Parents Engaged in Education Reform 

---


In this issue...   

Activities     
Publications     
National Standards for Involving Families in Education  
School-to-Work Initiatives   
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act     
In Brief 
Resources  
Cyber.SPACE 
PEER Teleconference: Impact of Education Reform on Issues of Financing School Services  
    

---

The questions focused on four areas:  

• How students experience school;
• The professional life of teachers;
• Leadership, management, and governance; and
• Coordination of services with the community.

In July, PEER sponsored a full-day training session on the new requirements of IDEA 97.  Jo Leta Reynolds of OSEP, DREDF’s Diane Lipton, Julia Landau of the Massachusetts Advocacy Center, and Kathy Boundy from the Center for Law and Education presented.   

Publications  
PEER is finishing up a new booklet on State Assessment Programs.   

Topics include:  

• how parents and parent centers can impact assessment issues at state and local levels,
• the latest available information on assessment programs in all fifty states, and
• how students with disabilities are involved.

PEER continues to work on school reform curriculum.  We are fortunate to have contributors from PEAK Parent Center, Center for Law and Education, Massachusetts Advocacy Center, National Center on Educational Outcomes, and the Institute on Disability at University of New Hampshire.  Each curriculum component will have an in-depth information brief to give the trainer a working knowledge of the topic, a two-page fact sheet for distribution to parents and professionals, and overhead samples/training tips helpful in presenting the topic.   

Year Three Focus  
PEER will be developing a sourcebook of promising and best practices in early math and reading literacy.  We will also be conducting site visits to successful early literacy programs.  Start thinking about your site visit team now; applications will become available in January.   
   

National Standards for Involving Families in Education  
Involving parents in school reform is critical. Research clearly demonstrates that students whose families are actively involved in their education do better academically. Family involvement also improves the quality of schools.  

A useful new resource for PTIs and other parent groups is the National PTA’s publication, National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs. This user-friendly tool is designed for school districts, schools, and parents to increase meaningful involvement of families in schools. The goal is to develop dynamic programs to improve   
student achievement and improve schools through parent involvement.  

The strategies described here are significant since they target substantive and meaningful activities to involve parents far beyond baking for school events, volunteering in the school office, or drilling a student on her spelling list.  

The six areas for which National PTA has developed standards for involving families actively are:   

• Communicating 
• Parenting 
• Student Learning 
• Volunteering 
• School Decision Making and Advocacy 
• Collaborating with Community 

• research summary regarding family involvement 
• description of the six standards 
• list of quality indicators for each standard 
• application examples for putting ideas into action 
• checklists for quality indicators for each standard 
• model parent/family involvement policy 

To obtain a copy of the National Standards for Involving Families,   
contact the National PTA at 33 North Wabash, Suite 2100, Chicago, IL 60611-3690 or call (312) 670-6782. Cost is $2.00 per copy plus $5.00   
shipping and handling.  

This article prepared by  
Barbara Buswell, PEAK  

The twelve building blocks of school-to work systems are:   

