By Kimberly Beltran SI&A Cabinet Report | http://bit.ly/TnbGuY
Thursday, September 6, 2012 :: California spends substantially less than other states on special education services, and the academic outcomes for students in those programs is well below the national average, according to a new report unveiled Wednesday.
In a comparison of special education spending and outcomes across 49 states and Washington, D.C., California ranked near the bottom in all categories, including 47th in personnel spending per student and 48th in student achievement based on 2011 math and reading assessments.
While these results are based on limited data and calculation estimates, authors of “Update: Report on Special Education Expenditures, Revenues and Provision in California” drew a number of conclusions that could drive policy decisions aimed at improving program outcomes.
“It appears our return on investment is not quite where we like to be,” Jannelle Kubinec of WestEd said in presenting the report to the state Advisory Commission on Special Education. “We definitely fall below average, and in some cases, we fall close to the bottom of the pack.”
The report comes as the commission begins to look at implementing new common core standards and new assessments on those standards into special education. The panel will formulate a plan and timeline for doing so at its October meeting, chair Kristin Wright said Wednesday.
Meanwhile, the group listened as Kubinec outlined some of the challenges schools face in educating students with special needs.
“We are looking at the costs of special ed but we’re also looking at high expectations – not just what we need to do legally but also what we need to do in terms of supporting the needs of students in an effective way to achieve the outcomes we want,” said Kubinec, director of national, state and special projects for the Comprehensive School Assistance Program at WestEd. “We can study the heck out of special ed and it won’t make money. But what it does bring to result is what happens with the money that we use for special ed, what happens within the system of our finance, and it’s not just what doesn’t work well but what might work well.”
With almost 1,000 school districts across the state, special education spending, revenues and outcomes vary substantially from one to another. On a per capita basis, the report states, some Special Education Local Plan Areas show much higher levels of spending on special education services than others. Also, some receive substantially more state and federal aid in support of special education programming per capita.
Because of these variances, and because reporting and accounting procedures also vary, it is difficult to determine an exact figure for how much the state spends per special education student, Kubinec said.
As a percentage of school-age enrollment, California’s special education student population was 11 percent in 2010 – about the same as nationwide, according to the report.
Using a formula based on special education personnel costs – salaries, which account for 85 percent of total spending – researchers were able to determine each state’s approximate rank in terms of per-pupil spending.
While that formula put California at 47th, Kubinec said the state’s per pupil spending is likely higher due to its “lower incidents of overall disability than the national average” and its higher-than-average staffing ratio.
Even so, its dismal showing in student testing shows there is work to be done.
Based on National Assessment Educational Progress assessments for grades 4 and 8, 38 percent of students with disabilities nationwide were basic or advanced in reading and math.
Just 24 percent of California’s 4th and 8th grade special education students rated basic or advanced in math and reading. Across other states, comparable measures range from 59 percent in Massachusetts to 14 percent in the District of Columbia.
On a positive note, the report included the profiles of two districts – Sanger and Val Verde – that have found success in creating positive special education outcomes by focusing on alternative types of interventions.
These include blending special education students and funds where possible, which provides social benefits for the students and increased efficiencies for the school.
In Sanger, for example, where the child poverty rate is two to three times the national average, the district reoriented the way special education students were served and instituted comprehensive reforms, one of which was Response to Intervention. This program is designed to identify students who appear to be struggling academically early on, and to introduce interventions, often outside of special education.
Through the use of that program and other interventions, states the report, Sanger reduced the percentage of students requiring special education services to 7 percent – compared to a state-wide average of 10 percent and a national average of over 13 percent.
The report was presented as a draft to the special education advisory committee, which made a few suggestions for improved clarity and will review a final copy at its October meeting.
The report had not been posted on the Internet as of Wednesday.
●●smf: …or Thursday morning either.
[AN EARLIER DRAFT OF THE REPORT CAN BE FOUND HERE.]
No comments:
Post a Comment