Cutting special ed costs in New York — Your Health 2-13-09

By Michael Orbach

Issue of Feb. 13, 2009 / 19 Shevat 5769

The findings of a commission dedicated to capping New York State property taxes have stirred fears of heavy cuts to special education programs, but officials of Dist. 15 and members of the Lawrence School board say they are not concerned.

“I think some of the measures are a necessary evil, some evil, and some aren’t evil,” said Nahum Marcus, a Lawrence School Board member whose son is a special education student in the district. “The overall idea of the report should have been done years ago. I think it’s too general, but there are some valid points.”

Property taxes in New York State are currently 56 percent higher than the national average while total local taxes are 78 percent above the national average.

The commission, chaired by Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi, has recommended enacting across the board cost cutting measures in county schools. Local taxes raised $26.2 billion for schools this past year.

The recommendations include reducing the number of school personnel, cutting operating costs, collective bargaining with teacher’s unions, and specifically cutting costs for special education.

Despite the fact that New York State spends substantially more than most other states on each special education student, New York currently is ranked 38th nationwide in key educational outcomes such as graduation by special education students.

Other proposals to reduce the cost of special education include stricter criteria for classifying students as eligible for special ed, eliminating limits on class sizes, encouraging the mainstreaming of special education students and rolling back state mandates to federal guidelines to decide cases on an individual basis.

The proposals alarm special ed activists like John Gilmore, director of Autism United — a New York-based national coalition dedicated to improving the welfare of individuals with autism spectrum disorder — who believes that they could be catastrophic to special education.

“The recommendations would basically roll back 30 or 40 years of progress in trying to provide free and appropriate education to children with special needs and development delays,” Gilmore said.

Classification of special needs students has been particularly problematic; some allege that classification is a means to get special services for students without disabilities. The commission aims to provide extra services for some of the students who need them within the framework of the mainstream educational system, without resorting to a Special Ed classification.

“People are classifying because they want the services,” Marcus said. “They have resource room and classes that will help these children. In public school they tend to create these 12:1 classes, and eight of the children have their own private aide. It’s ridiculous what goes on.”

By rolling back to federal guidelines, mandatory requirements such as two hours of speech therapy will be decided on an individual case-by-case level.

“They’re placing short term budgetary considerations before the educational needs of students with special needs,” charges Gilmore.

Dr. Annette Szafranski, Director of Pupil Personnel Services for the Lawrence School Board, disagreed.

“Whoever needs the services will get the services,” she told The Jewish Star in a telephone interview.

In a letter from Suozzi to Autism United he thanked the group for its concern but stressed that the measures would strengthen individualized education and that “students who have a severe diagnosed mental or physical challenge should receive services outside of the general education setting if necessary to meet their needs.”

Officials of Kulanu Torah Academy in Cedarhurst declined to comment for this story.