Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, advocates press Legislature to close $1.7 billion special‑education funding gap as formula changes loom
Summary
Parents, disability advocates and school leaders told the Article III subcommittee the rise in special‑education enrollment after repeal of the 8.5% cap and cuts to SHARS reimbursements has produced roughly a $1.7 billion gap; witnesses urged increased special‑education allotment funding and removal of the so‑called ‘regular‑program offset.’
Parents, educators and disability advocates pressed the Article III subcommittee to fund a large shortfall in special‑education resources and to move promptly on a new service‑intensity funding model described in House Bill 2 and other bills.
Why it matters: Multiple witnesses and agency presenters said Texas’ historical special‑education funding formula, based on instructional arrangements, does not match current delivery and understates costs, so districts are using basic allotment dollars to cover special‑education services that federal law requires them to provide.
What was said: TEA and LBB briefers and several public witnesses quantified the shortfall. Commissioner Mike Morath and LBB witnesses described a “roughly $1,700,000,000 per year delta between expenditures that school systems make in special education and dedicated revenue streams that they receive,” language Morath used when the committee asked about special‑education funding.
Parent advocates and members of the Texas Dyslexia Coalition described the aftermath of last session’s repeal of the 8.5 percent enrollment cap and passage of House Bill 3928 (the “Beckley Wilson Act”), saying the move opened access for thousands of students previously denied services but that funding did not keep up with the increased service population. Rebecca Holmes, a parent leader, told the committee: “The ultimate impact lies with you — how much money is put into the special‑education allotment through House Bill 1.”
Disability Rights Texas and the Coalition of Texans with Disabilities urged the committee to appropriate new resources in Article III and to use a contingency rider so funding is available when the new intensity‑of‑services formula is implemented. Jolene Sanders of the Coalition said the state should not wait to increase funding while implementation and data work continue: “Those services don’t stop just because you can’t bill Medicaid,” she told members, referring to districts’ decisions to reduce SHARS participation after policy and reimbursement changes.
The ‘regular‑program offset’ (sometimes called the disability penalty) was raised repeatedly. LBB and TEA witnesses described a statutory offset that reduces the regular basic‑allotment funding when students spend time in special‑education placements; committee members and district and parent witnesses said the offset effectively shifts roughly $1.5 billion from general classroom budgets to subsidize special‑education costs. Parent leader Nicole May of Conroe ISD quantified Conroe’s share of the penalty as roughly $18.5 million for the upcoming year and asked for elimination of the penalty or funding to offset it.
Implementation risk and timing: Several superintendents and special‑education directors told the committee LBB and TEA are piloting data collection and that a full transition to a service intensity model will require new data submission systems, training and an initial year where both formula transition and added funding should be considered. Andrea Chevalier of the Texas Council of Administrators of Special Education requested that the Legislature appropriate additional special‑education allotment dollars in Article III even if the detailed changes in HB 2 are still being implemented, to avoid an immediate budget shock for districts.
Ending: Multiple witnesses urged the subcommittee to add funding contingency language to House Bill 1’s Article III that can be directed to the special‑education allotment while the new intensity model and technical rules are phased in.
