Family & Community Special Communities
Special Education

Comprehensive Study of Special Education for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Center for Special Education Finance (CSEF)

Final Report
November 8, 1995

The following is an excerpt from the 1995 CSEF report on special education in Massachusetts.

Executive Summary

This project, undertaken as a result of the comprehensive Education Reform Act of 1993, was intended to provide policymakers with information about the patterns of decisionmaking and resource allocation related to special education services in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Education Reform Act increased the state contribution to educational budgets, and as a result, heightened interest in tracking the dollars allocated to special education in particular. Prior to 1993, special education funding in Massachusetts was based on a system of weights related to student placement (i.e., the service prototype). The current state funding formula for special education is a population-based system. This type of formula reduces the fiscal incentive to identify and label students as special education, and it is consistent with a philosophy which promotes increased local discretion in the way children are served.

The present study provides information on the patterns of resource allocation in a sample of local schools, the variations in costs of instructional and related services for a sample of special education children, and the perceptions of local special education directors of the special education funding system.

To conduct this study, a random sample of 1,297 students served within a sample of 81 schools across a sample of 25 school systems was selected. The school systems were stratified by type of school system (e.g., K-12, vocational, academic regional), the rates of identification, school system size, and region of the state in order to capture the diversity of services offered across the state. All data reported in this study about districts, schools, and students are statistically weighted to be representative of the entire state.

Expenditures on special relative to regular education.

In the average elementary school located in a K-12 school system, special education personnel expenditures per special education student are about 2.3 times higher than those for regular education personnel. This special to regular education cost ratio is 1.95 for elementary schools in the elementary school systems. High schools and middle schools in the local K-12 school systems exhibit lower ratios of special to regular education expenditures per student (i.e., 1.63 for high schools and 1.44 for middle/junior high schools), than elementary schools in local K-12 and elementary school systems.

Allocation of special education expenditures among services.

Based on estimates obtained from the sample schools, almost 91 percent of the school site budget for special education is allocated to instructional and related services, with the remainder going to program coordination/supervision. Special day classes (i.e., segregated, self-contained classrooms exclusively for disabled children, prototype 502.4) account for almost 24 percent of the special education personnel budget at the school site, while resource programs (i.e., part-time programs for disabled students, prototypes 502.2 and 502.3) account for almost 55 percent of the special education personnel budget. Related services average almost 12 percent of the special education budget at the typical school (commonly received by prototypes 502.1 through 502.4 and 502.8). The allocation among services varies by elementary, middle/junior high, and high school level.

Do inclusionary practices cost more? One way of addressing this question is to examine the relationship between special education budgets and the percentage of the budget expended on integrated resource programs, which represent one aspect of implementing an inclusionary model. The data show that schools spending more on integrated resource programs show no meaningful (statistically significant) difference in the overall level of special education budgets, even when one controls for the type of school, type of district, or alternative measures of community wealth or income.

A comparison of revenues and expenditures for special education

Overall, the additional funding generated for within-district special education students through the Foundation formula (the basis of current education funding in Massachusetts) and federal revenues falls short of the estimated special education expenditure. The estimated average per student expenditures for special education students served within-district amount to $4,360, while the per student revenues generated for these students amount to $3,568. For special education students served in out-of-district placements, however, the overall average expenditures ($25,551 per student) and revenues ($25,522 per student) were virtually identical.

Services received by special education students

The majority of special education students spend some portion of their time in regular classrooms. For example, almost 57 percent of special education students served in nondepartmentalized environments receive services from regular classroom teachers for some portion of the school week.

Many special education students receive special education services while in the regular classroom (i.e., without being pulled-out). Approximately one in four special education students in nondepartmentalized environments receive resource teacher services in the regular classroom, while one in five receive speech and language services in the regular classroom. In many cases, the evidence shows that these special education teachers serve both special and regular education students while in these classrooms. In some cases, physical and occupational therapy is also provided in the regular classroom.

Nevertheless, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts still exhibits large percentages of special education students who receive services in either separate or pull-out environments outside of the regular classroom setting. More than 34percent of special education students in nondepartmentalized environments are served in special classes, and almost 39 percent of the special education students in nondepartmentalized environments are served by a special education resource teacher in a resource room (i.e., a pull-out programs). Almost one in three nondepartmentalized special education students receive speech and language services outside the regular classroom, averaging about one hour per week. Many older special education students served in departmentalized environments in secondary schools take courses specifically designed for special education students: for example, 50 percent are enrolled in special education math, 31 percent in special education English, 38 percent in language arts and reading, 28 percent in social science for special education students, and 23 percent in science for special education students. Courses in life, work, and independent living skills for special education students enroll 17 percent of these students. Almost 13 percent of these students are enrolled in vocational education courses for special education students.

