1. Session 15: Financing and School Management Models Examples from the United States C ONFERENCE O N I NCLUSIVE E DUCATION F OR C HILDREN W ITH D ISABILITIES Organized by: UNICEF Regional Office for CEECIS & UNICEF Country Office in the Russian Federation 27-29 September, 2011 Thomas B. Parrish American Institutes for Research

2. 2 Special Education in the US National Versus State Roles  National law is the major source of special education policy and law.  However, implementation and funding come mostly from states and local communities.

3. SE count as a % of estimated resident population ages 3 through 21, by state: 2008

4. 4 Changes In Total Spending Per Special Education Pupil Over Time (68-69, 77-78, 85-86, 99-00) $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 Per pupil in 1999-2000 dollarsPer pupil in unadjusted dollars $5,961 $9,674 $9,858 $12,474 $1,257 $3,577 $6,335 $12,474 Changes in Special Education Spending Over Time - US

5. 5 Special Education Finance National Policy Issues - US  Rising enrollments  Increasing costs  Least restrictive environment  General education encroachment  Blended services/funds  Accountability  Increasing support at the national level  Cost-effectiveness/efficiency

6. 6 State Funding Formulas: Across the US  Multiple SE pupil weights (per capita): 12 states  Single SE pupil weight (per capita): 7 states  Census-based: 7 states  No separate SE formula: 7 states  Resource-based: 6 states  Percentage reimbursement: 5 states  Combination: 5 states  Block grant: 1 state

7. 7 State Funding Formulas: Per Capita Funding (Pupil Weights)  State special education aid is allocated “per capita,” based on the number of students in SE  The same per capita amount may be used for all students in special education, or  Funding weights may be differentiated on the basis of student placement, disability category, or some combination of the two

8. Fundamental Questions for Special Education Funding Policy  Adequate /Sufficient?– How much funding is needed to reach the education goals set for students in special education?  Equitable/Fair? Are these funds fairly distributed based on variations in student needs?  Efficient/Cost-effective? Is the system designed to: – Foster student learning/best practice? – Minimize administrative burdens?

9. Adequacy: # of Students in SE per Service Provider and Estimated SE Spending by State (04-05)

10. 10 Special Education Equity  All fifty states and the national government have additional funding provisions for students in special education to support supplemental services  However, how much this additional funding should differ by categories of students in special education remain an important question  States have approached this in very different ways.

11. Efficiency: Where are SE students served? US trends 1989 - 2005  The percentage of students in special education spending 80% or more of their school day in regular education classrooms has risen from 32% to 54% from 1989 to 2005 in the US  Placements in separate facilities declined early in this time period from 6% to 4% where they have remained for the past 15 years

12. Inclusion: State data – Fall 2006  The percentage of students in special education served in the least restrictive setting varies dramatically by state (78% in North Dakota to 10% in Virginia)  Placements in separate facilities range from 2% of all children in SE in several states to 16% in New Jersey  Data show North Dakota to be twice as restrictive as Virginia

13. Data Suggest Heightened Cost- Effectiveness Through Inclusion:  A US study concluded that fully supported placements in neighborhood schools cost about the same as in separate schools.  A number of studies have shown heightened emotional and social benefits from inclusion  Data from Illinois and California show heightened academic benefit as well

14. Define Objectives and Desired Results Specify the Resources Needed for Appropriate Services Assess Results Regarding Areas of Progress/Concern Provide Support in Areas of Concern and Learn from Areas of Success for Continuous Improvement Funding Model Student Result Indicators Program Initiatives Overarching Governance Framework

15. Contact Information Tom Parrish, Managing Director American Institutes for Research (AIR) San Mateo, California, US tparrish@air.org Website: csef.air.org