Special Education Funding Reform: A Review of Impact Studies

Abstract

Various models for funding special education services have been described in the literature. This paper aims at moving the debate concerning special education funding reform beyond the descriptive level by reviewing studies that investigated the impact of various models for funding special education. Systematic searches were conducted of ERIC and PsycINFO to identify studies that investigated the impact, implications, or outcome of one or more special education funding models. Ten studies were identified covering five major funding models. The results showed that the funding reforms investigated in these studies each had associated benefits, but also potential detriments. However, these studies mainly involved indirect outcome measures, often failed to fully assess impact on academic achievement or cost-effectiveness. Results highlight the need for additional research on the impact of special education funding reform.

Mapping policy approaches and practices for the inclusion of students with special education needs

“…Despite such general considerations, the advantages and disadvantages of output models may vary according to their specificities on conditions for funding, more precisely, on whether funding and/or funding premiums are based on outputs or progress achieved. When progress achieved stands as a main condition for funding, this can create more positive incentives to improve the quality of services (Fletcher-Campbell et al, 2003[200]; Shewbridge, 2016 [120]). 2) Identification of students with special education needs can be based on an official and shared assessment.…”

Designing out barriers to student access and participation in secondary school assessment

“…While the mechanisms differ between education systems across Australia, most students with disability receive support through a hierarchy of responses beginning with differentiated teaching practice and supplementary adjustments, such as extra time in exams. Students considered to have low to moderate support needs are funded through census-based resource allocation methods (Sigafoos et al 2010), which include a mix of staffing (e.g. learning support teacher allocation) and funding based on school enrolment numbers and school/community need.…”

“…To date, individually targeted (per student) funding has been tightly regulated by eligibility criteria that are tied to medical categories and departmental 'verification' of disability (Sigafoos et al 2010). 2 The verification process is highly bureaucratic, labour intensive and administratively expensive.…”

UNESCO Inclusion Policy and the Education of School Students with Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities:Where to Now?

“…In the United States the requirement for all students to be performance benchmarked on common assessment scales has brought considerable criticism from those who doubt their validity (Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, 2009). In Australia, as in many countries, inconsistent interpretations of pertinent government legislation meant that educational policies and practices at state, regional and local levels were quite divergent (NSW Disability Discrimination Legal Centre, 2010; Sigafoos et al, 2010).…”