ERIC ED391270: Toward More Integrated Special Education Funding and Services.

9 Pages·1995·0.27 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 391 270
EC 304 519
AUTHOR
Verstegen, Deborah A.; McLaughlin, Margaret J.
TITLE
Toward Mnre Integrated Special Education Funding and
Services.
INSTITUTION
American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral
Sciences, Palo Alto, CA. Center for Special Education
Finance.
SPONS AGENCY
Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS),
DC.
PUB DATE
95
CONTRACT
H159G20002
NOTE
9p.; For Policy Papers on which these articles are
based, see ED 381 933 and ED 385 049.
AVAILABLE FROM
Center for Special Education Finance, American
Institutes for Research, P.O. Box 1113, 1791
Arastradero Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94302-1113; e-mail:
[email protected] (free).
PUB TYPE
Collected Works
Serials (022)
Viewpoints
(Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)
(120)
JOURNAL CIT
CSEF Resource; Fall 1995
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
Compliance (Legal); Cooperative Planning; Cooperative
Prozrams; *Delivery Systems; *Disabilities;
Educational Change; *Educational Finance; Elementary
Secondary Education; Federal Government; *Financia!
Policy; Government Role; *Inclusive Sch6ols; *Regular
and Special Education Relationship; School Districts;
State Government; Student Placement
IDENTIFIERS
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
ABSTRACT
This newsletter theme issue presents two separate
articles:
(1) "Toward More Integrated Special Education Funding and
Services: A Federal Perspective" (Deborah A. Verstegen) and (2)
"Toward More Integrated Special Education Funding and Services: A
Local Perspective" (Margaret J. McLaughlin). The first article
discusses results of a study of the fiscal requirements of federal
special education policy. The study identified options for reform and
attempted to cross-validate information from interviews with
approximately three dozen policymakers, scholars, and federal and
state officials. Sixteen specific recommendations for fine-tuning the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act are listed. The second
article focuses on the lack of coordination across integrated
programs at the classroom level; identifies three collaborative
models; describes various administrative mechanisms to promote
flexibility and consolidation; and considers challenges to greater
program consolidation such as a shortage of bilingual teachers,
requirements of categorical programs, and human factors. The
importance of local efforts as well as federal and state policy
changes in fostering program consolidation is stressed.
(DB)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office Of Educational Research and
improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
/CENTER (ERIC/
This document has been reproduced
as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction Quality.
t
Points ot view or opinions staled in this docu-
ment do not necessarily represent official
he
OERI posdion or policy
CSE1:resource
Center for Special Education Finance
Fall 1995
Toward More Integrated Special Education Funding
and Services: A Federal Perspective
Deborah A. Verstegen, University of Virginia
O
ver the past two decades, under
law and practice that may be neces-
Key Issues
the provisions of the Individuals
sary to enhance the Act and fine-
General questions posed for the study
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
tune it for the 21st century.
included the following:
significant increases have occurred in
This article discusses the results
Are there barriers in federal law or
the access of students with disabilities
of a study designed to address is-
practice that discourage the appro-
into special education programs and
sues specifically related to the fiscal
priate inclusion of children with dis-
related services in public elementary
requirements of federal special ed-
abilities into the general education
and secondary schools across the
ucation policy. A review of the
classroom?
nation. More recently, attention has
scholarly literature and testimony
What options are available to
focused on the environment in which
presented at hearings on the reau-
reduce fragmentation and foster more
programs are provided and the out-
thorization of the IDEA were exam-
inclusive programs for exceptional
comes students with disabilities
ined and used to develop a prelimi-
children and youth when appropriate,
achieve. As lawmakers, educators,
nary catalogue of options for
particularly as related to fiscal account-
and others examine these and other
reform and to cross validate infor-
ability requirements under the IDEA?
emerging issues under the aegis of
mation from approximately three
What should be the role of special
the reauthorization of the IDEA in
dozen interviews conducted with
education in the education reform
Congress, numerous questions are
policymakers, scholars, and federal
movement and Goals 2000 initiative?
being raised concerning changes in
and state officials.