1. Leadership from executives. Where school-to-work finds an advocate at the executive level, the reform is more likely to take root throughout the educational system. Where that advocacy is absent, school-to-work is likely to remain a tenuous and fragmented activity, however strong the support from other sectors. 
2. Leadership from program deliverers. The category of program deliverers covers a variety of roles, including instructor, counselor, transition specialist, school-to-work coordinator, and others. As managers, program deliverers must possess excellent organizational and communication skills. As reformers, they must have substantial knowledge of pedagogy, curriculum, the industry, and the student population. Whether their training is academic or experiential, effective program deliverers also understand youth development and learning theory, including the variety of learning styles and the stages of adolescent development. 
3. Professional development for teachers and staff.  For any reform effort to take root successfully in a school system, practice in classrooms, counseling sessions, and administration must change.  School-to-work initiatives adopt professional development to engage school staff in the reform, ensuring that at least some will change their professional practice sufficiently to support the vision and strategies of reform. 
4. Cross-sector collaboration.  A school-to-work transition system is by definition dependent on effective collaboration among all of the stakeholders. The first step in developing a representative system is to take stock of the range of partners in a community.  To foster a sense of empowerment in their ability to influence the shape of the system, it is important to engage partners early in the process.  The goal of such extensive and carefully nurtured partnerships is an atmosphere of shared vision, beliefs, and ultimately, resources. 
5. Student self-determination. To help students prepare for a lifetime of learning, fulfilling work, and productive adult lives, school-to-work transition systems must foster and support self-determination in all students. Students should be encouraged to take responsibility for their learning, to understand and manage their career options, and to develop social skills and a maturity level that will help them interact positively with adults and peers. Such preparation is especially critical for at-risk students, as the school system may be the only place where they can learn how to cope with the complexities of adult life. 
6. School-based curriculum and instruction.  A transformation of curriculum and instructional practice that makes learning “contextual” is at the heart of school-to-work reform. Learning that occurs either in a real-life context, or in a close simulation of one, allows for multiple points of connection between curriculum and instruction and the experiences of work. 
7. Work-based learning strategies.  Successful transition systems offer a variety of work-based learning experiences, building on local labor market conditions and allowing for differences in student interest, aptitude, and developmental stage. Transition systems can include a menu of options such as business-based experiences, school-based enterprises, entrepreneurial programs, youth apprenticeships, mentorships, cooperative education, and service learning. 
8. Integrated career information and guidance system.  Another critical component of effective transition systems is career counseling. In addition to career information, assessment, and guidance, many successful programs provide mentoring and personal counseling activities. 
9. Progressive system starting before grade 11.  Programs that do not start until eleventh grade miss the chance to make a difference for many students. It is crucial to reach younger students before they become discouraged, disengaged, or drop out. 
10. Postsecondary articulation.  Just as an effective school-to-work system begins before eleventh grade, it also extends beyond high school graduation. Programs must provide multiple connections to postsecondary institutions, beginning when the student is still in high school and extending to provide post-high school education and training options. 
11. Creative financing: Obtaining seed money for reform in its early stages is almost always a critical element of school-to-work initiatives. 
12. Application of research: A number of sites studies by AED consciously drew upon existing research, conducted their own research, or commissioned new research in order to strengthen their school-to-work system. They used the research to provide a foundation for program models, to assess the local labor market and economy, and to measure the impact of the program on students (specifically to find out how their graduates fared in the worlds of work and postsecondary education). 

Title I  of the Elementary  and Secondary Education Act  
Presented by: Eileen Ordover, Staff Attorney for the Center for Law and Education, Boston  

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) is the largest federally funded education program.  It has been changed and amended several times since its inception, most recently in 1994.  This teleconference focused primarily on the 1994 changes.   
The purpose of Title I has always been to give schools with high concentrations of children living in poverty (“educationally disadvantaged” children) the funds to provide special assistance for children who are not achieving well academically, or who are at-risk of educational failure.   

Two Types of Programs under Title I   
School-wide program: Title I money is used to upgrade the entire school’s educational program, i.e., overall education reform.  In order to qualify as a Title I school-wide program, 50% of the students must be considered low-income.   
Targeted assistance program: Title I money may only be used to provide extra services to children meeting income eligibility guidelines.  Schools receiving targeted assistance money either have less than 50 percent of their population in poverty, or choose not to be a school-wide program.   

Three Levels of Title I: State, District, School   
Title I money goes first from the Federal Dept. of Ed. to the State Education Agency (SEA); the SEA distributes money to school districts; finally, districts give money to individual schools. SEA’s, districts, and schools must all have Title I plans.   

The amount of money a state, district, or school receives depends upon how many low-income children live within the area. Title I has always permitted a variety of uses for its money.  The most common use has been for pull-out remedial programs in reading and math: Students are pulled out of regular classes to attend separate reading and math programs.  These pull-out programs eventually came under heavy criticism: Studies revealed that they were not achieving the desired result of bringing students up to speed with their peers.  In addition, these students were receiving a diluted curriculum compared to their peers.  
   