An understanding of the factors affecting cost differences across special education students is critical for state policymakers considering issues related to funding alternatives. Systematic differences in costs are related to primary disability as well as levels of need for adaptation of curricular materials, and behavioral and physical/medical supports as reported by teachers. Controlling for differences in these levels of need for adaptation, cost differences associated with disability vary considerably between students served in nondepartmentalized versus departmentalized settings.

Teacher perceptions of student needs

Evidence presented in this study is consistent with the notion that the environment within which students are served and the philosophy underlying the approach to serving special education children may affect the ways in which these children are perceived. Specifically, it appears that teachers working in more inclusive schools perceive children to exhibit lower levels of need than those located in less inclusive schools. More research would be required to determine the impact of these changes in teacher perceptions of need on the educational process and ultimately on student outcomes.

Perspectives of the local special education directors

The special education directors who were interviewed for this study expressed concerns with the current funding system relating to insufficient funding, increased costs due to the discretion allowed to parents, and the dual funding system for private and public placements. Directors were concerned that Chapter 766 and the special education funding system provided incentives for parents to request independent evaluations and special education services and in particular, that these services be provided in private rather than public educational settings. Furthermore, special education directors largely believed the system to be equitable but not adequate or efficient. The burden of paperwork was described as a continuing issue, as were the costs of independent evaluations, transportation, and out-of-district placements. Although most of the interviewed directors felt that the current system gave them a great deal of discretion in using and blending state funds, competing demands in a climate of limited resources continue to challenge local administration of special education programs.

Cost and finance issues in the national context

For the most part, the state's special education finance policy appears to be in line with the general federal direction and that of many other states. The major exception seems to be the separate funding provisions for private residential placements and identification rates that are considerably higher than the national average.

Regarding costs, it seems likely that the cost of special education is higher in Massachusetts than in most other states, although cross-state comparison data are lacking. This conclusion is reached by high identification rates overall coupled with relatively high numbers of students in high cost, restrictive placements. In addition, there is a fiscal incentive to place students in private residential settings, which tends to be the highest cost placement of all.

Given these factors, it is not surprising that insufficient funding was the predominant concern expressed by the special education directors interviewed for this study. They argue that because special education is a mandated program, other social service agencies, which also have constrained budgets, are increasingly turning to special education to meet the health and social, as well as educational, needs of special education students. They also contend that parent demands for special education services are growing and that school districts are losing their ability to deny access to the program or to contain service levels, even when they believe this is warranted.

Cost control is one reason why the state may wish to reduce its special education identification rate. A number of states are currently examining this issue, and one reason given by the U.S. Department of Education in recommending census-based funding is the removal of incentives for the further identification of special education students. The state's current special education funding formula may represent an important first step through the removal of further state fiscal incentives to identify students for this program. If the U.S. Department of Education's recommendations for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding are enacted, state and federal policy will gain new consistency in this regard. However, other states that have realized reductions of this type have found it important to couple this change in fiscal policy with education and training. It will be important for local decision makers to understand the workings of the new fiscal policies and to be given training and perhaps resources for serving some students with special needs in alternative ways. As an example, prereferral mechanisms, such as Teacher Assistance Teams, may require more active support from the state.

Overall, although concerns were expressed about special education funding policy in Massachusetts, as described in chapter 4, virtually no one seemed to be calling for a return to the old funding system or a major revamping of the current one. Given the amount of sweeping change engulfing the country in the area of special education fiscal policy at present, this may be taken as a rather strong indicator of relative satisfaction. Clearly, the most pressing concern expressed was about a general insufficiency of resources. This is a common concern heard by special education service providers throughout the country who seem to find themselves in a Bermuda triangle of increasing service demands through parental pressures and existing state and federal requirements; diminishing support from other public social service, health, and welfare agencies; and stable or diminishing fiscal support for special education.

At the same time, there is considerable evidence at the federal level and across the states that the era of substantial expansion in special education funding may be over. For these reasons, trends in special education policy nationally seem to be toward the development of measures to hold steady, or reverse, rising enrollments and to develop lower cost, more efficient alternative modes of service designed to coordinate and articulate the use of existing resources to best meet the needs of all students. A separate, but perhaps related, important national trend is increased emphasis on the least restrictive environment (LRE) provisions of the IDEA. For Massachusetts, this seems to suggest education and training to hold steady or reduce the state's special education enrollment, while developing alternative intervention strategies for best meeting the special needs of all students in neighborhood schools, to the greatest extent appropriate.