Dodd amendment to provide $1.2 billion for special education-educators say billions more needed

by Kevin Joy

WASHINGTON - The Senate has approved an amendment offered by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., that would more than double proposed federal spending increases for special education.

Educators applauded the potential increase, but described it as only a small step and called on the federal government to increase support for special education by more than 20 percent.

Dodd's amendment would provide a $2.2 billion increase in federal special education spending for fiscal year 2004, which begins Oct. 1. The Senate bill, which had called for a $1 billion increase before the amendment was adopted Sept. 10, would bring special education aid to nearly $11.1 billion.

"We should provide children with disabilities a road to opportunity," Dodd said in a statement. "This initiative will help ensure that the federal government does its fair share when it comes to ensuring the best education possible for children with special needs."

But even with the proposed increase, Congress would continue to fall drastically short of a 28-year-old commitment to cover 40 percent of the national average per-student costs in special education, a provision of the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) that today serves more than 6 million children.

Connecticut received 6.7 percent of its special education funding from Washington in fiscal year 2002-although that figure is nearly double the 3.5 percent it collected five years earlier, said Brian Mahoney, an education manager for the state's Department of Education. Nationally, federal funds cover 18 percent of special education budgets .

Approximately 75,000 of Connecticut's 566,000 public school students are enrolled in some form of special education, including 635 in New London. The National Education Association estimates the average yearly expense of educating a special-needs student is $14,424, almost twice the $7,552 annual cost of teaching other students.

Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., who cosponsored the amendment with Dodd and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said educators were burdened by a combination of insufficient federal dollars and the numerous, expensive development standards mandated under President Bush's sweeping education reform law, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Even though Connecticut was awarded $103.9 million in special education money this year -- up from $61 million in 2000, local dollars still account for almost 60 percent of Connecticut's special-education costs, with the state providing most of the remaining funds, according to the state's bureau of special education programs chief, George Dowaliby.

"The federal increases are generally absorbed by the annual rise in costs of services," Dowaliby said, adding that even double-digit growth in government funding rarely covers the necessary costs of state special-needs programs. Many cities, both in New England and nationwide, often raise property taxes or redirect funds from their general education budgets to cover the difference, according to statements by Dodd and Jeffords.

New London public schools have not cut money from other programs to pay for special education, said Christine Carter, the district's acting director of special services.

However, New London is targeting more students for special education than it used to, prompting it to hire and train more classroom aides and to increase spending on special-education preschool, psychological services and additional help for autistic students.

"To meet all of these needs is becoming a financial burden on the district," said Carver, who criticized a low level of state, as well as federal, spending. "We are required to provide educational services with increased responsibility and at a costly expense."

But even if the federal government agreed to pay 40 percent of the cost of special education, Dowaliby said some states would get significantly less because the figure is based on a national average.

"If the federal government fulfilled its promise of full funding, there would still be a smaller percentage given to Connecticut," Dowaliby said. "But if they reimbursed each state 40 percent, then that would be the ideal scenario."