How is education which is inclusive paid for?

The education of children and youth with disabilities in general education schools and classrooms relies upon the utilization of the same funding sources as are used for more segregated categorical placements. The Illinois Planning Council on Developmental Disabilities (IPCDD, now called The Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities) and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) jointly funded a study of how special education was financed in Illinois. In the final report titled, The Identification of Financial Disincentives to Educating Children and Youth with Moderate to Severe and Multiple Developmental Disabilities in their Home Schools, Kane, John, Bell, and Charlesworth (1993) discuss the basic economic concept of "opportunity costs." They explain that you can't spend the same dollar twice. The "opportunity cost" of the special education categorical funding system precludes the resources necessary for education which is inclusive. Every dollar that is spent on segregated education is one that cannot be used for an education which is inclusive.

Three general sources of funding for special education services exist. These are federal, state and local dollars. It is well documented that there are numerous barriers to obtaining these dollars for use with an education which is inclusive. In Illinois, most special education funds are not directly tied to individual student services, but rather, are attached to and support the infrastructure of special education. An investigative report conducted by U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT (December 13, 1993) concluded that, nation-wide, "Special education programs often operate in ways specifically designed to attract state and federal dollars to local school districts - not to best serve students" (p. 46-47). Findings from the IPCDD and ISBE study parallel those of the U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT.

Return to top

What funding patterns have worked in other states?

The National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) Study Group on Special Education (1992) identified the following five basic principles that a state should use as a basis for its system of funding special education services:

• Funding must not be triggered by the labeling of students.
• The level of funding must not depend on the placement of students or on who provides the programs.
• Funding should be oriented toward "outcomes for students" and not "inputs for programs."
• Funding for special education should be linked with funding for general education to minimize competition for dollars.
• Funding should be focused on the local school district and all special education funds should flow through to the local district.

In Section 612 20 USC 1412 (a) (5) (B)(i) and (ii), IDEA 97 requires that states have funding mechanisms that do not result in placements that are in violation of the LRE provisions of that Act.

Return to top

How do you insure special education dollars benefit students requiring special education services?

In discussing accountability in special education, the IPCDD and ISBE study conducted by Kane, et al. (1993) identify two basic ways of holding school districts accountable for special education:

One is the way Illinois does it now. There is a regulation for every activity. Everything must be documented. Every penny must stay in its designated channel. The assumption behind this system of accountability is that if the process is proper, the result will be good.

In a special education delivery system, such as Illinois' that is primarily self-contained, resources obtained from state special education funds are utilized only in those self-contained environments and benefit only students placed in those environments. To address the inefficiency of such categorical funding systems and to insure that their existence is not necessitated by federal law, IDEA 97 states that federal funds may be used to purchase/provide services or aids that also benefit children without disabilities. (Section 613 20 USC 1412 (a) (4) (A)

A second way of holding school districts accountable for special education would be to directly hold the school district accountable for results, and assume that if the results are good, the process, whatever it was, was proper. The accountability would focus on results, not process. The State would focus on the quality of Individual Education Plans and whether their goals had been accomplished, and not on whether dollars had been spent for specific activities.

Inclusion fits in a special education structure where the funding is attached to students and accountability is tied to results. (Kane, et al. (1993) p.21)

To insure that school districts and States are held accountable for the academic progress of all students, IDEA 97 requires that children with disabilities participate in State- and District-wide assessments with appropriate accommodations and with modifications to administration. (Section 612 20 USC 1412 a) (17) In Illinois, all students must participate in either the Illinois Student Achievement Test (ISAT) or the Illinois Alternate Assessment.

Return to top