1994 Overhaul   
In 1994, Congress completely overhauled Title I through the “Improving America’s Schools Act” in an attempt to ensure that educationally disadvantaged students were educated using the same high standards of all students.  The rewritten law brought Title I programs into line with the standards-based education reform taking place in general education, i.e., Goals 2000.  

 Heavy emphasis was placed upon setting challenging content and performance standards for all students.  States were required to have standards in at least reading, language arts, and math by 1997-98.  If a state has not adopted standards, it must implement a strategy to ensure that Title I students receive the same knowledge, skills and expectations of all students.  These standards, adopted at state level, are used at district and school levels.   

Assessments   
Assessments were designed to measure the extent to which children are reaching the standards.  For a state to receive Title I funds, it must develop assessments based on the content and performance standards. These assessments are not to make high-stakes decisions about individual children, but to keep track of how well districts and schools are enabling Title I students to meet standards.   

Assessments must be administered at three key points:  at least once each during grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. They must use multiple methods of examining performance, i.e., not solely standardized multiple-choice tests, and must test higher learning skills and analytical abilities.  All Title I students are to participate, including students with disabilities (provided with accommodations as necessary) and students with limited English proficiency.   

The assessments must be constructed to facilitate multiple reports: about individual students; global information such as race, ethnicity, and gender comparisons; comparisons of students with and without disabilities; and comparisons of economically disadvantaged and other students.  These types of reports provide a look at who, in fact, is being well served under Title I, and where efforts need to be targeted to improve the program.   

Opportunity to learn   
Title 1 requires meaningful opportunities to learn.  This component is, in many ways, the essence of Title I’s potential for truly improving education.  Title I districts must provide “high quality professional development: to improve teaching, allow teachers to better teach, and enable students to meet high standards.”  The statute lists required and optional professional development activities.  Requirements differ for school-wide and targeted assistance programs.   

School-Wide vs. Targeted Assistance Programs   
School-wide programs must conduct a comprehensive needs assessment of the entire school, based on children’s performance in meeting the state’s standards.  A school must then develop reform strategies aimed at the entire school program. These strategies must be designed to provide opportunities to meet the state standards, and be based upon practices proven effective through research and experimentation.  

Instructional strategies must focus on amount and quality of learning time, such as an extended school year, before or after school, and summer programs, etc.  Strategies must be designed to meet the needs of “all” students, in particular, historically underserved populations.  Systems and activities must be in place to recognize when students are having difficulty mastering standards, and provide them with effective and timely additional assistance.   

Targeted-assistance programs must help participating students meet the state’s standards.  Strategies are similar to school-wide programs: They must be proven effective, be provided by highly qualified personnel, and provide extended learning time or extended-year programs.   

Targeted-assistance programs must use methods that minimize the removal of children from regular classrooms during regular hours, i.e., pull-out program, and must explicitly coordinate with and support the regular education program.  Suggestions include:  counseling, school-to-work programs, and preschool transition programs.   

All state, district, and school Title I programs must be coordinated with Goals 2000, IDEA, and provisions for special education of students with disabilities. Emphasis is placed throughout the act on inclusion, education, and needs of students with disabilities. Obviously, the effectiveness of these components will be seen through how seriously they are implemented.   

Accountability and improvement   
This component determines the system’s response when Title I programs fail to enable students’ progress.  States must develop a definition of Adequate Yearly Progress.   

This definition is used to determine whether or not particular schools and districts are making satisfactory progress towards meeting student performance standards.  The SEA must then identify districts that are not meeting the standards.   

If the SEA finds a district not making adequate progress for two consecutive years, it is put into “improvement status.” The district must develop and implement a revised Title I plan. The state may take corrective action at any time.  After four years of inadequate progress, the state must step in.  State actions can include withholding state funds from a district.  Local districts must perform similar corrective action regarding non-performing schools.   

Parent Involvement   
Title I has a strong emphasis on parent involvement.  In fact, it is the only federal statute, apart from IDEA, that so strongly emphasizes parental involvement.   Under IDEA, parent involvement is tied to planning about individual children.   

Title I requirements focus on providing meaningful parent involvement in the design and implementation of entire school programs. Parents of students with disabilities may use Title I’s strong parental involvement requirement to ensure that schools are organized and run in ways that respect the rights of students with disabilities.   

