close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

код для вставкиСкачать
Session 15:
Financing and School Management Models
Examples from the United States
CONFERENCE ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
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
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.
2
SE count as a % of estimated resident
population ages 3 through 21, by state: 2008
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
US TOTAL
State
New Jersey
West Virginia
Maine
Rhode Island
Wyoming
Indiana
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Oklahoma
New Hampshire
Nebraska
Pennsylvania
Illinois
New York
Florida
Alaska
Missouri
Ohio
South Carolina
Arkansas
Utah
Nevada
Louisiana
Georgia
Maryland
Alabama
Texas
Hawaii
California
Colorado
Idaho
8.5%
11.5%
11.5%
11.4%
10.9%
10.7%
10.7%
10.4%
10.4%
10.1%
10.0%
9.7%
9.6%
9.4%
9.3%
9.3%
9.3%
9.2%
9.2%
9.2%
9.1%
7.5%
7.5%
7.4%
7.3%
7.3%
7.1%
7.0%
6.8%
6.8%
6.8%
6.7%
Changes in Special Education Spending Over
Time - US
Changes In Total Spending Per Special
Education Pupil Over Time
(68-69, 77-78, 85-86, 99-00)
$14,000
$12,474
$12,474
$12,000
$9,674
$10,000
$9,858
$8,000
$6,000
$6,335
$5,961
$3,577
$4,000
$2,000
$1,257
$0
Per pupil in 1999-2000 dollars
Per pupil in unadjusted dollars
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
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?
Adequacy: # of Students in SE per Service Provider
and Estimated SE Spending by State (04-05)
National Unweighted (50
states / DC, excld BIA)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
New York
Hawaii
Personnel based
Total Related Service
Providers (including other SE spending
estimate per
professional staff /
student
excluding interpreters)
Total Teachers
(serving 3-21)
Total aides (including
interpreters)
16.2
16.5
40.1
$
5,423
9.3
18.1
8.1
$
11,646
9.7
10.2
13.4
$
9,610
Vermont
12.1
4.4
22.4
$
8,682
New Hampshire
14.4
6.0
16.7
$
8,076
New Jersey
11.4
11.9
20.5
$
7,467
Rhode Island
12.6
14.8
19.0
$
7,076
Minnesota
13.1
9.6
23.4
$
6,892
Virginia
11.5
16.5
27.6
$
6,595
New Mexico
11.0
18.0
29.6
$
6,584
Kansas
15.6
6.9
31.1
$
6,239
Nebraska
18.1
15.1
58.5
$
4,217
Arkansas
15.0
22.8
89.9
$
4,211
Alaska
18.5
14.6
57.4
$
4,193
Ohio
16.6
30.7
50.6
$
4,189
Montana
21.6
16.6
45.3
$
3,955
District of Columbia
19.3
32.9
$
3,923
Tennessee
19.3
21.6
55.0
$
3,880
Utah
21.8
16.7
52.5
$
3,783
Indiana
22.1
20.6
46.9
$
3,732
Idaho
21.0
17.8
62.6
$
3,685
Oklahoma
20.1
26.1
58.8
$
3,626
South Carolina
21.5
28.0
60.2
$
3,420
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.
10
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
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
Data Suggest Heightened CostEffectiveness 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
Overarching Governance Framework
Define Objectives and Desired Results
Specify the Resources Needed for Appropriate Services
Program Initiatives
Student Result
Indicators
Funding Model
Assess Results Regarding Areas of Progress/Concern
Provide Support in Areas of Concern
and Learn from Areas of Success for Continuous Improvement
Contact Information
Tom Parrish, Managing Director
American Institutes for Research (AIR)
San Mateo, California, US
[email protected]
Website: csef.air.org
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа