study of vermont state funding for special education · pdf fileexisting special education...
TRANSCRIPT
StudyofVermontStateFundingforSpecialEducation
LegislativeTestimony
January9,2017TammyKolbe,UniversityofVermont
KeyObjectivesForReport
• Developacomprehensiveprofileofspecialeducationcosts&describethefactorsinfluencingcosts
• Evaluatecurrentfundingformula&establishparametersforredesign
• Describeacensus-basedfundingmechanism&simulatehowitcouldbeimplementedinVermont
DataConsidered• Independentanalysisofspecialeducationandfinancialdata
– StatedataprovidedbyVermontAgencyofEducation– NationaldatafromU.S.DepartmentofEducation’sdatarepositories
• Policyanalysisofotherstatestudiesofspecialeducationfunding– Fundingadequacystudies– Fundingformulasummariesandevaluations
• Stakeholderinput,including:
– InterviewswithstateofficialsresponsibleforoverseeingandimplementingVermont’sspecialeducationfundingformula.
– Interviewswithsupervisoryunion,district,andschoolleadersabouttheirexperiencesimplementingtheState’sspecialeducationfundingformula.
– Interviewswithparentsofstudentswithdisabilitieswhocurrentlyreceivespecialeducationandrelatedservices.– Focusgroupswithrepresentativesfromorganizationsthatrepresenttheinterestsofeducationandsocialservice
professionals– bothgenerallyandspecifictostudentswithdisabilities– aswellasothercitizengroups(e.g.,parentandfamily-basedorganizations).
– Astatewidesurveywithspecialeducationadministrators(co-sponsoredwiththeVermontCounselofSpecialEducationAdministrators).
– Focusgroupswithteachers onwhether,andinwhatways,thefundingformulainfluencestheirprocessesforidentifying,classifying,andservingstudentswithandwithoutdisabilities.
SpecialEducationCostsinVermont
UnderstandingSpecialEducationCosts
• Thenumberofstudentswhoareidentifiedforspecialeducation&relatedservices
Identification
•Studentswithdisabilitiesareclassifiedaccordingto13federally-defineddisabilitycategories
Classification•IndividualizedEducationProgramincludesaplanforsupportsandservicesastudentmightreceive
Placement&Services
• FundsexpendedforFAPEforstudentswithdisabilitiesintheleastrestrictiveenvironment.
Costs
SpecialEducationChildCount(SY2015)
• ThepercentageofstudentswithdisabilitiesinVermontissomewhathigherthannationalaverage,butonparwithneighboringandpeergroupstates (ReportTable1,p.18)
Autism Spectrum Disorder
(ASD) Deaf-blindEmotional
Disturbance
Hearing Impairment (Including Deafness)
Intellectual Disability
Multiple Disabilities
Orthopedic Impairment
Other Health
Impairment (OHI)
Specific Learning Disability
(SLD)
Speech or Language
Impairment
Traumatic Brain Injury
Visual Impairment (Including Blindness)
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Vermont 16.1 8.9 0.0 17.6 0.6 6.0 2.0 0.3 19.8 34.5 9.6 0.3 0.2
National Average 13.3 9.3 0.0 5.9 1.1 7.1 2.1 0.7 15.4 39.8 17.7 0.4 0.4
Selected Comparison StatesNew Hampshire 15.0 10.1 0.0 8.9 0.8 3.3 1.5 0.2 21.7 40.0 12.8 0.3 0.5
Maine 17.7 9.4 0.0 7.7 0.4 2.6 10.3 0.1 21.6 32.5 15.0 0.1 0.1Massachusetts 17.6 11.0 0.1 10.8 0.7 6.2 2.6 0.7 14.7 29.9 16.4 6.5 0.4Rhode Island 15.8 11.1 0.0 8.5 0.7 4.0 1.9 0.3 18.4 39.8 14.7 0.3 0.3
Delaware 15.3 8.1 0.2 4.7 1.1 8.4 0.0 1.2 14.1 51.8 9.7 0.4 0.4Kentucky 13.5 7.4 0.0 5.9 0.8 17.5 2.6 0.5 18.3 20.8 25.4 0.3 0.6
South Dakota 14.3 6.1 0.0 6.5 0.8 9.9 2.9 0.3 14.9 39.7 18.1 0.3 0.3
Percent of All
Students
Percentage of All Students With Disabilities
NumberofIEPsQualifyingforExtraordinaryCostReimbursement(FY2009-2017)
227 220 233 224 287
386 417 446
564
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
• Since2014,therehasbeena75%increase(since2013)inthenumberofIEPsqualifyingfortheState’sextraordinarycostreimbursement(ReportFigure3;p.20)
StateSpendingonSpecialEducation
2013 2014 2015 2016StateSpending
ReimbursementFormula $138,178,560 $144,741,288 $149,478,388 $157,891,972%Year-to-yearChange 5% 3% 6%
Extraordinarycostreimbursement $10,992,045 $11,542,990 $12,299,063 $14,282,780%Year-to-yearChange 5% 7% 16%
TotalStateSpending(ReimbursementFormula&ExtraordinaryCosts) $149,170,605 $156,284,278 $161,777,451 $172,174,752%Year-to-yearChange 4.8% 3.5% 6.4%
LocalSpending $103,863,779 $109,167,010 $112,780,331 $116,074,894%Year-to-yearChange 5.1% 3.3% 2.9%
TotalState&LocalSpending $253,034,384 $265,451,288 $274,557,782 $288,249,646%Year-to-yearChange 4.9% 3.4% 5.0%
See:ReportTable5,p.25
• Statespendingforitsreimbursementformulaincreased14%sinceFY2013,and6%forFY2016
