Steep decline in projected revenues will continue to deplete school district reserves over next few years; school bond measure likely headed to November ballot; busy week ahead at City Hall
Thanks for a great newsletter as always, Craig. I have a question about this sentence: "MUSD is having to devote significant sums to pay for unfunded special education services that it is required by law to provide." I don't think it is an accurate statement, and please correct me if I am wrong. While all education may be underfunded, special education in CA is not unfunded. AB 602 provides funding to SELPAs, see link https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/se/ab602apptdat.asp. And yes, schools are required by law to provide education to all children. Having additional needs doesn't change this. If we see the general funds as a pie, it is clear they see special needs students of not deserving of a slice of that pie, if they are stating their education services are "unfunded".
As far as the reference to unfunded special education services, that is based on what I've heard Andy Cannon say at multiple school board budget sessions. I probably could have worded it more precisely, but I think the upshot from his comments in the past is that the district does not receive enough funding from various sources to meet all of its requirements under federal special education law. In other words, the district receives funding earmarked for special education, but it is not enough to pay for all the costs associated with special ed services required by law, so the district needs to backfill those costs from the general fund. You are correct that the district is required to provide these services to all children, regardless of their needs. I'm pretty sure he will discuss this element when he submits the budget presentation tomorrow, so you might want to attend the meeting or following it on YouTube. You can also check out his discussion at the last board meeting where he discussed this topic. Here is the YouTube link (his presentation start at the 1 hour, 43-minut mark) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va2CKBu7rIE&t=13307s
There is a brief reference to this issue on Page 9 of the budget presentation that shows district contributions to special ed and includes this sentence: "Revenue
increases are not projected to overcome total expenditures and contributions to Special Education resulting in a structural deficit."
I will attempt to explain this issue in better detail in a future post.
Thanks for a great newsletter as always, Craig. I have a question about this sentence: "MUSD is having to devote significant sums to pay for unfunded special education services that it is required by law to provide." I don't think it is an accurate statement, and please correct me if I am wrong. While all education may be underfunded, special education in CA is not unfunded. AB 602 provides funding to SELPAs, see link https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/se/ab602apptdat.asp. And yes, schools are required by law to provide education to all children. Having additional needs doesn't change this. If we see the general funds as a pie, it is clear they see special needs students of not deserving of a slice of that pie, if they are stating their education services are "unfunded".
Hi Michelle,
Thanks for the reply and the comment.
As far as the reference to unfunded special education services, that is based on what I've heard Andy Cannon say at multiple school board budget sessions. I probably could have worded it more precisely, but I think the upshot from his comments in the past is that the district does not receive enough funding from various sources to meet all of its requirements under federal special education law. In other words, the district receives funding earmarked for special education, but it is not enough to pay for all the costs associated with special ed services required by law, so the district needs to backfill those costs from the general fund. You are correct that the district is required to provide these services to all children, regardless of their needs. I'm pretty sure he will discuss this element when he submits the budget presentation tomorrow, so you might want to attend the meeting or following it on YouTube. You can also check out his discussion at the last board meeting where he discussed this topic. Here is the YouTube link (his presentation start at the 1 hour, 43-minut mark) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va2CKBu7rIE&t=13307s
There is a brief reference to this issue on Page 9 of the budget presentation that shows district contributions to special ed and includes this sentence: "Revenue
increases are not projected to overcome total expenditures and contributions to Special Education resulting in a structural deficit."
I will attempt to explain this issue in better detail in a future post.
https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=36030321&AID=824326&MID=30983