Table 2: Summary of types of funding models Model Description Strengths Weaknesses Examples Input funding Allocating individual funding based Good for students with high Deficit focused. UK on child or young needs who require ongoing (personalised person’s Can incentivise positive diagnosis and/or severity of need. intensive support. budget), diagnosis so that children categorical) Holland, NZ, Need may already be and young people receive AUS (NT, SA, established by other funding appropriate supports. ACT) supports (e.g. NDIS) which Drive individual would reduce costs for interventions such as assessment. integration aides where there is limited evidence of educational impact. Throughput Allocating grants to More focused on functioning, Significant responsibility Belgium funding (base schools/districts. less-focused on individual child for school leaders/district funding) or young deficit. authorities to allocate, person’s Amount of funding can be made utilise and manage funds Reduces stigma and labelling. proportionate to need, e.g. by appropriately. using census data. Appropriate for Promotes inclusive education. children and young people with Reduces tendency for inflation mild-moderate needs (estimated of needs/diagnoses. 16-18% of the population). Encourages local responses. Allows for change in student needs over time.
Table 2: Summary of types of funding models Model Description Strengths Weaknesses Examples Input funding categorical) Allocating individual funding based on child or young person’s diagnosis and/or severity of need. Good for students with high needs who require ongoing intensive support. Need may already be established by other funding supports (e.g. NDIS) which would reduce costs for Deficit focused. Can incentivise positive diagnosis so that children and young people receive appropriate supports. Drive individual interventions such as integration aides where there is limited evidence of educational impact. UK (personalised budget), Holland, NZ, AUS (NT, SA, ACT) Throughput funding (base funding) Allocating grants to schools/districts. Amount of funding can be made proportionate to need, e.g. by using census data. Appropriate for children and young people with mild-moderate needs (estimated 16-18% of the population). More focused on functioning, less-focused on individual child or young person’s deficit. Reduces stigma and labelling. Promotes inclusive education. Reduces tendency for inflation of needs/diagnoses. Encourages local responses. Allows for change in student needs over time. Significant responsibility for school leaders/district authorities to allocate, utilise and manage funds appropriately. Belgium assessment.
psdlitreview_EducationalSupportforStudentswithASD.docx