• Stateforitsextraordinarycostreimbursementformulaincreased29%sinceFY2013and16%forFY2016
State&LocalExpendituresPerIEP
• Onaverage,forFY16,supervisoryunionsandschooldistricts,spentanadditional$21,840perstudentwithanIEP (ReportTable7,p.27)
• SinceFY2014,averagespendingperIEPhasincreased8%
SpendingComparison
• ForFY2016,Vermont’sactualaveragespendingperIEPwasabouttwotimegreaterthanwhatispredictedusingnationalestimatesforspecialeducationcosts(Table13,p.53)
• Vermont’saveragespendingperIEPexceeded thenationalaverageandotherpeerstates
CostDrivers1. AdministrativerequirementsandrulesdefiningallowablecostsundertheState’s
existingspecialeducationfundingformula createinefficienciesinservicedeliverythatcontributetohigheroverallspending
2. Thenatureandextentofstudentneedhasgrownmoremorecomplex
3. Weakfundingforcomprehensiveandearlysupportsystemscreatesincentivestoidentifymorestudentsforspecialeducationto accessadditionalfundingfromState
Vermont’sExistingSpecialEducationFundingFormula
FundingSpecialEducationinVermont
• State– Reimbursementmodel
• Onaverage,thestatereimburseslocalitiesforabout60%ofqualifyingexpendituresforstudentsidentifiedforspecialeducation
– Extraordinarycostprovision• Statereimburseslocalitiesfor90%ofqualifyingexpendituresforanindividual
student,inexcessof$50k
• Federal– IDEAPartB(School-agedchildren)
• Local– Remainder(afterstateandfederalcontributions)
CritiquesofExistingSystem
• Voicesfromthefield:– Administrativelycostly(forStateandlocalities)– Fundingismisalignedwithpolicypriorities,particularlyMTSSandPBIS
–Misplacedincentivesforstudentidentification,categorizationandplacement
– Discouragescostcontainment– Unpredictableandlackstransparency
ImplementingaCensus-basedFundingMechanism
inVermont
Census-basedFundingMechanism• Amountofspecialeducationfundingadistrictreceivesis
basedonnumberofnon-disabledstudentswithinaschooldistrict(e.g.,ADM/ADA)– Lumpsumisnotbasedonvariationbetweenindividualschooldistricts
• Pros:– Simple/transparent– Flexibilityinhowfundingcanbeused– Alignedwithpolicypriorities(servingstrugglingstudentsacrossthe
general/specialeducationservicedeliverysystems)– Predictable
• Cons:– Possibleincentivesfordistrictstolimitservices– Potentialcostliabilityfordistrictsifcensusgrantamountissettoolow
CalculatingaCensusGrant
• Censusgrantamountiscalculatedas:
• Percapitagrantamount=(NumberK12studentswithIEPs*ExcesscostperIEP) *StateshareofspendingK12ADM
• Keyassumptions:– Thenumberofstudents(statewide)withIEPs– Theexcess(ormarginal)costperIEP– Thenumberofstudents(statewide)enrolledinK-12education(i.e.,K12ADM)– Thestate’sshare/responsibilityforspending(e.g.,60%)
PerStudentSpendingAmountEstimates
• Perstudentspendingamountsfallbetweenabout$1,467and$3,062• Spendingamountsreflect100%oftheanticipatedspendingforspecialeducation
onapercapitabasis(currently,theStateshareofspecialeducationspendingis60%)
Spending Based on Actual Number of IEPs in Vermont
Spending Based on Reducing Number of
IEPs to National Average
(Col 1) (Col 2)
Actual ExpendituresAverage Supervisory Union/District Expenditures (FY2016) $3,062 $2,905
SEEP Adjusted Per IEP Costs
VermontDisability-specific Weights $1,547 $1,467
Maryland Adequacy Study
All Disability GroupingsResource Costs* $1,641 $1,557
Disability Grouping Weights $1,970 $1,869
Mild/Moderate Disabilities OnlyResource Costs* $1,209 $1,161
Disability Grouping Weights $1,457 $1,400
Per Capita Spending Equivalent (K12 ADM)
Inourreport,wecalculatedpossiblegrantamountsbasedondifferentassumptionsfor:
1) Thenumberofstudents(statewide)withanIEP
2) TheaverageamountspentperIEP
See:ReportTable16,p.58
Census-basedFormulaSimulations
Example1 Example2 Example3
ModifiedStatusQuo(FY16AverageSpending)
PredictionsforWhat“Should”Be SpentperStudentwithIEPinVermont
StudentswithDisabilitiesAssumption(VT2016) 11,218 11,218 11,218CostperIEPAssumption
Actual SpendingVermontDisability-
specificWeights(SEEP)ResourceCosts(MD
Adequacy)CensusGrantAmount(K-12ADM)
PerStudent $1,837 $928 $985
PerStudent,withPovertyAdjustment $1,881 $958 $1,008
AssumesStateShareofCosts 60% 60% 60%
EstimatedStateAppropriation(perFY)
BasedonK-12ADM $147,633,732 $74,684,055 $79,134,027
Differencefrom2016StateFormula(Reimbursement&BlockGrantOnly) ($10,258,236) ($83,207,913) ($78,757,942)
See:Report,Table18,p.62
ExtraordinaryCostReimbursementModelsModel1
FixedThreshold(StatusQuo)
Model3Two-stepThresholdModel
Description
StatereimbursessupervisoryunionsforIEPcostsinexcessof$50,000.