Title I envisions parent involvement on each of the three levels of decision making:  state, district, and school. State plans must be developed in consultation with parents. Districts must have a parent involvement policy “jointly developed with and approved by parents.”  The plan must consider the following: the tools parents need to participate meaningfully; coordination with other programs, such as Head Start; and annual evaluations of the effectiveness of parent involvement.   

Districts receiving over $500,000 in Title I funds must spend at least 1% of this money to facilitate parent involvement, such as through training, materials, or child care at meetings.   

School policy mandates meetings for parents throughout the year. Parents must be involved in Title I planning, review, and improvement. Schools must give parents timely information, including curriculum and assessment standards. Schools must implement a School Parent Compact, outlining schools’, parents’ and students’ responsibilities for student achievement. Schools must help parents understand goals, standards and assessments.   

1994 Title I amendments allowed school-wide programs to combine Title I and other federal education monies. This provision releases the program from many legal requirements.  IDEA was not included on this list of programs, but the Reauthorization passed in June does allow districts to combine IDEA funds with Title I school-wide programs. The amount of IDEA money a district can put into such a program is limited. This provision does not waive any IDEA rights, protections, or obligations.   

Q/A on Title I:  
Question:  How does one identify school-wide or targeted assistance Title I schools?  
Answer:  Districts should have this information available under public records law, as well as Title I plans for applicable schools. It is also available through public records law at State Departments of Ed.  

Question:  Can “limited English proficiency” [LEP] also be interpreted as bilingual?  
Answer:  Under Title I law, [LEP] refers to children whose native or home language is not English and who still need to develop fluency in English. A child fluent in two languages would not apply as [LEP].  

Question:  Who is responsible for instituting policy statements, such as parent involvement and planning?  
Answer:  Districts and schools receiving Title I funds are responsible for beginning these activities. State Departments of Education must ensure that schools and districts comply.  

Question:  To receive Title I funds, must students who are limited English proficient or students who have IEP’s also meet low-income requirements?  
Answer:  If these students attend a school which is a Title I school-wide program then everyone in the school is qualified.  If it is a  targeted-assistance program, then students must meet low income and educational disadvantage criteria.  

Charter School Study Results Available   
The first-year report of the National Study of Charter Schools was released in late May and is now available in the Department of Education’s Online Library.  

A Study of Charter Schools: First Year Report includes the first definitive survey of all charter schools (90 percent of all charter schools in operation as of the 1995-96 school year). The report looks at the role of states in the charter movement, describes basic characteristics of charter schools and their students, and examines why people create charter schools and what barriers they encounter in the process. (Source: ED Initiatives, 4/28/97. Info. available from: edinfo@inet.ed.gov)   

Including Your Child publication available free   
This 100 page booklet offers a number of questions and suggestions for families of children with special needs.  It also lists dozens of associations, organizations, and agencies that can serve as resources for parents during the first eight years of children’s lives.  Single copies of the complete text, written by Sue Gruskin and Kim Siverman, with Veda Bright, is available free while supplies last from the National Library of Education: 800-424-1616.   

Educational Resource Organizations Directory   
200 organizations have been added to EROD, which is intended to help you identify and contact organizations that provide information and assistance on a broad range of education-related topics: http://www.ed.gov/programs.html#map   

All Classrooms Connected to the Internet; 
All Students Technologically Literate   
On September 15, Secretary Riley announced the award of $18.5 million for 19 grants to school district partnerships that are demonstrating how today’s technologies can bring schools and communities into the information age.   

