Print 🖨

The Texas Commission on Special Education Funding met on May 23, to hear invited testimony regarding special education funding formulas in the state. Specifically, the Commission explored the implementation of several reforms implemented by the Texas Legislature, as well as hearing testimony on special education funding systems employed by other states. An archive of the hearing can be found here.

 

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

Opening Remarks

  • Chair Combest – Hearing different approaches to special education funding from a state level
  • Location based formula needs to be reexamined and possibly changed to a service intensity formula
  • The working group to establish the final report will consist of Sen. Bettencourt, Rep. Jetton, and Chair Combest
  • Future Commission hearings are scheduled on June 27, July 25, and August 22

 

Justin Porter, TEA

  • Provides update on implementation and status of special education related bills passed in the 87th and 86th Legislative Sessions
  • 87th Legislative Session:
  • SB 40 – Changed who telehealth services could be provided too, impact on students with dyslexia; several thousand students now receiving dyslexia virtual instruction
  • HB 159 – SBOE to develop training to meet needs of all students, putting committee together to drive training
  • HB 2256 – Creation of bilingual education certificate, committee is being formed to determine training
  • SB 1716 – Codified and gave general revenue funds to supplemental special education programs, money being distributed
  • Rep. Huberty – How much money did we spend; how many students will be impacted by this?
  • Rep. Huberty – Would like the committee to hear how short of funding we are; would like to have a discussion why this is one-time funding; is there an on-going demand?
    • $121m in the program through GR and federal funding
    • Do not have access to the second $30m until next fiscal year
    • Has been allotted to over 72k accounts; funding flow was impacted by a rule for service region 10
    • After that funding has been disbursed, are about 5k on the waiting list
    • By this time next year will have around 48-70k students in need; would need between $79m-$118m for a one-time allocation
    • Anticipate 25% of families using this service; would need an additional $45m annually to sustain this
  • HB 1525 – Established Commission, appropriated $100 million for LEAs and dyslexia training for districts, money currently being distributed
  • Rep. Huberty – That $100 million also needs to be reappropriated?
    • Correct, if the Legislature wants the programs to continue
  • Sen. Zaffirini – You mentioned innovations from HB 1525 can you give us examples of the most creative ones and any that should be standard in future?
    • Initial applications were used mostly for extra staffing, not innovative, nothing implementable statewide
    • Current round of applications focused on community programs, getting kids on autism spectrum into community, hoping to create innovative models going forward
  • Rep. Gonzales – You mentioned some districts were denied funding, how many and why?
    • Don’t have specific number, we ran out of funding before all applications could be fulfilled, quality of application was main consideration
  • Rep. Gonzales – Rural communities really needed staff, if their application only stated they needed more staff, was that taken into consideration?
    • It was not, solely on quality on application and how innovative programs were
  • Rep. Gonzales – Do you have demographic breakdown data on districts receiving funding? Geography, race?
    • Yes, but not with me; will send out
  • Rep. Gonzales – Will there be another round of funding?
    • Yes, but some of the applications in the first round will receive continued funding
  • Porter – SB 89 – Requirements for art committees to ensure learning loss during COVID was made up for, LEAs currently implementing
  • Rep. Gonzales – Are we identifying any gaps we need to address?
    • Around compensatory services, do hear regularly from LEAs that providing compensatory services is expensive and hard to implement
  • Porter – HB 1252 – Extended statutory of limitations of filing a due process hearing from 1 year to 2 years, implemented
  • 86th Legislative Session:
  • HB 3 – Foundationally shifted how we look at education, main effects on SPED:
    • Dyslexia allotment
    • Increase of mainstream waiting
  • HB 706 – Children with hearing impairments, currently being implemented by HHSC
  • HB 2210 – Impacted students in state hospitals, created a public accountability system, implemented
  • SB 54 – Regional day school programs for the deaf, implemented
  • SB 139 – Clarified the system for requesting a special education evaluation, simplifies process for parents and students, implemented
  • SB 781 – Required TEA and NHSC to work together regarding regional treatment facilities, implemented
  • SB 2075 – Relating to dyslexia programs, codified TEA authority to monitor requirements relating to dyslexia, implemented
  • Rep. Huberty – How is this going (SB 2075)? Stats on noncompliance?
    • Going well, not much noncompliance; we work very closely with advocacy groups outside of the monitoring system, TEA addresses issues with noncompliance immediately if reported by party or outside group
  • Rep. Huberty – Would like to see the number of noncompliance complaints and the incidences of repeat complaints; would like to see data broken down by region to see where the need is across the state

 

