Last week, the Public Policy Institute of California released a new report titled, Special Education Finance and California. Building on the work done by the 2015 State Special Education Task Force, the report focused on recommendations for creating a more seamless state-wise system of education – and has some important implications for Unconditional Education.
Before I get into the specifics of these findings, it’s important to know a bit about the recent history of education finance. In 2013, California largely revised the way funding is allocated to schools with the enactment of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Prior to the development of this formula, schools managed 50+ education funding streams focused on particular student demographic (such as foster youth, English language learners) or particular initiatives (such as K-3 class size reduction), otherwise known as categorical funds. Categorical funds were created to ensure that certain student groups who are traditionally underserved receive targeted supports. However, over time the number of categorical funds ballooned, and the categorical fund model created a siloed, piecemealed system that was both difficult to manage and often prevented school leaders from responding to the specific needs of their own school communities. The shift to LCFF consolidated most state categorical funds into a block grant where funding is allocated to schools and districts based on certain demographic criteria. This new formula ensures that schools with more needy students receive more resources and that all schools are required to meet certain accountability standards within the plans they develop to ensure the achievement of previously marginalized groups.
Due to the complexities of Special Education funding and the related federal mandates special education as a categorical fund was not collapsed into LCFF. However, now that LCFF has had several years of successful implementation, the report reasons that special education funds can and should be combined into the LCFF formula to create a more coherent system of funding. After all, can we really have a unified system if we still have 10% of our students in a categorical system? The blending of these funds would further supports the tenet that all students should be seen as general education students first, with special education services providing supplementary supports.
In addition, the report authors argued that this funding shift would increase schools’ ability to provide prevention and early intervention, rather than the current wait-to-fail model incentivized by the existing special education system. Schools would maintain their responsibility for meeting requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Act, thus preserving an important civil rights protection for students with disabilities, but funding would be more flexible such that school leaders could more strategically invest in Tier Two supports for students.
On the whole, the inclusion of special education in LCFF would place fewer restrictions on special education dollars. Thus, school leaders would have the flexibility they need to create a unified and coherent system aimed at meeting the needs of their own students. Check out a full copy of the report here to read more about how this change would affect California’s schools.
In addition, the report authors argued that this funding shift would increase schools’ ability to provide prevention and early intervention, rather than the current wait-to-fail model incentivized by the existing special education system. Schools would maintain their responsibility for meeting requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Act, thus preserving an important civil rights protection for students with disabilities, but funding would be more flexible such that school leaders could more strategically invest in Tier Two supports for students.
On the whole, the inclusion of special education in LCFF would place fewer restrictions on special education dollars. Thus, school leaders would have the flexibility they need to create a unified and coherent system aimed at meeting the needs of their own students. Check out a full copy of the report here to read more about how this change would affect California’s schools.
Blog post written by:
Robin Detterman, Executive Director of School Partnerships
Robin Detterman, Executive Director of School Partnerships
RSS Feed