Last Thursday, the Michigan Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in a case about whether state government or local school districts must bear the cost of special-education programs. If the court deems the state responsible, the state government must pay up to $3.5 billion to compensate 84 school districts that have footed the bills for such programs since 1980. The Engler camp has announced its intention to seek to eliminate Michigan's special-education mandates as a cost-cutting measure - if the court rules against the state. Regardless of the ruling, the state's special-education programs should remain intact, as they provide a necessary means of priming students with special needs for success.
State special-ed programs are at risk because Michigan is the only state that requires the Department of Education to provide free special-education services to children from birth to age 26. Federal requirements only dictate that states fund programs for ages 3 through 21. If Engler's cuts take effect, the state program would no longer target children in early developmental stages, when special-care programs can enable physically - and academically - challenged children to enter school on par with their peers.
A 1990 Congressional Record substantiates this fact, showing that for every $1 invested in early programs, the federal government saves $6 in special education and associated costs later. By retaining such early intervention programs and minimizing the number of students entering special education in schools, Michigan would greatly lessen the cost of special education programs.
Much of the Engler administration's sentiment against special-education programs stems from their large price tag. The cost of special education for 1994-95 school year was slightly more than $1.6 billion. However, empowering special-needs children to compete on par with other students will inevitably command a greater percentage of resources than their percentage of the population. Instead of denying special-needs students certain advantages through budget cuts, the state should meet their needs through a more financially efficient system. This might entail taking further advantage of funds from Medicare's student-coverage plans for impaired children. By slashing many of the benefits and supplementary programs the current mandate affords them, Engler would, in effect, deny special-education students - nearly one-tenth of the student population - the chance to achieve the same level of success that most students may attain.
Special-education programs are crucial in providing special-needs students with extra attention to prime them for success. Engler's intent to cut many such programs from the state budget, pending the Supreme Court ruling, would diminish the programs' viability. The governor should revise the programs, if necessary, rather than terminate them. Despite potential financial troubles, the state should remain committed to preparing all students - regardless of disability - for future success.