$5 Billion Earmarked for Special Education

If your child is gifted or has a reading problem or is pregnant but still in school, chances are he or she has benefited from one of the special educational programs that have figured prominently in this year’s budget controversy

The state will spend about $5 billion on more than 50 so-called “categorical” programs this year, one-third of all state spending in kindergarten through 12th grade.

The programs cover a wide range, from special education for handicapped youngsters to bilingual education to driver training.

“These are targeted programs for special groups of students who are thought to have special problems or needs,” said James Wilson, director of fiscal planning and analysis for the state Department of Education.

A few, such as vocational education, are almost as old as California, while others--special funds for “pregnant or lactating minors” still in school, for instance--are only a few years old.

Many special programs were launched in the mid 1960s, Wilson said, when state and national attention was focused on the problems of poor people.

One of the first was the Miller-Unruh Reading Program, named for former state Sen. George Miller and for Jesse M. Unruh, who was then Speaker of the Assembly.

Miller-Unruh funds, about $20 million a year, are used to subsidize the salaries of reading specialists for pupils in grades 1, 2 and 3 who are having reading difficulties.

“That program has received consistently good reviews,” Wilson said. “It doesn’t seem to be very controversial.”

Separate Histories

Each program has a separate history and, in some cases--”Meade Aid,” for example--that history is less than edifying.

When former Democratic Assemblyman Ken Meade left the Legislature in 1976, he refused to vote for the state budget unless it contained extra money for the Oakland schools. Since Meade’s vote was needed to obtain a two-thirds majority for budget passage, attention was paid to his request.

“It was unconstitutional” to give money just to Oakland, Wilson said, “so the rules were rewritten” to cover Oakland and other school districts with large numbers of low-income youngsters.

“Meade Aid” lasted for 10 years but now has been included in the revenue base for Oakland and the other districts.

Except for Meade Aid, and a similar but larger program called Urban Impact Aid, “there’s a programmatic, if not an educational, rationale, for all of these,” Wilson said.

Special Education Funds

The largest share of the “categorical” money--28%--goes to the Special Education program that is serving an estimated 443,000 students who are “learning, communicatively, physically or severely handicapped” this year.

The next largest amount--$457.5 million--will be spent for desegregation in 45 school districts.

More than $300 million will go to Los Angeles, even though the Los Angeles school desegregation case has been out of the courts for years and the school district is one of the most segregated in the nation.

“There is a continuing court order,” said John Mockler, a fiscal consultant to the Los Angeles Unified School District. “The money is being used to relieve the harms of racial isolation.”

The state will spend $336 million on preschool child care next year, $290 million on home-to-school transportation and $271 million for adult education.

More than $400 million will be deposited in the California Teachers’ Retirement Fund because actuaries warned a few years ago that there was not enough money in the fund to pay expected claims.

A $200-million Economic Impact Aid program, which includes both compensatory education and bilingual instruction, has been one of the centers of controversy in the budget negotiations.

Republicans contend that this program, and others that are intended to help low-income youngsters, provides a disproportionately large amount of money for large urban school districts (usually represented by Democrats) and not enough for rapidly growing, higher-income districts such as those in Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties.

They would prefer to group many of the categorical programs into large block grants, then allow local school districts to decide how to spend the money.

But Democrats respond that the money is intended to meet specific needs and therefore should be earmarked so that local school officials do not use it to increase salaries or for other purposes.

However, many Democrats acknowledge that there are inequities in the special programs that should be corrected.

For instance, no new money has been appropriated for the gifted and talented student program or for home-to-school transportation for several years. This has worked to the disadvantage of booming suburban school districts.

These are the kinds of problems budget negotiators have been trying to resolve in recent days, apparently with some success.

Whatever happens to this year’s budget, categorical educational programs can be expected to continue. Once in the budget, they are harder to dislodge than abalone from a rock.

Some Programs Outmoded

For instance, next year’s budget includes more than $4 million for “demonstration programs in reading and mathematics” that began in 1969 and that, in some cases, no longer reflect current thinking about how those subjects should be taught.

Both the Department of Education and the legislative analyst’s office have been trying to abolish these programs for years, without success.

“These things never end” said a somewhat disgruntled education official. “The problem is never solved or, if it is, the program doesn’t disappear. The money just gets rolled into the general revenue base.”