Early Intervention Services
* Legislators must provide a 3% funding increase to preserve vital Early Intervention services.
Early Intervention (EI) services are a wise investment in the future of babies and toddlers with disabilities. EI provides developmental and therapeutic services to children, ages birth to 3—the time when stimulation is critical to permanent brain development. Studies prove that by enabling children to increase their skills, EI actually reduces their future reliance on costly government supports.
EI providers are facing fiscal disaster. They have received only one small increase in 20 years. As costs have increased, that stagnant rate, coupled with a 5% cut four years ago, has driven numerous providers to terminate their EI programs. Downstate, at least 19 providers have closed their doors. Most of these providers are highly experienced non-profit agencies with expertise in cerebral palsy, autism, complex medical conditions, and other developmental disabilities. It is unlikely that few, if any, new providers can match that expertise. Without a rate increase, more providers will succumb, leaving young children and their families without access to the very services that could change their lives.
Preschool Special Education Services
*The Legislature must provide an interim 3% increase in direct costs for classroom-based preschool programs until tuition reforms are implemented.
*The Legislature must support a regional, attendance-based rate for preschool SEIT services.
*Legislators must reject a competitive bidding process for New York City preschool special education SEIT programs.
New York State is courting crisis by denying funding increases for five straight years for special education preschools, despite rising costs. Fiscal reports for 2011-2012 show a total loss for the state’s preschool providers of $62 million! Preschools have been forced to delay repairs, lay off staff, reduce benefits, and implement other desperate measures. Several providers are seriously contemplating whether they can afford to continue.
The New York State Education Department is developing reform recommendations about preschool tuition methodology. Last year the department did the same for non-public school-age programs, and those schools received a 3% interim increase on direct costs while the reforms were being developed. We urge the department to provide the same increase for classroom-based preschools. Without an immediate tuition increase, it may be too late for some providers.
To financially stabilize preschools, we urge the department to adopt the same mechanism that is being created for non-public school-age programs: a statutory index for establishing the growth in annual tuition rates, comparable to the index utilized in calculating annual funding increases for public schools.
We agree that preschool Special Education Itinerant Teacher (SEIT) services require particular audit scrutiny, but we caution that the majority of SEIT providers, who are honest and render important services, must not be penalized.
For SEIT services, the establishment of regional rates, proposed by the Governor, would redress current rate inequities among providers. A regional rate would make it unnecessary and, in fact, illogical to institute competitive bidding in New York City, as the Governor has proposed.
The Executive proposal to replace SEIT tuition-based rates with attendance-based rates makes eminent good sense. The current tuition-based rate provides funding even if the child has not received a service. An attendance-based rate will provide payment only when the service is actually delivered. An absentee factor absolutely must be incorporated into the attendance rate to allow for the frequent illness-related absences of young children.
Special Education
*The Legislature must not permit school districts to waive state-imposed special education requirements.
Tossing aside critical student protections, the Executive Budget would allow school districts to apply for a waiver of any state-imposed special education requirements that are not in conflict with federal standards. For example, districts could waive regulations governing class size, class grouping by age and learning needs, and time frames for implementing the IEP. Such regulations were adopted in order to foster productive learning environments. Waiving them will jeopardize successful student outcomes. Nevertheless, it might be fruitful for a workgroup to explore waiving other types of regulations which offer mandate relief without harm to students.