These 19 new Technology Innovation Challenge Grant (TICG) partnerships in 14 states involve more than 165 school districts, 68 businesses, and 44 colleges/universities. Over 100 community organizations will support their efforts, with business/community partners matching commitments of $56+ million. The Clinton Administration has asked Congress for $75 million for 1998 TICG. The Gorton Amendment would eliminate funding for the program, cancel the 1998 competition, and force termination of 623 Challenge Grants in 33 states this school year. For more information on past TICG, please see: http://www.ed.gov/Technology/challenge   

Improving America’s Schools Conferences   
For teachers, principals, education officials, technical assistance providers, Dept. of Ed. grantees, and others unable to attend the Department’s Regional Conferences on Improving America’s Schools (see page 12), several sessions will be “netcast” live and will be available as archives on the internet. For netcast details and other information on the conference, see: http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/iasconferences/   

Hong, a teacher, focuses primarily on how the process affects teachers and the principal of her school, and how these players interact together and navigate the treacherous waters of a major shake-up to business-as-usual.  She doesn’t forget to discuss the circumstances and feelings that parents, students, and community members bring to the table as well.   

The main strengths of her presentation are her clear and easy-to-digest writing style, and her many insights into the reasons that various parties obstruct and fear change.  This treatment enables the reader to anticipate and understand how to avoid some of the problems that Hong and her teammates encountered in their process.  She herself is very aware of the mistakes that were made, as well as those that were avoided, and how they affected the entire program of dramatic change that occurred in her school.   

Multi-age classrooms, on-site consensus-based governance, curricular reform, hands-on learning techniques, and tailored, individualized education programs for students are discussed in some detail.  However, the consensus-based school-directed governance process is given the majority of attention in this work.  Including students with special needs into regular classroom programs with accompanying supports was also a major goal of this school’s reform and seems to have been accomplished successfully there. Hong could have gone into more detail about this subject in her account.  In all cases the specific reforms are discussed primarily in light of how the parties brought everyone in the school community on board to enact these changes, and the human relations methods that were necessary to enable such a process, rather than the specifics of how the reforms played out within the classroom.  

Hong is probably correct in assuming that readers can find many sources in the available literature for thorough discussions of various curricular reforms, their strengths, and how they work in the classroom.  There are few texts, however, which treat the reform process as the incredibly difficult and complex human experience that it inevitably becomes, even if the majority of players involved are ostensibly in favor of and committed to change.  In Hong’s school, approximately 50% of the teachers retired or transferred within the first two years of the reforms, a very revealing factor which she discusses in depth.   

This book will be especially helpful to parents in understanding teachers and administrators; it presents a clear picture of the often high emotions involved and points out concrete ways to interact with the parties instrumental to any successful change in the classroom environment.  One may be involved in advocating comprehensive reform, or a single issue such as support for inclusion or individualized curriculum: In either case it is essential to understand the parties involved and whenever possible to engage them in continuous working dialogue and negotiation rather than sink into an adversarial relationship.   

Surviving School Reform is also tailor-made for teachers and administrators at any stage of a reform process, but especially the beginning stages.  Its sometimes brutal honesty is not designed to scare readers away from the process of reform, of which Hong is an avowed advocate.  It is designed for parties to have a clear understanding of the challenges of such a process, and points out specific ways that one school was able to avoid or work through pitfalls that can easily stymie changes or even derail the entire program.   

One weakness of this volume is its avoidance of detailed information regarding how changes were instituted within the classroom.  Another is that its diaristic introspective quality (which is also its unique and greatest strength) can become tedious at times.  Hong attempts to avoid personal bias and present the individuals who obstructed change as rounded and complete, but her own strong feelings and ownership of the process tend to make some of this type of treatment unavoidable.  Parents, especially, may feel that they are getting short shrift in this account.  Nevertheless, Surviving School Reform is monumentally instructive to parents, specifically regarding the reasons that some parties (especially teachers) may have for their dislike of changes, and how to interact with them in order to successfully obtain the services or situations one desires for one’s child.   

This article written by  
Brenda Be, PEER  
  

Associations & Organizations:  
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/parents/Including/resassoc.html  

Government Agencies:  
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/parents/Including/resgovt.html  

Government Supported Organizations:  
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/parents/Including/ressup.html  

Hotlines & Information Lines  
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/parents/Including/reslines.html  

Internet Sites  
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/parents/Including/ressites.html  

Minority Family Groups  
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/parents/Including/rescivil.html  

Parent Training & Information Centers  
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/parents/Including/resptic.html  

State Government Information  
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/parents/Including/resstate.html  

Moderator: Patty Smith    
Presenter: Thomas B. Parrish, Ed.D., Principal Research Scientist of the American Institutes for Research; Co-Director of the Center for Special Education Finance (CSEF).   

