Imagine two students with the same disability, one in a wealthy district and one in a low-income district. There are accommodations, specialized teachers, and technology available to the first student; they have access to the best resources available. The second student may be in overcrowded classrooms, wait months for a disability evaluation, and qualify for accommodations, but only have access to limited resources. This is the reality of special education in the United States.
Students with disabilities are entitled to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This federal law mandates that schools cater to the educational needs of students with disabilities by providing the necessary support for their academic success. However, access to these services often depends on a student’s geographical location.
Under IDEA, a child must be diagnosed with a disability. Specifically, a child must be identified as having one of 13 specific disabilities. Once a student is diagnosed, they are entitled to an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that lays out what their needs are for academic success. Unfortunately, schools in low-income areas may face diagnosis delays or not adequately implement IEPs, which can hinder the support these students receive.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, about 7.9 million students ages 3-21, representing around 15% of enrolled public school students, currently receive special education services. This number is steadily increasing. When IDEA was first enacted in 1975, the goal was for the federal government to cover 40% of the average cost of special education. However, it currently covers only about 13%. This shortfall places the financial burden on state and local governments, which don’t always have the capacity to close the funding gap, leading to disparities in resources available for special education between high-income and low-income communities. So, although students with disabilities are entitled to a FAPE, the quality of support they receive can vary widely depending on the availability of funding where they live.
The disparities begin with how IDEA Part B funding is distributed. IDEA Part B outlines the federal funding allocated to states to support special education for children aged 3-21. Under the current formula, federal funding is allocated based on each state’s overall student enrollment and the number of children living in poverty rather than actual need and services. Once states receive those funds, they decide how to distribute them to districts under local education agencies. This leads to further disparities between wealthy and low-income schools.
Who is really responsible for filling this funding gap? It’s easy to blame the federal government, but that isn’t necessarily fair. The federal government establishes a baseline, provides 13% funding, and manages the budget, all while considering funding for other important programs. Each state has its own formula for distributing funds to local school districts, which follows federal guidelines. However, wealthier states or districts often have additional local funding. For example, many wealthy districts have access to revenue from high property taxes that contribute to their local budgets. But low-income districts have lower tax bases and thus, their students lose out.
New York State, for example, only allocates funding based on the total number of students with disabilities, but not on their specific needs and services. However, North Dakota uses a formula where schools are reimbursed for special education costs, providing more funding if schools need it. Again, the IDEA funding from the state that a Local Education Agency (LEA) receives can differ from one state to another or between districts.
As the population of individuals with disabilities continues to grow, it’s vital to advocate for their rights and needs, regardless of the severity of their disabilities and where they live. We need to ensure that all students have access to a free, appropriate education by requiring states to distribute special education funding based on student needs. In New York, we could take a page from North Dakota’s book and use a similar model to make special education funding fairer and more consistent.
The educational system is struggling to keep pace with student needs, and it is just not fair that a student’s zip code determines their educational opportunities. After all, if given the choice, no student would choose to live in a district with fewer resources. But they do have a right to their existing communities, and the educational system should support their success in those communities.
