GT and IDEA

When we met with Congressman Thompson at last year’s FRN conference, it was clear that he does not support "full-funding" of the "Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act" (IDEA). (This is perennially a key item in the NSBA legislative agenda.) However, when the issue was raised at our meeting earlier this month, GT gave a surprising - although very qualified - endorsement of the idea.

The Congressman’s general reticence is understandable. Historically, Republicans have been less inclined than Democrats when it comes to supporting federal funding of “social” programs. But the question isn't whether this is a worthwhile expenditure - that was decided when IDEA's predecessor was passed in 1975, mandating a "free appropriate public education for all children with disabilities" - along with the promise that the federal government would pick up 40% of the tab. (A 40% federal share would be considered "full-funding".)

The key word, of course, is mandating. So the question isn't whether the money should be spent, it's out of which pot the money should come. Does it matter?

The argument for a larger federal share is the equity issue: The greater the federal share of IDEA funding, the less of a burden it is on individual school districts, some of whom are in far better position than others to bear that burden. The current formula for the distribution of IDEA funds only marginally takes into account the relative wealth of school districts.

It can also be very expensive to provide for an individual child with severe disabilities. The relative impact of just one such child on a small district can be substantial. It should be noted that there are a lot of small, rural school districts in the PA 5th Congressional.

But I am personally of the opinion that there are more important things to talk about.  At our next meeting, I hope to spend some time discussing the emerging idea of School Climate Standards – for which I believe there is an appropriate federal role.