Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State special education fund shortfall leaves payments prorated to about 68% of entitlement, DOE explains
Summary
Department of Education staff outlined how the state’s special education funding formula works, explained the 3.5x cost threshold and the 80% state share above it, and described a proration this year when total eligible claims exceeded appropriation (roughly $49 million in entitlements versus a $33 million appropriation).
Caitlin, a Department of Education staff member working on special education funding, told Finance Division II how the state’s special education reimbursement formula (formerly called catastrophic aid) allocates state support for high‑cost students.
Why it matters: state payments for costly special education placements can be large for individual districts; when total statewide claims exceed the legislature’s appropriation, the department prorates payments and districts receive a fraction of their computed entitlement.
Caitlin summarized the statutory formula in RSA 186‑C and explained the operational steps: districts compile allowable costs for individual students’ IEPs after the school year ends. The formula treats the district’s liability as the first 3.5 times the state average per‑pupil cost; the state is responsible for a percentage of the costs above that cap. ‘‘The 3 and a half times the average cost per pupil’’ was described by Caitlin as the threshold that triggers state reimbursement for high‑cost cases. Historically the law provides an 80% state share on the amount above that threshold; the department then aggregates statewide eligible amounts and compares the total to the appropriation.
For the year under review, Caitlin said the department’s review of district submissions produced $119,000,000 in allowable costs and a computed state obligation of about $49,000,000. Because the legislature appropriated roughly $33,000,000 for the line, the department prorated payments; Caitlin said the resulting payment rate for this cycle was approximately 68% of the computed state entitlement. The department explained that in prior years appropriations and costs tracked differently and that COVID relief and other federal funds temporarily changed dynamics in earlier years.
Members asked about drivers of the recent rise in claims. Caitlin pointed to several possibilities—cost inflation, changes in placement patterns, waning pandemic relief funds—but said the department’s capacity to perform deep invoice‑level analysis is constrained. She said the department lacks permanent state funding for sufficient analytic staff and relies on temporary hires to process invoices and meet federal monitoring requirements.
Lawmakers asked whether earlier, more frequent reporting of district high‑cost cases would give the department and legislature more lead time; staff said the statutory timeline and invoice submission process mean the full claims picture typically becomes clear after the school year closes. Staff offered to bring district business administrators and special education leaders to brief the committee on local budget practices and monitoring constraints.
Ending: The department recommended more sustained administrative capacity and earlier data collection if the legislature wants timely early warnings, but said any change in appropriation rules or proration would require legislative action.