A Call for More
About CSEF
Integrated Programs
The Center for Special Education Finance was established in 1992 to address a
Based on a wealth of research, as well
comprehensive set
of fiscal
issues related to the delivery and support cf special
as the best thinking of a number of
education services to children throughout the United States. CSEF's mission, as
interviewees, this study explored a
well, is to provide information needed by policymakers to make informed decisions
full gamut of federal options for more
regarding the provision of services to children with disabilities, and to provide
coordinated programs for excep-
opportunities for information sharing regarding critical fiscal policy issues.
tional students aimed at enhanced
outcomes
from "do nothing" to the
In this issue
full incorporation of the IDEA into a
single federal block grant. However,
Toward More Integrated Special Education Funding
it seems fairly clear from study
and Services: A Federal Perspective
findings that neither of these extremes
1
Toward More Integrated Special Education Funding
is likely to be the most effective or
and Services: A Local Perspective
desirable, but rather that some middle
2
CSEF News and Update
course of action is needed.
6
CSEF Resources and Publications
7
(continued on page 4)
Feature
Toward More Integrated Special
tional continuity. Some schools have
special teachers come into regular
Education Funding and Services:
classrooms to work with identified
students or provide specialized
A Local Perspective
services in an after-school program.
Other schools organize a student
Margaret I. McLaughlin, University of Maryland
study team or a similar support team,
Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth
including regular classroom teachers
and categorical specialists, to provide
support to individual teachers regard-
ing specific students.
Team teaching model
collab-
The segregation and fragmentation of educational exper-
oration amor,, teachers who instruct
heterogeneouc groups of students to
iences for students receiving services through state and
provide extra assistance in a regular
.-ederal categorical programs, such as Title I of the Improv-
classroom and reduce special educa-
ing America's Schools Act (IASA) and Part B of the Individuals with
tion referrals. In Massachusetts,
"support specialists" work within
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), are issues of increasing concern
classrooms with individuals or small
to program administrators and educational policymakers.
groups who need academic help.
Some of the students are eligible for
The lack of coordination across pro-
categorical programs; some are not.
gram, Restructuring Schools for the
grams at the classroom level and, the
All teachers in the building collabo-
Integration of All Students, to support
lack of strong evidence to support the
consolidation efforts in seven school
rate, communicate, and divide class-
efficacy of pull-out instruction have
districts. Maryland does not have a room responsibilities.
prompted school administrators to
specific statewide effort, but several
Learning resource center model
examine new models of collaboration
a center staffed by resource specialists
local education agencies have de-
and consolidation to create more
signed programs to promote greater
funded by various categorical pro-
integrated programs for students
collaboration. Twenty-two state and
grams where students come for short-
considered to be at risk. In addition,
local program administrators in these
or long-term assistance regardless of
recent federal legislation (such as
states were interviewed about the
program eligibility. This model is used
degree of program consolidation
Coals 2000: Educate America Act, the
in some California districts and sever-
occurring in their schools. The study
School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and
al other states. Originally created for
IASA) contains specific provisions for
results identify some of the strategies
students identified as learning dis-
waivers of certain federal statutory
being used to promote these new
abled, the centers have expanded to
and regulatory programs in order to
models, as well as issues or barriers
serve students with a range of short
encourage greater state and local
to achieving greater collaboration.
and longer term academic needs.
flexibility and innovation in their
Although students are "pulled out" of
Collaborative Models
school improvement efforts.
regular classrooms, the centers require
Local administrators reported using a
collaboration across categorical pro-
Local Trends and Issues
variety of collaborative models,
grams, as well as between these pro-
To begin to identify local efforts to
including the three described below.
gram specialists and the general
consolidate or blend federal and state
Almost every administrator spoke of
classroom teacher. Additionally, the
categorical educational programs, an
the need to stop pulling students out
co-funding of staff positions facilitates
exploratory study was conducted in
service to multifunded students.
of classes and to find ways to supple-
California, Maryland, and Massachu-
ment core instruction to meet individ-
Program Administration
setts. Since the early 1980s, California
ual students' needs.
has had a major initiative called Every
Teacher collaboration model
Districts are clearly moving toward
greater collaboration among teachers
Student Succeeds (ESS) to consolidate
categorical teachers instructing only
state categorical programs. Massa-
and a greater emphasis on providing
eligible or identified students but
chusetts has a five-year grant pro-
supplemental education and support
working together to ensure instruc-
2
the
resource
CSEF
Feature
eligible students in the classroommd
number of languages spoken in the
within the context of regular class-
lasroom.
state compensatory education monies.
rooms. Efforts to create more flexi-
Program audits and the "non-
bility tend to be focused at the school
Cimsolidated grants application,
supplanting" requirements of cate-
level, while program administra-
require various program directors to
tion and fiscal management remain
develop service delivery proposals
gorical programs
Constraining
largely separate in the districts.
