Reply #65: No reply "darling" ??? [View All]

[FBaggins]

I can keep going.

Emphasis mine.

Growth in special education spending may mask a shift in regular education
funds resulting from a willingness by some districts to classify as
“special” children whom, in 1967, were considered within the normal span
of learning styles teachers confront. New classifications may result from
greater sensitivity to causes of learning difficulties, a desire to relieve regular
teachers of disciplinary problems or the burden of special attention some
children require, or an attempt to take advantage of state reimbursement
formulae that allot more dollars per pupil for special education students.
Reimbursements may be a means of effectively increasing compensatory
education spending, if common academic disadvantages of low socioeconomic
status are the real bases for special education classification. Lines
between special and regular education placements are indistinct; wide variations
in district practices are evident. It is widely believed that Northeastern
districts are more prone to claim that children with learning problems need
“special education.” Our data may support this: in 1991, Fall River and Middletown
each spent 22% of all funds on special education, more than other
sample districts.30 Claiborne and Spring Branch spent 12% and 13%, respectively;
remaining districts spent 16% to 18%.

Where’s the Money Gone? Changes in the Level and Composition of Education Spending - Rothstein

Here's a good rebuttal by someone who disagrees that the incentive has actually impacted designation rates.

Note that he provides some good counter arguments to earlier reports' conclusions - but NOT to the fact that the schools get more money if they pad those rolls. He just questions whether their behavior is actually affected by it.

www.csef-air.org/publications/related/greene_forster_comments.pdf