Thresholdamountsforreimbursementaretiedtowhetherastudentisplacedwithin- orout-of-supervisoryunion (e.g.,separateschoolresidentialplacement).
CostAssumpions
ThresholdAmount $50,000WithinSU:4.62xStatewideAverageRegular
EducationPerPupilSpending($51,051for2016)
OutsideofSU:5.9xStatewideAverageRegularEducationPerPupilSpending$65,195for2016)
StateReimbursementParameters 60%ofcosts<ThresholdAmount 60%ofcosts<ThresholdAmount
90%ofcosts>ThresholdAmount 90%ofcosts>ThresholdAmount
EstimatedCosttoState(perFY) $31,981,016 $36,191,554
ImplementationConsiderations• Afive-yearphase-inperiodfortransitioningtoacensus-basedmodel.
– Currentcostsreflectcurrentpractice– Simplyreducingspendingwouldlikelyresultinchildrengoingunservedandlocalities
notmeetingtheirobligationsunderfederalandstatelaw.– Supervisoryunionsandschooldistrictsneedtimetoadapttonewflexibilityinfunding
approachandtoresettheirservicedeliverysystems
• Additionaltechnicalsupportforlocaleducators.– Localitieswillrequiretechnicalassistancewithmakingappropriatechanges
thatresultincostsavings
OtherDesignConsiderations• Studentscountedforaidallocation
– K12vs.PK12ADM
• Categoricalvs.blockgrantfunding– Example:30%categorical&70%blockgrant
• Accountability– Performancemetricstoensurethattheneedsforstudentswithdisabilitiescontinueto
bemetandoutcomesimprove
• Maintenanceofeffortforfederalfunding– ReductionsinstateappropriationmaytriggerreductionstofederalIDEAPartBgrant
Summary• State&localspendingforspecialeducationhasincreasedinrecentyears.
However,thepercentageofstudentswithdisabilitieshasbeenrelativelystable,andonparwithotherNortheasternstates.
• Onaverage,VermontspendsconsiderablymoreperIEPthanrelevantcomparisonstatesorthenationalaverage.
• Existingstatefundingapproachmayincentivizelocalitiestoidentifystudentsforspecialeducation&discouragescostcontrol.
• Existingstatefundingapproachlackstheflexibilityneededtoimplementbestpracticesforaneffectiveandefficientservicedeliverysystemforstrugglinganddisabledstudents.
Summary• Acensus-basedfundingformulamaybeanappropriatefundingmechanismfor
Vermont.
• AssumingtheState’sexistingshareofspending(60%),acensusgrantamountof$930-985perstudentwouldbeanappropriatecensusgrantamount.
– ThisrepresentsapotentialannualFYsavingsof$79-83million,overFY2016Stateappropriationsfortheexistingreimbursementformula(excludingextraordinarycostreimbursement).
• Acensus-basedmodelshouldbepairedwithanextraordinarycostreimbursementmechanism.– Werecommendatwo-steppedthresholdmodelforreimbursinglocalities,withthresholdamounts
forwithinandout-of-districtplacements.
Summary
• Afive-yeartimelineforimplementingthenewfundingmodeltocoincidewithsimultaneouschangesinservicedeliverymodelsonthepartofsupervisoryunionsandschooldistricts.
• AdditionaltechnicalsupportandcapacitybuildingbyAOEtohelplocalitiesadjustservicedeliverymodelstorepresentnewfoundflexibilityandthepotentialforinnovationinhowstudentsareserved.
ContactInformation
• TammyKolbe,CollegeofEducation&SocialServices,UniversityofVermont– Email:[email protected]
• KieranKilleen,CollegeofEducation&SocialServices,UniversityofVermont– Email:[email protected]