collaboratively. Most California
collaboration is the fear of audits,
Interviewees described a karietv of
school districts use this process, but
particularly of Title I programs, and
administrative mechanisms to pro- few actually mingle funds and only
the regulations inherent in categorical
programs, even though the need for
mote flexibility and consolidation.
limited staff collaboration is occurring
in many districts. The application is
some regulation is widely acknowl-
One is use of the School Improve-
seen as only a first step, as was report-
ment Plans (SIP), typically developed
edged.
through consensus of principal and
Human factors
ed in Massachusetts, but the process
I laying pro-
staff, parents, and community mem-
reportedly creates greater school-level
gram leadership and an advocate for
bers. District administrators use SII's
collaborative programs "at the top"
collaboration.
to encourage more innovative uses
are critical for success. Barriers to
In California a coordinated compli-
for school resources. They believe the
ance review is conducted every four
effective consolidation include a lack
process works only if schools are
years by a team of program staff to
of knowledge of program regulations;
permitted to use resources flexibly,
a tendency for "turf guarding";
examine all of the district's categorical
but are also required to develop
programs and to model collaboration
strong advocacy for particular pro-
consolidated staffing plans and other
and cross-program communiCation.
grams; deficits in teacher motivation,
strategies that reinforce a climate of
certification, and qualifications; and
Broader wstructuring initiatives, like
collaboration.
California's ESS, also provide a frame-
fear among general educatOrs that
special education had power to "take
work for districts to engage in a
Schoign,ide Title I programs, using
models like those described above or
comprehensive planning process to
over" consolidated programs.
a school-based consolidated budget
ensure that all students are learning
Conclusions
process, were the easiest to involve in
the state's core curriculum.
consolidation, according to inter-
Neither federal nor state policy
Challenges to Program
viewees. Although staff positions
changes designed to foster more
Consolidation
may come to the school funded by a
program consolidation are sufficient.
specific budget, they can be used to
Administrators identified several
Local efforts require grass roots
support a collaborative teaching
issues that pose challenges to greater
leadership and a commitment to
model. Local dist ict administrators
program consolidation:
change on the part of district and
school building leadership.
Consolidation of programs typi-
Having program leadership and an
cally means that human resources
advocate for collaborative programs
can be used more flexibly, but funds
are rarely mingled with district or
"at the top" are critical for success.
school budgets. Increasingly, district
accountability is focused less on
Multifunded students
were relying on the permission of
ensuring how teachers spend their
Concep-
state-level program administrators to
tualizing the flow of resources to these
time than on ensuring that students
develop these more collaborative
students remains difficult without a
are making progress or are receiving
models.
comprehensive redesign of service
specific supplementary services.
programs. This, in turn, creates the
A replacement model, using a vari-
ety of resources to staff a classroom
need to examine other policies, such
with two teachers, was approved by
as teacher certification, which create
the federal Title I administration for
barriers to program flexibility.
This article is based on CSEF Policy
Maryland. In some Maryland dis-
Shortage of bilingual teachers
Paper No. 5, Consolidation of Special
tricts, one teacher is locally funded
Enabling bilingual students to access
Education Funding and Services: A
and the second is funded by Title I
the full curriculum is severely affected
Local Perspective, by Margaret I.
monies, based on the number of Title I-
by this shortage and by the increasing
McLaughlin (March 1995).
4
Fall 1995
3
Cover Story
FEDERAL PERSPECTIVE (continued from page I)
set of fragmented, uncoordinated
most part, resulted in disjointed, rather
A summary of specific recom-
funding and service models to a new,
than unified, schooling systems.
mendations for finetuning the IDEA,
more unified model of provision.
Fiscal accountability provisions re-
suggested by respondents to this
Some argue that no changes in fed-
lated to categorical aid programs are
study, appears in the table below.
eral statutes, regulations, or guidelines
seen by others as providing obstacles
Overall, a consensus was reported
are needed because all of the flexibility
to greater integration and improved
that special education reform should
required is already in place, if state and
outcomes for all students. Finetuning
be, and in fact is, integrally tied to
local decisionmakers just seek it out
the full set of accountability stan-
changes occurring in the entire edu-
and make full use of it. However,
dards under current law, in which
the
cation system. Given the new con-
while examples of school districts with
learning requirements of special
structs of high quality education
integrated, unified service provision
needs students are more fully concep-
standards for
children at
can be found under extant rules and
tualized and aligned with the needs
all
all
schools, intervieWees considered
regulations (McLaughlin, 1995), it is
of all students, may provide one an-
what steps the federal government
clear that the current provisions and
swer to this problem. Augmenting ac-
might take to move from the current
-tate and local practices have, for the
countability models with updated
Recommendations for More Integrated Funding and Services
a Maintain the
fundamental objectives of the IDEA as stated in statute, but finetune the Act to meet the
requirements of the information age and global economy.