Sarah Doutre and Tye Ripma, WestEd

  • Introduces WestEd, a nonprofit education policy group based in California
  • Provides background on LEAs, IDEA funding, state and local funding formulas, and federal requirements regarding special education funding
  • Introduces education policy framework from WestEd
  • Funding formulas do matter, insight taken from general education funding formulas – correlates with higher test scores, graduation rates
  • Special education funding formula can be used to communicate priorities based off how funds are distributed
  • 3 key parts to WestEd framework:
  • Key factor is the type of unit count state uses to determine amount local agency receives, actual count or census count
  • ‘Cost of education data’ is used in Texas; more stable but could be less accurate over time as data changes
  • Distribution is where the formula is directing funds, mostly to LEAs in Texas
  • Requirements and restrictions for the use of funds, communicating spending priorities to LEAs, over half of Texas SPED budget is restricted use
  • Rep. Huberty – What is the best system regarding special education funding weights?
    • Ripma – Best case scenario is a way to account for service needs throughout time, ‘service needs’ potentially best option
    • Doutre – Ideally a system would be sensitive to needs to students and cost per child, tracking cost per child, having IEP goals, providing individualized services
    • Difficult since Texas has no statewide IEP program; having a statewide IEP system would be better to see data across the state
  • Chair Combest – What are you hearing with challenges regarding the matrices service?
    • Ripma – Teachers must put in extra effort to put in these services, can have Florida experts talk about specifics
  • Doutre – 45% of Texas funds are not restricted for students with disabilities, good part of Texas structure
  • Best thing for SPED child is to be in general education, so it is good funding is not restricted in case the child can be transitioned out of special education
  • Some states do so separately, large range in funding per child, states have a wide range of systems in how to determine/provide funding
  • Must determine priorities to determine best formula
  • Sen. Zaffirini – Given what you know about other states and Texas, what would be the top 2 recommendations for our report?
    • Doutre – Do not neglect rules around expenditure of funds
    • 45% of funds are non-restricted, keep the flexibility, this can support students with disabilities through the general education program
    • Examine if a higher weight in the base formula is necessary, or if there is another way to address some of those needs through separate high-cost funding
    • Lack of IEP system makes it harder to make decisions
    • Using a combination of a census and actual count can be beneficial
    • Can provide more specific written information for the Commission

 

Patrick Wolf, University of Arkansas

  • General goals of special education programs: adequacy, efficiency, having sufficient resources to be mobilized, effectiveness, ability to cure students with curable disabilities, portability
  • Parents have less options for placement of special education children, sometimes other schools are best options; small private schools, public charter schools, etc.
  • Could change from prospective funding to capitation funding; prospective funding runs the risk of incentivizing overidentification
  • Could encourage responsible general education designations are many strategies in the classroom for curing students with curable disabilities
  • Could equitably fund Texas charter schools; Tennessee ties resources to students and makes those resources portable, charters receive about 11-15% less
  • Rep. Huberty – Inquires about the structure of charter schools in Tennessee, where in Texas all are owned by private businesses
    • Should consider launching an educational savings account program for students with disabilities
  • Sen. Zaffirini – Data has shown that vouchers and charters do not improve student performance, can you speak on this?
    • Wolf – Was a strong study, but it was not a metanalysis; has conducted research where metanalysis shows correlation with vouchers and school choice is positive
  • Sen. Zaffirini – What did you learn from studies that showed the most increased achievement correlated with school choice?
    • Ron Matus can provide more details about Florida’s tax credit scholarship program
    • Desirable design features: lightly regulated, overseen by nonprofit organization, 2/3 of schools chose to participate so parents had plenty of choices, accountability

 

