SPECIAL EDUCATION

FINANCE:
A POLICYMAKERS
PERSPECTIVE
Michael W. Kirst
Former President, CA SBE and Professor Emeritus, Stanford
  Expenditures increasing- up 20% in CA in last decade
 Majority mild disabilities like speech, but severe disabilities
doubled in the last 20 years in CA
Trends in  Autism In CA increased from I in 600 students in 1998 to 1 in
Special 50 in 2018
 Federal Government promised 40% , but only pays 10% of
Education total expenditures
Finance  Federal law with many constraints last renewed in 2004
 Maintenance of effort encourages separate funding systems
  High identification of minority and low-income students
 Special education students lag behind in student outcomes
Trends in  Significant recent increase in preschool student services
Special  Many agencies (mental health, vocational rehabilitation)
Education help fund student services, but not sufficiently
 Parents and their lawyers clash with districts concerning
Finance needed services, least restrictive settings, etc.
  Finance is a means to end for better education services and
outcomes
 Need to align state finance with best practice local
education improvement and services into one coherent
system
Basic Special  Very few school finance experts focus on special ed and
school finance literature is separated between mainstream
Education school finance and special ed
Finance  General and special ed often have different finance
distribution formulas and weights in many states
Problems
 Large finance weights for special ed students by disability
can create incentives for excess identification of students
 An alternative is to use per pupil or per capita formulas, but
they do not adjust for more expensive student needs, and
may discourage more costly early intervention
  Start with overall state policy goals and alignment and then
move on to finance design-“all one system”
Basic Special  It is difficult to provide finance adjustments for small urban
or rural districts with many students with severe disabilities
Education
 Some states provide risk pools, fund these districts directly,
Finance or utilize regional service providers
Problems  Other approaches to equity provide more money for low
income, foster care, homeless pupils because disability is
correlated with these conditions
  Decide whether state finance objective is “adequate
funding” or merely improving current financial support and
effectiveness
Choices and  Is state formula a broken historical accretion that needs a
major overhaul, or is the current funding approach in need
Decisions For of repair?
Improving  What can states learn from each other-does state
population size matter?
Special Ed  Process to involve parents, and other stakeholders in new
Finance special ed finance system
 How to integrate special ed finance with state accountability
(e.g., A-F ratings, dashboards) and state systems of support
for local improvement under ESSA
  Understand how the current finance system works from
state to local level including for preschool, charters, virtual
schools et
 Examine how finance system helps student transitions from
preschool to elementary, and secondary school to
postsecondary education
Initial Steps In
 Decide how to adjust for low incidence high cost disabilities
A Finance such as using weights, and districts/schools with high
poverty concentrations
Study
 Decide how much state needs to guide and modify local
district control of services delivery (e.g., IEPs)
 Simulate amount each district gets from various options for
state formulas and distribution system
  Decide what the role (if any) regional entities should play in
allocation of money and education support to local districts
Initial Steps In  Analyze your past use of state categorical set asides for such as:
A Finance professional development, mental health, MTSS, employment
training, etc.
Study  Consider how general education and special education relate to
each other from your total state policy change