Michael T. Bauer is an English teacher at Northampton Senior High School. (CONTRIBUTED PHOTO, THE…)
Pennsylvania State Education Association President Michael J. Crossey recently advanced several arguments why "small class sizes are good policy." Chiefly among them, he cited anecdotal testimony along with studies from "Tennessee, Wisconsin and states throughout the country [demonstrating] that students who are assigned to smaller classes in grades K-3 do better in every way that can be measured."
Unmentioned in his Your View, possibly overlooked by Gov. Tom Corbett, and perhaps unknown by the taxpayer is the pressing issue of the potential legal liability incurred by school districts when they fail to meet the mounting demands of special education.
Once upon a time, under the shelter of the 14th Amendment, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a free and public education and individualized education plans were used as a shield "to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs … that receive federal [funds]," according to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Individualized educational plans — known as IEPs — are mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and are designed to meet the unique educational needs of one child who may have a disability. Because that act entitles every student to free and appropriate public education, special education budgets have ballooned while class sizes have decreased.
The reason for the spending increase is because the special education shield is now a lance being brandished by an overtly litigious society that is manipulated by lawyers, or even worse, by "advocates" seeking a payday at the expense of the taxpayer. Among other concerns, class size and resource allocation become the symptoms while the legal system is the disease. Treat the disease and the symptoms are mitigated.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation "requires a school district to provide a free and public education to each qualified person with a disability who is in the school district's jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the person's disability." School administrators are beholden to the binding language of the student's IEP. A child "suspected of having a disability" is entitled "to a comprehensive evaluation by a multi-disciplinary team provided at no cost to parents." (Your tax dollars at work!) If the results of the evaluation indicate special education needs, an IEP is implemented and big money is at stake.
Administrators, chosen by superintendents who are appointed by school boards, are legally bound to follow the specifications of the IEP. Principals construct classrooms fearful of violating the various IEPs, riddling the educational system. Everything from attention deficit disorder to blindness can trigger an IEP, and the administrator's paycheck depends upon successful implementation or else the district finds itself bound in legal proceedings and the administrator finds a new job.
Therefore, when one teacher has a class of 24 students — and 20 of them require "preferential seating" as required by some IEPs — how can a plan be accurately followed with only six front-row seats are available? The answer: It can't.
Advocates know this and hitch their wagon to parents seeking answers explaining why their child's plan was not followed. Thus the district, looking to save the taxpayers money, pacifies the impossible demands of a free and public education by creating smaller class sizes. School board members, seeking to preserve their own elected power, approve the decision and administrators execute it.
In short, administrators and teachers kowtow to over-zealous "advocates" nudging parents to seek academic consideration by having their child gain a special education label. The crippling effect is tantamount to medical professionals forced into unwarranted testing to cover potential liabilities.
Public education becomes a game of covering all bases to lessen complaints against the district. According to research conducted by the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education, the rate of filed complaints has been nearly halved in Pennsylvania, much to the credit of teachers, administrators and case managers.
However, as "Pennsylvania has experienced a meaningful decline in the level of due process hearing activity," the district cost is staggering. Pennsylvania Department of Education's Build Initiative stated "that the average expenditure per special education student is 1.91 times more than for children in regular classes. Given K-12 average per pupil expenditures for regular classes of $8,590 in Pennsylvania in 2003, special education unit costs will average $16,407." Despite the disparity in spending, special education expansion continues.
With legal issues in mind, superintendents and school principals are forced to navigate the suffocating expense of growing special educational needs. Perhaps this knowledge can serve Gov. Corbett as the state budget cut "nearly $900 million from public schools," as Crossey indicated.
Michael T. Bauer is an English teacher at Northampton Senior High School.