A group of 12 school districts, including Northshore and Everett, have filed suit against the state over special education funding. Much of the actual trial of this lawsuit will involve parsing and interpreting the words in our state constitution that define the responsibilities of the state and the school districts to pay for basic education.
From an economics standpoint, the legal issue being tried is only the first of two important questions. In the case now being argued, the size of the special education budget is not being questioned, but simply which element of state government pays what share of the cost. Essentially, it is a political disagreement being argued at law; ultimately, taxpayers have little stake in the outcome. We pay the same amount either way.
Depending on the outcome of the trial, there could be a shift in who pays – homeowners or payers of broader, statewide sales and gasoline taxes, but the total amount would not change.
Still, there is big money involved, perhaps $134 million per year. Special education is an expensive process. The U.S. Congress recognized this in 1975 when it passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and it set a goal for federal funding to cover forty percent of the cost. Of course, the usual displacement between government promises and reality meant that the actual federal funding is less than 20 percent.
Despite the federal government’s stinginess, by almost any measure special education has been a remarkable success. Young people with serious disabilities, instead of being isolated in institutional care, are now engaged in regular classroom work. Three out of every four special education students are able to be “mainstreamed” into regular classrooms.
Schools, and especially students, have been more accepting and understanding of students with disabilities than anyone expected. Many of these young special education students who otherwise would have been untouched by public education are going on to lead more productive, more satisfying lives. And while the impact on the students whose lives they in turn touched cannot be easily quantified, it is both profound and positive.
But this is all very expensive. On average, it costs nearly twice as much to educate a special education student. Special education now typically absorbs about a sixth of the operating budgets of a school district. And for a small district, taking on a special education student with particularly high needs can blow a devastating hole in the budget, a gap that is plugged at the expense of the other students.
Special education students now represent more than 10 percent of all students in our public education systems. Their numbers grew by approximately 30 percent over the past decade, and the trend shows no sign of abating.
The growing total cost of special education leads to the second important question: What is the right amount? It is not a question that is supposed to be addressed in the current lawsuit, but this economic question is the elephant in the room. Certainly the parties would not be in court arguing over who should pay if the amount were small potatoes.
Should special education expenditure be limited, capped, or rationed in some way?
We are a nation of people whose success has come from thinking in terms of unlimited possibilities, and talk of rationing things such as health care or special education is unwelcome in most company.
But whether we like it or not, economics is the study of rationing systems. In a world of limited resources and infinite wants, we have devised ways of “divvying up” things, and economics is the study of how these divvying up and allocation systems actually work.
None of these systems is perfect. Some are worse than others and have extensive histories of shortcomings and failure. Yet, like roguish relatives, despite their flaws they somehow continue to be appealing, especially to the young.
By far the best is the free market system, which has turned out to be so efficient and productive that its bounty can be used to smooth over some of its imperfections and rough edges. Our market economic system doesn’t make social problems go away, but it does allow us, within limits, to address them with money – sometimes effectively, sometimes not.
We have been reasonably successful in addressing special education in this way, but there is little question that its costs have begun to exact painful cuts in regular student education budgets. Economics tells us that this is the right time to examine our priorities, recognize limits and allocate our resources accordingly. But it is one thing to be the elephant in the room; quite another to be asked to speak.
James McCusker is a Bothell economist, educator and consultant.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
