More Isn't Better for Special Ed

A new study shows how school districts can get better results

Does more spending lead to better outcomes for students with disabilities? According to a new study led by former school superintendent Nathan Levenson and sponsored by the Thomas Fordham Institute, the answer is no. The news that quality and money aren't tightly linked should be welcome in cash-strapped school districts around the country.

Mr. Levenson and Fordham analyzed the special education staffing systems in more than 1,400 school districts representing about a third of all U.S. students. Then they took a closer look at 10 pairs of comparable districts in five different states.

The headline result? If districts with above-average special-ed staffing were staffed instead at the national median level, more than $10 billion annually would be saved. For example, a 10,000-student district now spending in the 90th percentile on special ed could save more than $7 million. Within the 10 district pairs that were closely examined, the lower-achieving districts spent 22% more, adjusted for student enrollment. The authors are careful to note that this small sample does not prove a causal relationship between lower spending and higher achievement, but it certainly disproves that more money is always better.

Special education was once a small part of school budgets, but since the 1975 passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act it has grown to north of 20% of total per pupil spending. The authors note that while general education has focused more in recent years on accountability, special-ed is still judged mainly by "inputs," or how much is spent. Federal special-ed cash has often become merely an incentive to hire more teachers, regardless of teacher quality or student results.

The authors suggest that school districts take seemingly obvious steps like emphasizing teacher quality over teacher volume and reducing the number of non-teaching aides in classrooms. But requests from hard-up states and school districts for special-ed waivers have been met with resistance, in contrast to waiver requests to ease accountability under No Child Left Behind.

The U.S. Department of Education also enforces so-called maintenance-of-effort requirements, which in effect mandate spending at current levels or higher.

No one is suggesting balancing school budgets on the backs of those students most in need. But neither should special education be exempt from cost-benefit analysis and fresh thinking. That's the message of the Fordham study, and it's one both local officials and federal education officials need to hear.