Dr. Parrish combines education research and project management expertise with direct teaching experience.  He has taught students with learning difficulties of diverse ethnic/ cultural backgrounds,and written many policy papers related to special education finance.   

July’s teleconference explored connections between finance and the education reform movement, particularly as related to special education and school services.   

Background: Special Education Finance   
Five years ago, the main interest of the Center for Special Education Finance was to learn the cost involved in special education. Presently, because we realize that issues are much broader than just the amount of money spent, the Center is studying connections among funding, school reform, special education reform, and how money is allocated from the Federal Government to states and from states to localities.   

We are lacking much information on special education costs and funding. Data are often available only as estimates.   

The path of education funding   
An understanding of public education funding offers some insight into the history of special education funding.  Some basic principles of public education funding apply to special education funding.  In virtually all states, a local, state, and federal partnership provides funds for special education; with the federal government by far the junior partner.   

With IDEA passage, up to 40% of average per pupil expenditures were authorized as federal allocations. In reality, we have never gotten close to that level.  At present, we are probably up to 9%.  State data on funding sources reveals that 50% comes from the state, 42-43% from localities, and 7-9 % is from the federal government.   

The split between state and local payments varies by state.  The Center has data listing each state’s details, including all 50 states’ funding formulas.   

Special education cost concerns   
Nationally and in many states,  concerns about special education’s costs have been raised, especially in the media. The press has not always been positive.  Based upon existing data we do not really know the level of special education spending.  It looks like a steady increase, but not a skyrocketing one as the media too often suggest.   

Special education and state special education spending have been around for a long time. It was not until IDEA, however, that a comprehensive national entitlement and federal support for special education was created. When the bill was initially passed, no state was required to participate; it was viewed as an optional program.  States were required to adopt certain entitlement requirements and to provide guarantees to parents.  In exchange for those guarantees, the federal government agreed to a grant program, Part B of IDEA.  Part B laid out authorized federal allocations: the 40% per pupil expenditure.   

Special Education Financing: Its Impact on Reform   
Finance reform means funding special education in a different way. Special education program reform refers to providing services in a different way, i.e., more integrated schooling, less categorical orientation, less preservice, etc.   

During the Center’s last survey, about two-thirds of the states indicated they are considering major reform in special education funding methods.  Another 12-15 states indicated they had implemented reform within the last five years, yet two of these states also stated they are still considering major reform.  Changing special education funding formulas is difficult for states.   

Factors underlying states’ desire for change   
Cost is an underlying issue, but not the major issue. Equability refers to a sense of unfairness in how special education funds are allocated across districts, when the point of reform was to make the system more fair.   

Flexibility in the use of resources is the key to understanding the link between special education funding and reform.  A conflict often exists between what state policymakers would like to do and what the fiscal policy encourages them to do.   

A flexible system might be one where a child’s unique needs could be assessed and affixed a dollar value.  These dollars would follow wherever the child goes. As a result, placement decisions would not be influenced by the amount of dollars that placement generates for the school.   

For example:   
New Jersey’s funding formula provided no special education funds for a child included full-time in a regular class, regardless of the extent of the child’s need for special services. This formula creates a significant disincentive to provide services in regular classes.  New Jersey’s formula was based on placement: the more restrictive the placement, the more money received.   

Virginia placed fiscal responsibility for the IEP of any child threatened with suspension on the state, as opposed to the district.  This formula had strong implications for supporting students in placements closest to their homes.  With implementation of IDEA 1997, this situation is supposed to change, although the state is balking, wanting to assure the government of what they are supposed to do. When IDEA was signed, students who had been expelled in Virginia were supposed to be eligible to come back to school, because IDEA now specifies that services may not cease for students receiving services under IDEA.   

North Carolinans feel that their state has a “horrendous” funding formula which creates a disincentive for inclusive placement. The funding formula took a back seat to overall education reform efforts.  Most families are not aware that the education reform efforts will mean that a lot of children with learning disabilities are absolutely not going to get diplomas.  As a result, the whole situation will probably blow up when this realization hits parents, and they start looking to school districts for answers.   