Reflect a unified national vision of reform in policy, rules, and regulations
across programs and finances,
and across the diverse set of federal actors impacting localities, including those in policy, programs, auditing,
and monitoring.
a Clarify and emphasize the provisions of current law that allow localities to integrate and coordinate programs
and services for students with disabilities to the maximum extent possible, but do not blend funding streams
That is, maintain categorical aid; do not provide block grants.
Consolidate selected categorical aid programs under the IDEA to broaden their scope within the parameters of
current law, such as the discretionary program authorities
Provide an authoritative and definitive review of all current accountability and monitoring requirements related to
the IDEA that impact localities, and determine what is and what is not required by law and what is permissible
regarding local flexibility. Disseminate results broadly.
Review the "maintenance of effort" provision and consider changing the required level pi &foci to 90 percent
rather than 100 percent, under certain specified conditions (e.g., for small school districts), or allowing adversely
affected districts to seek an exception to this provision.
Determine and clarify, through policy guidance, rules, or regulations, the extent of flexiblity in the "supplement-
not-supplant" fiscal accountability provisions; apply these requirements consistently.
Provide written guidance or rules and regulations on the "incidental benefit rule" to clarify what and when
special education services, personnel, materials, and equipment are permitted to be used for non-special
education students.
4
the CSEF resource
Cover Story
sphere needs to be created in which
in highly fragmented, segregated
systems that include a focus on peda-
these practices are clearly fostered
services in the vast majority of school
gogy and results, but maintain the
and encouraged, across the diverse
current input standards, hay( also
systems across America. Conversely,
set of actors involved with national
a single federal block grant is feared
been urged, as have clarifyirq; and
because this extreme version of
disability policy, and at all levels of
broadening fiscal requiremen -s under
current law. blended funding may cause the
the system.
important guarantees that the indi-
A Range of Federal Options
vidual categorical laws were designed
To respond to these concerns will
to protect to disappear. Rather than a
require some changes in direction at
radical change in law, it seems that
the federal level. What form should
what is really needed is a shift in
This article is based on CSEF Ptdicy
these changes take? While the current
emphasis or direction under the
Paper No. 0, Cmisolidation
of
system may allow the needed flexibil-
current provisions of the IDEA.
Special Education Fundins and
ity for greater local integration and
Beyond tolerating integration and
Services: A Federal Perspective, by
coordination, in fact it has resulted
coordination, a new policy atmo-
Deborah A. Verstesen (July 1995).
Reinstate the fiscal data collection provision that was repealed in the 1990 IDEA Amendments, and report fiscal
information to Congress annually. Develop and report linkages between cost indicators and pedagogical practices
that enhance outcomes for exceptional children and youth.
Allow a set-aside of 5 to 10 percent of assistance under the IDEA to bridge services within education
or across
ec, -ation and other agencies, to be used
at local
discretion.
a Pmvide adequate federal
gap between
aid to
close the
authorizations and appropriations.
Encoui agc :;tatc3
to (a)
broaden special education teacher certification categories, (b) review SEA organization with
attention to noncategorical
organizational
arrangements, (c) review and improve their special education finance
systems and programmatic policies to insure that incentives are not provided for more restrictive placements, and
identify state versus federal rules and regulations for special education and report this information to localities.
(Ol
Design, disseminate, and provide training in new models of accountability that include
process and outcome
accountability (but do not replace input accountability) to direct attention to results in education and
emerging new
practices and pedagogies for students with disabilities educated in general classroom settings.
Develop national standards regarding the inclusion of children with disabilities in statewide
assessments and
reports. Collect and report the extent of
participation and
outcomes by state, and the criteria used to determine
and accommodations.
permissible exclusions
Provide
a statement in the purposes section of the IDEA to reiterate that students with disabilities are full
participants in state and local education reform
and the Goals 2000
initiative.
