Running Head: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAHY

Classifying and Funding Special Education:

An Annotated Bibliography
Ray L. Marshall
University of St. Thomas
EDUC 6326 Educational Research and Scholarly Writing
Dr. Phyllis Tyler
May 5, 2015

1.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRPAHY

Baker, Bruce D., & Ramsey, Matthew J. (2010). What we don't know can't hurt us? Equity
consequences of financing special education on the untested assumption of uniform
needs. Journal of Education Finance, 35(3). Retrieved
from http://ezproxy.stthom.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eue&AN=508201981&site=ehost-live

Baker and Ramsey examined recent research involving the implementation of censusbased formula funding. They focused on Pennsylvania and New Jersey for a comparative
analysis. They were testing a theory that already had some research behind it thanks to work
done by Parish and colleagues in California in 1996. The theory was that students with
disabilities were not evenly and randomly distributed across states and that because census-based
funding depended on that assumption to equitably distribute funds, schools with
disproportionately high and low levels of students with disabilities were being treated unfairly.
The article discussed the development of census-based funding, which was created in
response to fears that schools would be incentivized to classify students at higher levels of
disability in order to get more money. However, the article notes that not only is there no
evidence indicating students were being over-classified before census funding was implemented,
but research indicated students were not uniformly distributed even then. Previous research also
indicated that non-uniformity was the trend with students who were at-risk due to poverty and
having English as a second language.
Baker and Ramsey worked on the premise that schools with a greater number of special
educations students would need more funds to compensate for the higher cost of providing an
appropriate education. To prove their theory, the researchers did a comparative analysis using

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRPAHY

multiple data sources, including two versions of U.S. Census bureau data reported by individual
family respondents, School District Demographics special tabulation of U.S. Census 2000 data,
and individual level data from the American Community Surveys (ACS). They used the data to
create graphs and hotspot analysis showing geographic distribution and demographic correlation
of children with disabilities.
The research clearly indicated that children with disabilities varied at a rate substantially
greater than chance, was associated with poverty levels, and existed in both the census and the
school district reports. This conclusion led the researchers to the find that census funding had
some merit without necessarily being a perfect solution. Some states might have students that
are more evenly distributedin which case the formula would still work well. Thus the states
should implement at least two studies to test the distribution of the students before moving
forward. For states like Pennsylvania, where census funding is already in place, a modified
census-based formula might be developed, incorporating statistical adjustments based on census
data. However, when adjustments become the rule rather than the exception, the census-based
approach may no longer be a worthwhile tool.
The study was limited in that in only looked at one type of formula funding in two states,
with reflections on a previous study from California. It did suggest modifications to the censusbased formula, but these were not full discussed and no models were proposed to incorporate the
statistical adjustments necessary. Overall though, the study was credible and a good continuation
of what was begun on the west coast. It will be useful for understanding how census-based
funding functions in real-world applications.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRPAHY

Marks, S. S., & Kurth, J. J. (2013). Examination of disproportionality of autism in school-aged

populations in the U.S. Journal of The International Association of Special
Education, 14(1). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.stthom.edu:2048/login?
url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eue&AN=98889804&site=ehost-live

Marks and Kurths research focused on investigating the dramatic upswing in the number
of students identified as autistic. The study sought to address the factors associated with the
increasing prevalence, one of which appeared to be socioeconomic status. To fully investigate
the issue, Marks and Kurth examined data from the U.S. Department of Education, Ahearns
2010 National Association for State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) report, and the
State Autism profiles. They conducted an analysis of the risk ratios for each race or ethnic group
under the category from 1998-2008. They found that the amount of increase varied significantly.
Of course, the numbers were predominately from a single state, so widening the scope of
the research might eliminate some of the statistically significant findings. The article was further
limited by the size of the study. Other issues involved the diagnostic procedures for determining
or diagnosis autism are not uniform and may have skewed the results. And of course, the data
from the database is only as accurate as the providers. Follow-up interviews were not
performed, so it is possible some participants gave false or misleading information. In addition,
alternate questions as to why some races might be underrepresented in the graphs were not
pursuedfor instance, misdiagnosis or genetic differences. This study does seem credible,
though there are clear limitations to it. For what it is, it does address the issue with clarity and
the question that was asked was answered with convincing math and graphs to back it up.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRPAHY

Pijanowski, J. C. (2012). Special education funding and the economy of influence in public
schools. JEP: Ejournal of Education Policy, 1-4. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.stthom.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eue&AN=90374256&site=ehost-live

Pijanowskis article focused on understanding the role that fiscal incentives play in
classifying students with disabilities. Studies suggest that special education funding models such
as vouchers and funding formula unintentionally led to increased classification of students. This
causes a variety of concerns, one being that students are unethically being used to generate
revenue for the schoolsto their detriment. The article did acknowledge that there is still a
debate as to whether the increasing number of children determined to be disabled is related to
misclassification There is also the chance that there has simply not been enough money funneled
into special education to identify the students and address the issues until recentlya kind of
delayed identification. In addition, there is some question as to whether the money the school
receives to provide the special education curriculum is even sufficient to offset the costs.
Pijanowski then presents a plan of action to lay the groundwork for determining whether
misclassification is the problem she theorized it may be. She asked key questions about the flow
of revenue, the classification process, and institutional incentives. She then explained broadly
how she would go about answering these questions with additional research, some of which
would entail mapping the economy of influence within the classification process.
The article focused on changing things at the classification level in order to enable
broader change in the massive data sets that steal attention away from the micro level. It is clear

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRPAHY

that Pijanowski has some good ideas, but the article seems to largely be a call for research rather
than useful in its own right. And though the research that indicates classification might not be a
problem is mentioned, there is the strong sense that it was not given proper attention in the article
to the extent that delving further into this research may in fact render the article moot. At best
I find her partially credible.

Sigafoos, J., Moore, D., Brown, D., Green, V. A., O'Reilly, M. F., & Lancioni, G. E. (2010).
Special education funding reform: A review of impact studies. Australasian Journal Of
Special Education, 34(1). Retrieved from: http://ezproxy.stthom.edu:2048/login?
url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eue&AN=83512280&site=ehost-live

This article sought to give an in-depth look at some of the more recent models for special
education finance reform. The authors hoped to move the debate forward in a more meaningful
way. 10 studies are analyzed, separated into major models for funding. The studies were all
from the online databases and subjected to rigorous standards. The team graphed each study by
model type and listing the name of the funding model, a summary of the methods, and the
conclusions. There is a high level of innovation associated with these funding models, so no two
models were exactly the same; the group also found that the studies tended to use very different
terminology for what were essentially the same concepts and that there could be some value in
standardization of terms when discussing and investigating finance reform.
After the models were categorized, the methods and conclusions were evaluated
separately. They found that all of the models had positive and negatives to them. In fact, it was

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRPAHY

the ultimate conclusion that the theory that effective special education needed special funding
arrangements or costly policy reform initiatives was unfounded. While data might suggest that
special education is more expensive than regular education, there is no evidence that says it must
be more expensive. There was no evidence presented that any of the reforms that were analyzed
were associated with any better or worse outcomes in regards to educational achievement for
students with special needs. In fact, the best model may be whichever is least expensive to
implement and least complicatedwhich would be census funding, by a wide margin.
Ultimately I believe this study is useful in challenging the grounds on which previous
studies took place and pointing out how much of the educational financing models are built on
speculation and inconsistent evaluation techniques. However, the study was limited in that it
only looked at studies published in English and within a certain time period. It is possible that a
previous model that did demonstrate real potential was overlooked in the selection process. The
research is certainly thorough and credible and the ultimate conclusion fits well with the
impression of other studies I have readwhich seem to indicate that no one is sure what the
right answer is.