The State of California fiscal advisors who have been dispatched to the San Francisco Unified School District and the parents who send their children to our public schools agree on at least one thing: The school district can do a better job in providing needed, and legally required, special education services. But they disagree on how to get there. In fact, the state’s Special Education Review that will be presented to the school board next week is receiving heavy criticism from parent leaders for failing to mention student educational outcomes.
Consensus is needed. Resources are needed. And an educational plan is needed. All while the school district seeks to do more with less.
The school district’s ongoing fiscal woes — including a $113 million budget shortfall it plans to close in the upcoming fiscal and academic year — give the state additional authority to effectively veto school spending and have a say in how the school district runs certain programs. Special education, defined as instruction that is specially designed to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, is required by federal law but is not fully funded by the federal government. In fact, financial support from the state and federal governments amounts to less than a third of the almost $200 million the school district pays for special education annually out of its unrestricted budget.
Here’s where the state and the parents differ: The state uses “industry standards” to conclude that our local school district spends too much money on special education. Parents, on the other hand, look first at the educational impacts on their children caused by cuts in key teacher and student assistance personnel, inconsistencies in determining what students need and delivery systems to provide them. At this point, the state is not yet ordering cuts but is providing an educational pathway to justify a smaller program of fewer students, teachers and services to align San Francisco with statewide averages despite a growing need for effective special education services.
In San Francisco, 13.6 percent of students are enrolled in special education programs. That’s approaching, but still less than, the statewide average. The state warns that the trend represents a significant increase since 2019 and a 44 percent increase in students identified as autistic (but still significantly below the statewide average). The state questions whether students are identified accurately and whether identified students are steered into special programs without first adequately exploring whether supports within the general educational program can be provided instead. The state paints a picture of parents pressuring the district to provide special education instruction in the belief that they cannot obtain it in the general classroom.
At the same time, the state calls out the school district for “over representation” of English language learners, Latinos and African American students in special education and “under representation” of Asian Americans. The author of the state report is an experienced and trained special education administrator and former teacher. Without elaboration, however, she leaves unanswered whether special education enrollment must mirror the general population’s demographics and whether over assignment or under assignment or both is caused by racial stereotypes or discrimination. School officials and parents need some guidance to ensure children are properly assessed and assigned without artificial steering or barriers.
Beyond questioning the number of students in special education and their demographic mix, the state report finds that the school district employs too many teachers, paraeducators and other assistants to provide needed educational services. It urges more consistent availability of student-tailored services in general education classrooms before referring students to special education services and resources outside. This comes at a time when the school district plans to increase class size to compensate for the reduction in teacher positions and is laying off 164 paraeducators in the new budget. It will be a challenging adjustment for students and families without any assurance they will receive the support they need. It will be similarly challenging for educators who will be asked to provide more individualized attention and support in larger classrooms.
Whatever state officials gleaned from interviewing parents of special education enrollees failed to make it into the upcoming presentation. These officials have time before the scheduled presentation to include parent expectations and to prioritize a vision for student outcomes. If past parent testimony at school board meetings is indicative, parents understand the school district’s economic constraints and the uncertainty of federal support for special education. But they will not accept a purely numbers-driven report seemingly divorced from student progress and educational outcomes.
