Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MEPRI urges regional supports for special education, flags step-6 spending inequities
Summary
MEPRI told the committee that Maine's special-education spending and identification rates vary widely, that some regions lack intensive services, and that the expenditure-based step-6 adjustment amplifies inequity; MEPRI described how education service agencies (ESAs) might help and offered policy simulation options.
Amy Johnson of the Maine Education and Policy Research Institute (MEPRI) presented the committee with findings and policy options for special-education funding and regional supports.
Johnson said administrative data have improved (direct certification now aligns with Medicaid thresholds), making child-level economic-disadvantage measures more reliable than earlier free-and-reduced-lunch form counts or small-area census estimates. "The new threshold for direct cert is 215% of poverty," Johnson said, adding that the administrative data capture many families who would otherwise be missed by other measures.
MEPRI then described significant regional disparities in special-education spending and service access. Johnson said Maine is among states with the highest special-education identification rates and that some regions (Aroostook, Washington counties) function as service deserts for intense needs. She warned that the current expenditure-based adjustment called "step 6" disproportionately increases allocations to districts that already spend more, perpetuating inequities.
To address those gaps, MEPRI outlined how education service agencies (ESAs) or education service centers (ESCs) can provide shared professional development, back-office functions, coordinated MaineCare billing for related services, and management oversight of out-of-district placements. MEPRI emphasized trade-offs: ESAs can improve access and oversight but do not by themselves create staff and, if not designed carefully, can increase short-term costs.
Policy options and simulations: MEPRI presented several concrete policy options to the committee including increasing the base funded share for the first cohort of students (e.g., raising the fully funded share from 15% to 17%), removing an outdated high-cost in-district adjustment, and applying a collar (90% or 80%) to step-6 growth so some step-6 funds could be redirected to regional services with hardship protections.
Ending: MEPRI offered to run additional simulations and to supply draft statutory language; the committee asked MEPRI and the department to test straw models with superintendents and report back.