Paula Nelson, Step Up for Students

  • Will be providing context and details on the Florida educational savings account for students with disabilities
  • Informs the Commission on the variety of scholarships available in Florida, mainly the Family Empowerment Scholarship for Students with Unique Abilities
  • Many eligibility requirements: high risk child, other health impairment, rare diseases, etc.
  • Scholarship Funding Organization determines eligibility for scholarship; two main SFOs in Florida, SFO awards scholarship to families after approval, FL DOE funds the scholarship
  • Can be used as reimbursement for educational services, in the marketplace provided by the State, or on a tuition invoicing process
    • Lots of flexibility on how funds can be used
  • 6.5k families on waitlist, Legislature increased the program to 26.5k families this year
  • Provides anecdote of family benefiting from a Florida ESE; autistic child can be homeschooled in a rural county, used funds to buy a tablet, printer, physical education equipment
  • Families must renew scholarship annually and are given priority, waitlist families come second, new applications are last in priority
  • Chair Combest – How long are families on the waitlist?
    • Could be on the whole year, but a family could receive mid-year if another family leaves the state or returns the money
  • Rep. Huberty – How many students are receiving? Not everyone can apply, correct?
    • 55k students receiving out of 3m total students in FL; you must meet a qualification
  • Chair Combest – Does the waiting list take into consideration severity?
    • No is a matrix of services; done at the time of the child’s IEP, several categories scored on number scale, one time matrix review available for each child receiving an ESE
    • Lowest three matrixes are funded the same, level 4 and 5 have greater funding
  • Chair Combest – Do you accept a physician’s diagnosis as the official diagnosis for an ESE?
    • Must be a licensed physician
  • Rep. Huberty – Is this scholarship in place of residential placement?
    • The scholarship must be used for educational purposes not living expenses
  • Rep. Huberty – Theory is that we provide private placement residential treatment which TEA cannot currently regulate; that will be one of our recommendations
  • Nelson discusses how the program can better address the student’s individual needs
  • Rep. Huberty – Have you seen kids go back because they are not receiving adequate services? Did Florida adjust their formulas to fund the public school at what the true cost of service is?
    • Nelson – Do not know; that can occur
  • Rep. Huberty – Have had the pros and cons of vouchers, but we are talking about adjusting the formulas

 

Ron Matus, Step Up for Students

  • Parents can get an ESE and access a private/public school if they want; if that does not work it gives parents more options from other providers
  • Study found the longer families used ESE the more they customized with it; the amount used on private schools went down considerably
  • Rural families are more likely to use/maximize use of ESEs
  • Chair Combest – Private provider services cost more in a rural area? Not allocating more to that service despite this?
    • Do not know the answer, suspect you are right; allows services to be accessed
    • Do not know exactly; funding formula is complicated per county and there is a scarcity supplement
  • Provides an example of a family in rural Florida who benefited from the use of ESEs
  • Nelson – Happy to give more information on this; are developing a new platform that will also include learning plans

 

Victoria Gaitanis, Florida Department of Education

  • Bureau leads the training of teachers for ESE
  • Use a matrix to consider cost of service which is a decision made by the IEP team
  • Costs is determined initially and then once every three years
  • Are about 50k ESE teachers and service providers; 14.7% of student population identified as with a disability
  • Level of supports are determined and scored by domain and combatively
  • Appropriateness of support is scored by frequency and intensity, qualification of personnel, and amount of assistance related to their peers
  • Sen. Zaffirini – How often is a student evaluated for level of support? If level of intensity effects funding, are there deadlines related to the legislative process?
    • Initially and once every three years, but are adjusted if are changes to IEP
    • If funding changes were made in May student would not get funding until the next year
    • Mark Eggers, Florida Department of Education – Legislature meets in February or March every other year; have an estimating conference where districts are involved that provides budget information to the legislature
  • Overviews the level system of the matrix of services; as the level goes up support does as well
  • Are five main domains that range from curriculum; includes needs related to special considerations
  • Matrix of service is undergoing a small revision; is available online
  • Chair Combest – Team is filling out the matrix of service? In the ARD system?
    • Is the IEP team; do programmatic reviews and respond to parent complaints
  • Chair Combest – Parent has overall authority on this plan?
    • No, but a parent is a part of it; ultimately is the IEP team decision
  • Florida has separate funding for transportation; is not a part of this IEP process
  • Rep. Huberty – Is special education transportation funding differently?
    • Mark Eggers, Florida Department of Education – Yes; can be an additional weight of three to four times a traditional student
  • Are special considerations such as students eligible for hospital homebound; is a special eligibility area in Florida
  • Programmatic monitoring includes an evidence piece submitted to monitor policy/procedures

 

Mark Eggers, Florida Department of Education

  • Presentation will consist of how Florida funds special education program (FEFP)
  • Two types of funding is weighted base funding and categorical or targeted funding
    • Base funding 62% and categorical funding 38% of total FEFP funding
  • FEFP funding can be taken out of the public school system and used for other educational methods, including private school or homeschooling, AKA portable funding
  • Rep. Huberty – Inquires if students can use voucher funding for homeschool or private providers and how many students are using funds to homeschool
    • Eggers affirms they could, and that does not know the exact statistic
  • Chair Combest – What is it that is challenging for teachers about the matrix service?
    • Gaitanis – High number of teachers are new to special education, Florida has a regional training program
  • Rep. Huberty – 40% of your SPED are homeschooled?
    • That is correct
  • Chair Combest – Is the 40% younger students? What age group is this?
    • On average, most of the students in the voucher program are younger students, do not have exact statistics