Special Education Funding Models and the Impacts on Students With Disabilities: A Systematic Review of Policy

• In Event: The Turbulence of Special Education Policy: Juvenile Detention, Funding Models, and Group-Centered Effects

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a global push to include students with disabilities in general education classrooms, as reflect in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). However, providing the necessary resources and support for inclusive education comes at a cost, leading to complex funding mechanisms and dichotomous funding for special and general education (Moore-Brown, 2001). Evaluating funding models is essential to understand their incentives and potential adverse effects on students with disabilities, ensuring that policies are based on evidence-based practices for equitable and efficient outcomes.

This systematic policy review aims to examine the relationship between specific funding models and their impacts on students with disabilities. It seeks to identify which funding models have been investigated since 2006, updating a previous review on the subject (Sigafoos et al., 2010), and investigate the various impacts models had on students with disabilities.

The review involved a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed and gray literature databases, using search terms related to funding models and special education. PRISMA guidelines (Moher, 2009) were utilized to document the search and screening process Inclusion criteria were applied to select relevant articles that evaluated special education outcomes, investigated specific education funding models, and reported direct outcomes for students with disabilities.

The review identified six funding models that have been examined in the literature since 2006: census-based, weighted formula, block grant, flat grant, categorical, and combination models. Outcomes investigated included increases or decreases in equity, identification rates, academic achievement, or inclusion. Review results can be found one Table 1. Findings revealed both positive and negative impacts for each funding model, highlighting the importance of considering specific outcomes and incentives associated with each model. Findings were typically consistent with outside literature and reflect the tradeoff between outcomes. Put another way, intended outcome for a model may come at the expense of another. For example, increasing equity can come at the expense of reducing identification (Parrish, 2001; Welker, 2006).

Table 1
Funding Model Results
Model Indicator Article Impact Outcome
Census Based Throughput Kwak (2006) Decrease Identification Rates
Milligan (2017) Decrease Equity
Bush (2007) Increase
No Relationship
No Relationship Equity
Identification Rates
Restrictive Placement
Weighted Formula Input
Welker (2006) Positive Correlation
Increased Identification Rates
Equity
West (2017) No Correlation Academic Achievement
Milligan (2017) Increase Equity
Block Grant Throughput Christiana (2016) No Relationship
No Relationship Identification Rates
Inclusion
Flat Grant Throughput Milligan (2017) Decrease Equity
Categorical Input Goodman (2010) No relationship Achievement Scores
Combination (Categorical + Weighted Formula) Input Nisonoff (2007) Did not increase Equity

This review offers valuable insights for policy makers and stakeholders involved in funding reform decisions for inclusive education. By considering the varying impacts of different funding models on students with disabilities, stakeholders can make informed choices to optimize equity and educational outcomes. The study emphasizes the need for data-driven decisions and encourages future research to focus on evaluating the efficacy of funding models before implementation.

Author

• Kylene Cosand, University of Kansas