offer what they should either. The majority of the students in mainstream classes are going to be just fine, even when they have a year with a lousy teacher. For special ed students, each and every teacher has the potential to be the motivator who helps a child reach their fullest potential. The only place I think a definite line needs to be drawn is when parents choose to homeschool (not homebound) and expect the school to provide services.