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 state’s 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

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) Special Education Personnel Washington State Practice 2002-03 (A) SEEP National 1999-2000 Practice (B) IDEA National Data (weighted) 2002-03 (C) Wyoming 2000-01 Adequacy Study (D) New York 2002-03 Adequacy Study (E) Teachers 22.917.415.216.510.7 Para- educators 24.031.417.713.815.2 Related service providers 51.630.431.726.8n/a 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@air.org Website: csef.air.org