Florida has no evident funding formula for young children, many of whom are on a waiting list. Older children are also affected. There is no money to pay for independent evaluations, and no mechanism in place for handling parents’ requests for independent evaluations.  These are handled on a case-by-case basis, and more money gets spent on lawyers.  The belief is that even with a census-based formula [see below], there will still be a problem.   
   
CSEF advocates against fiscal incentives for more restrictive options.  IDEA calls for a continuum of placements, which really means everything from less to more restrictive, if appropriate for the child.  The law also calls for placement in the least restrictive environment appropriate. Currently, our fiscal policy runs counter to that.  The law does not state that  placements should be made independent of fiscal considerations.   

Census-based formulas   
Previously, Part B funds were allocated on a per student basis.  For example, if a state had 10,000 special education students, and Part B allocated $500 per student, then the state was given 10,000 times $500. The amount per student was fixed, regardless of the degree or nature of a child’s disability.   

A census-based formula moves away from this idea.  In this formula, States receive money based upon their total school-aged populations, regardless of the number of students reported needing special education services. The census-based formula is relatively incentive free and placement neutral.  Some states had already adopted it. The transition to a census-based formula will be quite gradual and so far no Part B funds have been affected.  It does provide a sense of the future direction of the federal government.   

Q/A on Finance and Reform   
Question:  What is the relationship between special education funding and fiscal equity litigation?   
Answer:  The Center has a policy paper addressing issues of special education funding in relation to larger equity questions.  It also has a follow-up paper examining three school finance cases which include special education funding issues.   

Traditionally, special education funding has been left out of fiscal equity comparisons.  In many equity comparisons, the feeling is that special education is additional, categorical, and for a special purpose; therefore, it should not be included when comparing state funding to individual districts to determine equity.  Increasingly, we do need to think about special education funding in relation to larger fiscal equity questions.  There is some indication that states are moving in this direction.   

Question:  What are the values/benefits of placement-neutral vs. pro-inclusion funding formulas?   
Answer:  Census-based formulas are neutral as to placement.  Whether we should have pro-inclusion funding formulas, creating incentives for more inclusionary placements, is debatable.  The Center does not have an official position on this issue.   
   

Question:  What areas of special education are most likely to sustain funding cuts?   
Answer:  Dr. Parrish is unaware of any areas likely to sustain cuts, per se.  There are areas of increased cost scrutiny.  For instance, the newly reauthorized IDEA attempts to cut some of the costs associated with assessment requirements, e.g., three-year assessment evaluations becoming optional.   

Ideally, with more flexibility, we will see more latitude of spending at the local level.   
State maintenance of effort: This provision in the new law prohibits states from cutting back on their own funding for IDEA.  A state may not use new federal funds to replace their own stream of funds.  For example, last year California received new money, and apparently did not use any of it for special education.  As a result, the reauthorized IDEA includes the state maintenance-of-effort provision.   

Question:  How will Charter schools impact funding?   
Answer:  There is not enough evidence to sufficiently answer this question.  It varies too much from state to state, and therefore needs to be watched carefully.  [According to Patty Smith], a section in the new law states that Charter schools will also serve children with disabilities.   

Question:  Is inclusion financially beneficial to school districts?   
Answer:  In most cases inclusion is not financially beneficial to local districts, because of the way state funding is structured. While inclusion may in some cases be less costly, that should not be the primary motivation for including a student.  To be successful in the mainstream, students need appropriate supports that do cost money.   

Question:  What is the estimated average cost of educating a child/children with special needs nationally?   
Answer:  The best information available is that the cost is about 2.3 times the cost of serving a general education child.  For example, if the average expenditure for a general education child is $10,000, then we would expect the average expenditure for a  student in special education to be $23,000.   

Question:  How much allocated special education surplus money goes unused?   
Answer:  There can be arguments made that we do not have enough money.  The argument is that not only are we using all the special education money we have, but in fact, to serve these children appropriately, we must dip into general education funds.