Facilitate the full inclusion of exceptional pupils into the broad national discussion and debate
over what all students
should know
and
be able to do to achieve the national education goals and the corresponding and relevant content,
performance, and opportunity-to-learn
standards that
are needed to achieve these upgraded outcomes.
Fall 1995
5
News and Update
CSEF State Studies Continue
c
ince the last newsletter, CSEF completed its study of special education
CSEF Staff
costs and revenues for the Massachusetts Department of Education and
Co-directors
initiated work in Missouri.
lay C. Ch,mbers. Thomas 13. Parrish
Manager of Dissemination/Editor
Massachusetts
lean NI. Wohnan
As a result of Massachusetts' Education Reform Act of 1993, state funding
Graphic Design & Production
for special education changed from a system of weights related to student
Brian I lilton
placement to a "census" system based on the overall population of students
Staff
in the state. CSEF conducted this study to provide policvmakers with
lxtlac Duehas, Christine biikido,
information about the patterns of decisionmaking and resource allocation
Deborah Montgomery, Viviane
related to special education services in the state as a result of the recent
Schaller. Robert Vergon, Ann Win
reforms..\mong the key findings:
Schools spending proportionately moi.2 on interated resource programs
is
Advisory Board Members
aspect ot implementing an mclusionary
one
show no
model
service
meaningful difference in the overall level of special education budgets,
Mr. B/Joseph Ballard
even when analysis controls for the type of school, type of district, or
Colwell fOr Exceptional Children
alternate measures of community wealth.
Dr. Stephen Chaikind
Gallaudet Universitu.
The additional special education funding generated by the new state
School of Management
funding formula, combined with federal revenues, falls short of the
Mr. Robert Feir
estimated special education expenditure. Expenditures for special edu-
MO
Pennsylvania
cation students served within internal programs exceeded revenues by
more than 20 percent.
Dr. Martha J. Fields
National Association of State
Despite the adoption of a census-based funding approach being applied
Directors of Special Education
to the vast majority of special education children, Massachusetts still
Dr. John Heskett
maintains separate funding provisions for private residential placements.
Missouri Department of Education
Thus, there continues to be a fiscal incentive to place certain categories of
Dr. Margaret McLaughlin
special education students in these separate placements.
Institute for the Study of
Exceptional
Children and Youth
Missouri
Ms. Celane McWhorter
In March 1995, the Missouri State Board of Education established the State
United Cerebral Palsy
Special Education Finance Committee to consider a range of issues including
Ms. Irina 0,her
the goals and cost efficiency of special education programs. CSEF Co-director
Consultant
Tom Parrish has been working with the committee in considering possible
Dr. Virginia Roach
revisions to Missouri's special education funding formula. In addition to pro-
National Association of State
viding a conceptual framework for considering finance reform and sharing
Boards of Education
federal and state perspectives on reform, Tom has facilitated the committee's
Mr. Robert Van Dyke
attempt to formulate concrete policy alternatives.
Council of Administrators
ot Special Education
During its deliberations, the committee strongly considered moving away
from its current resource-based funding system
which reimburses districts
Dr. Edard (Lee) Vargas
at a set rate for specified staff and a set rate for homebound and contractual
Santa Ana Unified School District,
California
services
toward a "census" system that is based on total district enroll-
ments. However, in December 1995, the committee decided to adapt the
current funding system to better suit the needs of the state's schools and its
students with disabilities.
(continued on page 8)
6
the CSEF
resource
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
7
_
Resources and Publications
Publications on the Horizon
Upcoming Policy Papers
Update of State Special
Education Finance Systems
CSEF will soon release two new policy papers on issues related to special
education funding policy and reform:
Two years ago CSEF issued a
The Future ot Special Education Finance, by Thomas B. Parrish, Co-director
summary of state funding systems,
of CSEF, will focus on issues related to the upcoming reauthorization of
based on survey information
the IDEA, including state finance issues affecting future policy, and the
compiled for 1992-93. Staff, with
need to develop more results-based accountability systems.
the assistance of consultant Fran E.
O'Reilly, have completed a new
Cost-Effectiveness of Instructional Support Teams in Pennsylvania, by
William T. Hartman and Todd A. Fay, Pennsylvania State University,
survey of state directors of special
will describe an innovative response to current fiscal and programmatic
education, and are presently
challenges in special education, which has been adopted in many
compiling the updated information.
states
iweferral intervention. The paper will also examine the cost-
It will be available from CSEF
effectiveness of Instructional Support Teams adopted in Pennsylvania.
during Spring 1996.
