10 studies that had investigated the outcome of five broadly different funding models. Even then, these studies relied on limited data such as surveys, analysis of existing data sources, or qualitative analysis of the funding models. Such information provided stakeholder perceptions and enrolment trends but were limited in their ability to measure the actual impact of the funding reform on student outcomes. The five funding models identified by Sigafoos et al (2010) were related to the broad categories of discretionary, categorical, voucher, census-based, or cost-based. These reflected a continuum of approaches from census-based at one end to categorically-based at the other. Of note was that most applications of the models investigated in reality included elements of more than one approach to funding. Each of these models was seen to have noticeable benefits but also a number of detriments. Table 1 summarises the findings noted by Sigafoos et al. (2010). Table 1 - Five funding models identified by Sigafoos et al. (2010) Model Explanation Benefits Detriments Discretionary Provision of additional funding Increased capacity to Increased use of funding or allocation of a percentage of provide SEN services, but alternative placements the school budget for special only for schools that Narrowing of curriculum education purposes received extra funding offerings Development of Substantial administrative innovative, costs associated with the programs identification process Did not significantly increase the percentage of students identified as having high support needs Categorical A set amount of additional Strengthened parent SEN funds being used funding is provided for each choice primarily to hire teaching student with an identified Increased expenditure on assistants disability (may be given to the direct services Curtail accountability to school or to the parent) parents Create inequities for students with SEN Increased litigation related to special education entitlements Voucher A direct public payment to Increased access to Effects of voucher parents to cover their child’s preferred and more programs on educational public or private school costs – specialised services outcomes and payable directly to the parent is unclear or the school chosen by them Census-based Funding received by a Did not appear to reduce Increasing SEN costs school district or LEA was SEN enrolments in based on the number of regular schools students and weighted by SES or type and degree of disability
10 studies that had investigated the outcome of five broadly different funding models. Even then, these studies relied on limited data such as surveys, analysis of existing data sources, or qualitative analysis of the funding models. Such information provided stakeholder perceptions and enrolment trends but were limited in their ability to measure the actual impact of the funding reform on student outcomes. The five funding models identified by Sigafoos et al (2010) were related to the broad categories of discretionary, categorical, voucher, census-based, or cost-based. These reflected a continuum of approaches from census-based at one end to categorically-based at the other. Of note was that most applications of the models investigated in reality included elements of more than one approach to funding. Each of these models was seen to have noticeable benefits but also a number of detriments. Table 1 summarises the findings noted by Sigafoos et al. (2010). Table 1 - Five funding models identified by Sigafoos et al. (2010) Model Explanation Benefits Detriments Discretionary funding Provision of additional funding or allocation of a percentage of the school budget for special education purposes Increased capacity to provide SEN services, but only for schools that received extra funding Development of innovative, programs Did not significantly increase the percentage of students identified as having high support needs Increased use of alternative placements Narrowing of curriculum offerings Substantial administrative costs associated with the identification process Categorical A set amount of additional funding is provided for each student with an identified disability (may be given to the school or to the parent) Strengthened parent choice Increased expenditure on direct services SEN funds being used primarily to hire teaching assistants Curtail accountability to parents Create inequities for students with SEN Increased litigation related to special education entitlements Voucher A direct public payment to parents to cover their child’s public or private school costs – payable directly to the parent or the school chosen by them Increased access to preferred and more specialised services Effects of voucher programs on educational outcomes and is unclear Census-based Funding received by a school district or LEA was based on the number of students and weighted by SES or type and degree of disability Did not appear to reduce SEN enrolments in regular schools Increasing SEN costs
psdlitreview_FundingInclusiveEducationforStudentswithASD.docx