Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

SPECIAL ED: Court right to reject school districts’ lawsuit

Letter by Bernie K. Dalien, Tacoma on Dec. 13, 2010 at 1:40 pm with 6 Comments »
December 13, 2010 1:40 pm

I applaud the state Supreme Court for rejecting the special education spending lawsuit filed against the state (TNT, 12-10). I am a parent of a special education student who attended school within the Puyallup School District – one of the many schools that jumped on this lawsuit bandwagon.

No matter how much money these district get for special education it will not go to educate a special education student to their full potential. The Individuals Disability Education Act only requires a district to provide the basic or bare minimum of accessibility to an education.

Keep in mind that since this coalition filed suit against the state, Puyallup superintendent Tony Apostle has received a 21 percent raise to $214,447, plus benefits. Additionally, this district is severely top heavy and continues to create overpaid administrative positions that deplete district funds.

These districts, especially Puyallup, have a record of misuse of funds and should not be awarded anything until they can prove they use their existing funds appropriately.

Leave a comment Comments → 6
  1. cclngthr says:

    I agree with the ruling provided the school districts have not shown actual proof of where the funds go. Districts should be able to show valid proof of expenses and where the expenses are going to, and why the expenses are at the level where they at.

    If certain students require added funding, such as 1:1 assistants due to IDEA, FAPE, and LRE, districts need to show that the funding provides that, and not have it go to administrative costs.

    I do think administrative costs should only account to 15% of the total school funding. At least 70% of the funding should be within the individual classrooms with the remaining 10% should go to mantainance and utilities.

  2. School districts shouldn’t be reqjuired to educate special needs children to their full potential. They don’t educate any other child to that level.

  3. cclngthr says:


    I think they should, but they should account for the funding issues. If students need extra things that do require more funding, due to a disability, that should have to be shown why it is there.

  4. I agree with Murigen. Educating special ed students to their “full potential” is definitely preferential treatment since the same effort isn’t put toward mainstream students.

  5. alindasue says:

    The problem is not whether or not special ed are being educated “to thier full potential” any more than the other students. The school districts receive larger funds from the state for each special ed child because it costs more per student to provide an education approximating a “normal” education to children with special needs. The problem is created when those extra funds are collected to cover the added cost of special education, but then much of the funds are diverted to the general fund and away from the students for which the funds were intended.

  6. ColtonsDad says:

    Murigen, just to enlighten you and ronniew, every student has the legal right to maximize or reach their full potential except special education students that are under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA only requires that a school offers access to education, not that the special education student has to make progress. How would you like it if your normal developing student just has to show up and isn’t required to learn anything? Most District offer advanced classes for gifted kids to excel even further. If you knew the law you would not have made that comment. Invest in societies most fragile at an early age and they will be better contributors to society later.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0