Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:45 PM CDT
OUR VIEW: Mattoon should review plan to withdraw from EIASE
By the JG/T-C editorial@jg-tc.com
A proposal by the Mattoon school district to withdraw its participation in the Eastern Illinois Area of Special Education is confusing.
The school board will vote in August on the proposal, which advocates withdrawing from the special education co-op in two years and instead offering the services “in house” in order to save money.
EIASE operates the Treatment and Learning Center in Humboldt and the Diagnostic and Developmental Center at Franklin School in Mattoon. The Mattoon school district owns both facilities and leases them to EIASE.
The co-op also runs programs for students with hearing impairments, vision problems, rehabilitative needs and speech disabilities.
Mattoon school officials who are recommending the withdrawal from EIASE say the district can save more than a quarter-million dollars annually by providing special education services in house rather than through the co-op.
If the withdrawal is approved, the district would develop its own programs, including the hiring of additional personnel, over the next two years. The new plan would begin in August 2011.
For those of us outside the special education realm, it is difficult to understand how the district could save money by duplicating services already being provided. If that is, indeed, the case, then a more detailed explanation from the school district is needed.
Officials cite the cost of remaining with EIASE as $1.35 million to 1.53 million over the next three fiscal years.
Mattoon officials already are working to bring some students from TLC and other programs back into the district, saving more than $400,000.
In addition, Mattoon officials project saving $267,000 in school year 2011-12, when the withdrawal would go into effect. Some of these savings apparently would come from reduced administrative costs.
For example, officials state EIASE charged the Mattoon district $148,000 for administrative services, based on a student count of 696. However, some of those students were served entirely by Mattoon personnel, not EIASE teachers.
In today’s economy, these financial concerns should be addressed. The district certainly should not be overcharged for services they already are providing in house.
The purpose of a co-op in a rural area is to pool resources and ultimately lower costs by regionally providing services. Smaller districts often have too few students in a particular program to make it cost-effective to offer in-house.
Apparently, Mattoon considers its special education enrollment sufficient that it can provide the same services at lower costs without pooling resources.
Perhaps a compromise can be reached to lower Mattoon’s overhead costs while keeping the students in the current learning environment. Perhaps the co-op could lower the district’s costs in exchange for the use of Mattoon’s facilities.
We encourage Mattoon school and EIASE officials to look at these issues, which if satisfactorily resolved could benefit other districts as well.
At least some parents of special education students in Mattoon have voiced concerns that uprooting their children from their current learning environment will be detrimental to their progress.
With the withdrawal two years away, it may be too early to make that determination.
Ultimately, school districts are required to provide the services, and certainly they should do so for the lowest possible cost.
— JG/T-C Editorial Board
Add your comments
Not already registered? Then click Here.
Comment policy:
JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.
In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.
We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.
No comment may contain:
* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.
If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike P wrote on Jul 21, 2009 11:42 PM:
Not sure if the students sent to the 3rd party, get counted in the districts stats for NCLB compliance, or the state and federal per pupil various funds.
I imagine gutting EIASE, depends heavily on the proposed to be proposed sales tax for education. No they can't spen that money on teaching, but money they aren't spending on stuff they can spend it on probably can be.
Here comes the brand spanking new District 2 special ed facility, then they can staff it, equip it, and become the areas 3rd party special ed monopoly.
Its probably a given, if the biggest participating school district drops the co-op, it will cease to exist.
Where will they opt to build their new life safety dire need complex of learning. Will they tie it in with the transportation logistics annex? If they get that new sales tax, they may need to also life safety the Jr high, high school, admin building, and add a district 2 technical/service industry preperatory academy. "