Supplemental/Replacement: An Alternative Approach to Excess Costs

Abstract

Excess cost has been a prominent method of funding special education for many years and it is used by the federal government and by many states. The common approach is to calculate excess cost as the difference between special education cost per student and regular education cost per student. Despite its widespread use, there are both conceptual and practical difficulties in this approach. This article proposes a new operational definition of excess cost, which is based on programs and services rather than accounting calculations.

The State of Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Education

“…There are several methods for measuring additional expenses incurred in programs with difficult to serve populations. Hartman (1981Hartman ( , 1990) has compared "supplemental/replacement" and "excess costs" as two methods for estimating costs for children receiving special education services. Excess cost, the traditional method for funding special education, is calculated from a formula based on the difference between the cost to educate a special education student and the cost to educate a regular education student.…”

Cost Analysis for Improved Educational Policymaking and Evaluation

“…Its application in traditional education ranges from the costing of education interventions in the classroom or school to the costing of an entire education system or plan (Coombs & Hallak, 1987;Levin, 1983). Cost estimation has been conducted for a large variety of programs at different levels, including early childhood education programs (Barnett, Frede, Cox, & Black, 1994), special education programs (Hartman, 1990), career-oriented high school programs (Chambers, 1994), and vocational education and training (Tsang, 1997). The cost of new technology (including new education media and computers) in traditional education or distance education has been and will continue to be an important area of application (Jamieson, Klees, & Wells, 1978;Klees, 1995;Levin, Glass, & Meister, 1987).…”