Funding Special Education: State and National Trends

1
Funding Special Education State and National
Trends

• Thomas Parrish, Ed.D.
• Fall ODE/COSA Special Education Conference for
  Administrators
• BREAK OUT SESSION
• October 12, 2006
• Eugene, Oregon

2
Criteria for Evaluating State Special Education
Funding Formulas

• Understandable
• Equitable
• Adequate
• Predictable
• Flexible
• Identification Neutral
• Reasonable Reporting Burden

• Fiscal Accountability
• Cost-Based
• Cost Control
• Placement Neutral
• Outcome Accountability
• Connection to Regular Education Funding
• Political Acceptability

3
Criteria for Evaluating State Special Education
Funding Formulas

• Understandable
• The funding system and its underlying policy
  objectives are understandable by all concerned
  parties (legislators, legislative staff, state
  department personnel, local administrators, and
  advocates).
• The concepts underlying the formula and the
  procedures to implement it are straightforward
  and avoid unnecessary complexity.

4
Criteria for Evaluating State Special Education
Funding Formulas

• Equitable
• Student equity Dollars are distributed to ensure
  comparable program quality regardless of district
  assignment.
• Wealth equity Availability of overall funding is
  not correlated with local wealth.
• District-to-district fairness All districts
  receive comparable resources for comparable
  students.

5
Criteria for Evaluating State Special Education
Funding Formulas

• Adequate
• Funding is sufficient for all districts to
  provide appropriate programs for special
  education students.
• Predictable
• Local education agencies (LEAs) know allocations
  in time to plan for local services.
• The system produces predictable demands for state
  funding.
• State and local education agencies can count on
  stable funding across years.

6
Criteria for Evaluating State Special Education
Funding Formulas

• Flexible
• LEAs are given latitude to deal with unique local
  conditions in an appropriate and cost-effective
  manner.
• Changes that affect programs and costs can be
  incorporated into the funding system with minimum
  disruption.
• LEAs are given maximum latitude in use of
  resources in exchange for outcome accountability.
  

7
Criteria for Evaluating State Special Education
Funding Formulas

• Identification Neutral
• The number of students identified as eligible for
  special education is not the only, or primary,
  basis for determining the amount of special
  education funding to be received.
• Students do not have to be labeled disabled (or
  any other label) in order to receive services.

8
Criteria for Evaluating State Special Education
Funding Formulas

• Reasonable Reporting Burden
• Costs to maintain the funding system are
  minimized at both local and state levels.
• Data requirements, recordkeeping, and reporting
  are kept at a reasonable level.
• Fiscal Accountability
• Conventional accounting procedures are followed
  to assure that special education funds are spent
  in an authorized manner.
• Procedures are included to contain excessive or
  inappropriate special education costs.

9
Criteria for Evaluating State Special Education
Funding Formulas

• Cost-Based
• Funding received by districts for the provision
  of special education programs is linked to the
  costs they face in providing these programs.
• Cost Control
• Conventional accounting procedures are followed
  to assure that special education funds are spent
  in an authorized manner.
• Procedures are included to contain excessive or
  inappropriate special education costs.

10
Criteria for Evaluating State Special Education
Funding Formulas

• Placement Neutral
• District funding for special education is not
  linked to where services are received.
• District funding for special education is not
  based on type of educational placement.
• District funding for special education is not
  based on disability label.

11
Criteria for Evaluating State Special Education
Funding Formulas

• Outcome Accountability
• State monitoring of local agencies is based on
  various measures of student outcomes.
• A statewide system for demonstrating satisfactory
  progress for all students in all schools is
  developed.
• Schools showing positive results for students are
  given maximum program and fiscal latitude to
  continue producing favorable results.

12
Criteria for Evaluating State Special Education
Funding Formulas

• Connection to Regular Education Funding
• The special education funding formula should have
  a clear conceptual link to the regular education
  finance system.
• Integration of funding will be likely to lead to
  integration of services.
• Political Acceptability
• Implementation avoids any major short-term loss
  of funds.
• Implementation involves no major disruption of
  existing services.

13
Policy Issues in Special Education Funding

• Overarching SE formula goals
• Adequate How much funding is needed to reach
  the education goals set for the states SE
  students?
• Equitable Are these funds being fairly
  distributed based on variations in student needs?
• Efficient Are funds distributed to
• Produce reasonable reporting burden?
• Foster best practice?

14
Georgia Special Education Funding Issues (2005)

• Primary concern How to remove fiscal barriers to
  inclusive practices?
• Current system is
• Based on a system of levels, segments, and
  disability categories
• Outdated, complex, and burdensome to administer
• Inequitable in that funding differences do not
  appear related to special education or poverty
  measures

15
Percentage of the Total Special Education
Population (age 6-21) Spending Less than 21 Time
Outside General Ed Classroom Nation and Georgia,
1990 2002
16
Georgia Special Education Funding Issues

• Recommendations
• Simple pupil weights (e.g., disability category
  or placement) OR
• Census-based system with high-cost contingency
  fund

17
North Dakota Special Education Funding Issues
(2006)

• Current system is census-based, with a high
  cost fund for extraordinary costs to account for
  variations in student need
• Issues
• High cost funds growing as a share of the total
  state special education funds (currently 22)
• Students placed by external agencies are funded
  at 100. Other high cost students are funded at
  30 due to fiscal pressure posed by the first
  group

18
Purpose of Wyoming SEEP Study (2002)

• To define adequate resource guidelines for
  special education
• To determine how much is spent on special
  educational services
• To consider how to best fund special education in
  the context of first two objectives

19
Defining Adequacy in Wyoming
20
Defining Adequacy in Wyoming
21
Goals of the NY Adequacy Study (2004)

• Estimate the cost of an adequate education
• Pupil need
• Scale of operations
• Prices of comparable inputs
• Product a cost estimate for each district in NY
  State

22
NY Study Convene Professional Judgment Panels

• Panels of highly qualified educators supplied
  with assumptions regarding
• Desired student outcomes
• Student demographics
• Other context variables
• Panels then asked to
• Develop instructional programs
• Specify nature and quantity of resources
  necessary to provide an opportunity for students
  to meet the specified outcomes

23
NY Study Special Education Panels

• Two special education panels were convened to
  specify the supplemental resources needed for
  special education students to meet the specified
  outcome standard

24
Washington State Special Education and Adequacy

• State constitution makes it the duty of the state
  to provide ample provision for the education of
  all children in WA
• Courts have held that the state must fund the
  cost of a properly formulated IEP for students
  with disabilities but have not defined this cost

25
Washington State Special Education and Adequacy

• Districts argue that there is a gap between what
  the state provides and this obligation.
• The state may argue that the funding it provides
  meets its constitutional requirement.
• If districts are spending more than what is
  provided, perhaps that it due to the
  over-provision of services.

26
Washington State Special Education and Adequacy
Number of Special Education Students per FTE
Staff (based on total special education
enrollment)
Note The higher numbers in Washington implies
that the state has fewer SE teachers and related
service providers in relation to the nation.
27
Washington State Special Education and Adequacy

• What is needed is a clear definition of
  adequate standards for special education
  service in Washington from which such concepts as
  the cost of a properly formulated IEP can be
  derived.

28
Contact Information

• Tom Parrish, CSEF Director
• American Institutes for Research (AIR)
• tparrish_at_air.org
• Website csef.air.org