State Analysis Series Launched
rr
o share the results of our work with individual states, CSEF recently
To Order CSEF Publications
introduced the State Analysis Series of papers. While CSEF Policy Papers
focus on broad issues related to special education finance and program reform
Copies of most CSEF publications
at various levels of governance, the State Analysis Series includes profiles (or
can be ordered at no cc..,t. Policy
case studies) of state special education finance reform based on interviews
papers can be ordered for $12.001
conducted with state special education administrators, findings of state cost
copy or $60 for a complete set of
analyses and resource allocation studies conducted by CSEF or other
seven papers, including postage and
researchers contracted by CSEF, and other state-relevant reports. Featured
handling.
states, thus far, include Kentucky, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.
For an annotated list of CSEF
products and an order form, see
Six papers have been released and are available from CSEF:
CSEF Publications
brochure. If you
would like to order any publications
A Profile of Special Education Finance Rcform in Oregon
or be included on our mailing list,
A Profile of Special Education Finance Reform in Vermont
return the order form or contact
The Politics of Special Education f inance Reform in Three States
CSEF.
(Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont)
Center for Special Education Finance
Impact of the Koaucky Education Reform Act on Special Education
American Institutes for Research
Costs and Funding
P.O. Box 1113, 1791 Arastradero Road
Impact of the Kentucky Education Rcforni Act on Special Education
Palo Alto, CA 94302-1113
Programs and Services: Perceptions of Special Education [Directors
Phone: [phone]
A Case Study of "Supported Education" in Oregon: Resource
FAX: [phone]
Implications of Inclusion
e-mail: [email protected]
thi,, series, including profiles of
CSEF plans to issue additional papers ii
special education reforms in Florida, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.
3
Fall 1995
7
Resources and Publications
New Policy Paper Explores Linkages
MISSOURI (c(»Itin fled from page h
In addition, the Committee made
Between State Funding Formulas
a series of legislative recommenda-
and Separate Placements
tions to:
ensure more adequate funding of
SEF has just issued Policy Paper No. 7, State Special Education Funding
ancillary special education person-
Formulas and the Use of Separate Placements for Students with Disabilities:
nel who work for districts under
Exploring Linkages, by Fran E. O'Reilly, CSEF consultant. A preview of this
contract and the provision of ex-
paper follows.
ceptionally high cost services for
students with severe disabilities
Special educators and policymakers have increasingly focused on the
need to meet the least restrictive environment (LRE) requirement of the IDEA
promote the approval of innova-
tive service delivery syst:s that
and to in,nlement more inclusionary educational practices. In addition, a
growing ni.rnber of states have been enacting special education tinance and
may involve waiving state regu-
program retonns that often include changes in the special education funding
lations
formula and in;reased flexibility in decisionmaking at the local level. Within
allow the Special Education Finance
this context, O'Reilly explores the relationship between alternative types of
Committee to continue to study
state funding formulas and the use of separate placements for students with
funding alternatives for special
disabilities. The paper also identifies other characteristics of states that might
education
be associated with the degree to which they use separate placements for the
delivery of special education services. Results are based on analyses of
state-level data reported by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP),
CSEF survey data on state funding systems, and interviews with state special
education administrators.
The CSEF Resource is
published by the Center for
Special Education Finance
(CSEF) at the American
Key Findings
Institutes for Research (AIR)
Although state funding formulas may have son' influence on the
in Palo Alto, CA. CSEF is
placement of students with disabilities, this relationship is "only
funded by the Office of
one piece of a complex puzzle that includes a variety of other
Special Education Programs
factors." (llo single type of funding formula was found for states
(OSEP), U S. Department of
that use separate placements the most.)
Education, under a five-year
cooperative agreement
One variable found to have a relationship to the use of separate
#H159G20002. The opinions
placements is population density
that is, states with higher
expressed in this newsletter
population density tend to use separate placements to a greater
are those of CSEF and do not
extent than states with lower population density.
necessarily reflect the views
of the U S. Department of
Changes to the state funding formula alone are unlikely to create
Education or our network of
dramatic shifts in the placements of students with disabilities in
advisors and professional
the absence of other programmatic changes, such as staff training
organizations.
and support.
AMERICAN INS1'1117ES FOR RESMRCI I
Center for Special Education Finance (CSEF)
1791 Arastradero Road, P.O. Box 1113
Palo Alto, CA 94302-1113