Special Education spending up 56 percent in nine years
School districts around the state are filing lawsuits against the legislature that claim special education is underfunded. The facts about our state’s special education spending are enlightening.
Over a period of eight years, from 1995 - 2003:
Student enrollment in special education increased 14.6 percent.
Total spending (all funds) on special education increased 56.9 percent in real dollars, more than four times the rate of inflation. Adjusted for inflation, spending is up 38.7 percent.
Per-pupil spending for special education increased 36.9 percent in real dollars, and 21 percent when adjusted for inflation.
How much is enough? Does student achievement correspond with spending increases over the last decade? Do we really have a funding problem?
These are questions that should be answered with measurable and verifiable facts before we ask taxpayers to spend more money.
Special Education Spending
Washington State General Fund
1995 - 2003
Year
Enrollment
GF Spending
(actual)
GF Spending (inflation adj)
Per-pupil $
(actual)
Per-pupil $ (inflation adj)
1995-96
108,426
$446,606,011
$446,606,011
$4,119
$4,119
1996-97
109,440
$461,784,466
$455,493,471
$4,220
$4,201
1997-98
112,308
$503,650,540
$465,006,179
$4,485
$4,289
1998-99
115,426
$537,649,983
$470,320,790
$4,658
$4,339
1999-00
118,102
$581,393,637
$475,724,723
$4,923
$4,388
2000-01
120,299
$633,378,777
$486,577,249
$5,265
$4,565
2001-02
122,450
$664,095,222
$497,876,381
$5,423
$4,592
2002-03
124,260
$700,629,519
$505,022,077
$5,638
$4,658
Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
Prepared by: Marsha Richards and Hans Zeiger |
Education Reform Center | 360-956-3482
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"