From the Philadelphia Public Schools Notebook.
35 advocacy groups ask legislators to fix special education funding
by Brett Schaeffer
Pennsylvania last year adopted a landmark funding formula for basic education, putting more dollars into the neediest schools and implementing rigorous accountability measures for school districts.
However, special education students have been left out of the equation.
A coalition of groups is now sending the message that it’s time for the General Assembly to approach special education funding with the same sharp eye its members approached basic education funding in 2008.
The state’s new basic education funding formula was based on a 2007 “costing-out” study, conducted by the private education policy consulting firm Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc. Though the study recommended that special education be funded based on student and district needs, a new funding system for students with disabilities was not part of the 2008 reforms.
Now, using the findings from a new February 2009 Augenblick report, more than 35 disabilities advocacy groups throughout Pennsylvania are rallying support for a bill to reform special education funding.
“In 2008, the General Assembly and the Governor reformed state funding for basic education, based on the 2007 ‘costing-out’ study. Similar improvements are now needed for special education funding if the education finance system is to be whole,” said Janis Risch, executive director of Good Schools Pennsylvania, in the new report.
The report indicates that nearly 400 school districts are inadequately funding special education, averaging an annual shortfall of almost $1 million per district. Statewide, the total gap in annual funding for special education is $380 million. The average per pupil shortfall is $1,947, based on a total of 195,000 students in the districts that have a funding gap.
The report, which was funded by the Education Law Center, the Disability Rights Network, and The Arc of Pennsylvania, identifies fundamental needs that often go underserved, such as proper teacher training, investment in assistive technology devices and materials, and support programs.
The report also underscores the importance of finishing the funding reforms begun last year and outlines the broader benefits special education funding reform would provide to the entire school community, including reduced teacher turnover, improved classroom culture, and stronger overall education programs.
The School District of Philadelphia, which educates the greatest number of special education students in Pennsylvania, had a special education funding gap of more than $17 million in 2006-07, the year analyzed in the report.
While Philadelphia’s per student funding gap – approximately $500 – is certainly not as wide as special education funding shortfalls in other districts, figures from the Pennsylvania State Data Center show that Philadelphia is coming up short in its outcomes for special education students.
Data Center numbers reveal a 30 percent dropout rate for Philadelphia’s special education high school students – more than double the statewide average. And while more than 300 of the state’s 501 districts have met their Adequate Yearly Progress targets for special education students under the No Child Left Behind law, Philadelphia has not.
Put simply, reforming the special education funding formula can help Philadelphia improve its outcomes. All students benefit when special education students receive instruction that prepares them for meaningful employment, higher education, and self-sufficiency.
To see the full February 2009 report and data on Pennsylvania special education funding, including those for the School District of Philadelphia, go to www.reformspecialedfunding.org.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Board members to phone it in
From the BCCT.
Panel to review phone policy again
Posted in News on Thursday, March 12th, 2009 at 9:11 am by Education Reporter Rachel Canelli
A proposed policy that would allow directors to participate in meetings by phone got a busy signal Tuesday night when officials debated the rule’s language.
So, instead of voting on the procedure, Neshaminy school board members agreed to let the policy committee review and revise it again.
As written, the process would let no more than one director per meeting call into a public board meeting and vote via phone. And each board member would be able to make such a request only once a year and at the board president’s discretion.
But board member William O’Connor, who requested the policy so that he wouldn’t have to miss too many board meetings for unexpected business trips, disagreed with the wording. The original draft permitted two people each meeting twice per year, and did not require the president’s permission, administrators said.
“This is to allow a person to participate,” said O’Connor. “It’s not meant as a convenience to phone in from home. And none of us needs permission from the board president to come here. It’s our ability based on the people who elected us.”
Jacqueline Rattigan, director of elementary and secondary education, said the committee made those changes so people wouldn’t abuse the policy.
Board member Irene Boyle said she didn’t understand the big deal.
“When you start something new, you go slow,” she said.
The wording was supposed to mean that directors should request to participate in a meeting via phone, not ask the president’s consent, said board member Susan Cummings.
Board members Kim Koutsouradis and Ritchie Webb said they’re concerned that the rule would encourage people not to come to meetings, or meetings could be moved to the auditorium, where it’s hard to hear on a phone.
“I have no idea why we’re trying to make this so hard,” said board member William Spitz. “What’s the harm in allowing it? If abuse happens, we could change the policy.”
The concept already is used in some districts including Council Rock, where a board member recently participated by phone for more than one meeting after having surgery, officials said. Neshaminy also allowed board member Joseph Blasch to attend an executive session by phone, Blasch said.
After not allowing a councilman who was on military duty overseas to vote from his post, the Tullytown council later agreed to let members on active military duty vote by phone early last year.
But board member Frank Koziol argued that he’s against it because if only five votes out of more than 200 in the past few years failed due to a director’s absence, the procedure’s not necessary.
“When you run for office, you know if you’re elected you’re accepting the responsibility of attending meetings to represent people,” said Koziol. “It’s impossible to feel the passion of a speaker, or the mood of an audience over the telephone. Attendance is not mandatory, it’s expected.”
Panel to review phone policy again
Posted in News on Thursday, March 12th, 2009 at 9:11 am by Education Reporter Rachel Canelli
A proposed policy that would allow directors to participate in meetings by phone got a busy signal Tuesday night when officials debated the rule’s language.
So, instead of voting on the procedure, Neshaminy school board members agreed to let the policy committee review and revise it again.
As written, the process would let no more than one director per meeting call into a public board meeting and vote via phone. And each board member would be able to make such a request only once a year and at the board president’s discretion.
But board member William O’Connor, who requested the policy so that he wouldn’t have to miss too many board meetings for unexpected business trips, disagreed with the wording. The original draft permitted two people each meeting twice per year, and did not require the president’s permission, administrators said.
“This is to allow a person to participate,” said O’Connor. “It’s not meant as a convenience to phone in from home. And none of us needs permission from the board president to come here. It’s our ability based on the people who elected us.”
Jacqueline Rattigan, director of elementary and secondary education, said the committee made those changes so people wouldn’t abuse the policy.
Board member Irene Boyle said she didn’t understand the big deal.
“When you start something new, you go slow,” she said.
The wording was supposed to mean that directors should request to participate in a meeting via phone, not ask the president’s consent, said board member Susan Cummings.
Board members Kim Koutsouradis and Ritchie Webb said they’re concerned that the rule would encourage people not to come to meetings, or meetings could be moved to the auditorium, where it’s hard to hear on a phone.
“I have no idea why we’re trying to make this so hard,” said board member William Spitz. “What’s the harm in allowing it? If abuse happens, we could change the policy.”
The concept already is used in some districts including Council Rock, where a board member recently participated by phone for more than one meeting after having surgery, officials said. Neshaminy also allowed board member Joseph Blasch to attend an executive session by phone, Blasch said.
After not allowing a councilman who was on military duty overseas to vote from his post, the Tullytown council later agreed to let members on active military duty vote by phone early last year.
But board member Frank Koziol argued that he’s against it because if only five votes out of more than 200 in the past few years failed due to a director’s absence, the procedure’s not necessary.
“When you run for office, you know if you’re elected you’re accepting the responsibility of attending meetings to represent people,” said Koziol. “It’s impossible to feel the passion of a speaker, or the mood of an audience over the telephone. Attendance is not mandatory, it’s expected.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)