Session 9: Per-Capita Financing of Education and Equity Issues

Session 9:Per-Capita Financing of Education

and Equity Issues

CONFERENCE ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

Organized by: UNICEF Regional Office for CEECIS &UNICEF Country Office in the Russian Federation

27-29 September, 2011

Thomas B. ParrishAmerican Institutes for Research

2

Overview of this presentation

What is per capita financing? How does it relate to inclusion for students with

disabilities? What are its advantages?

3

What is per capita financing?

Education funding is allocated based on a clearly specified formula.

The primary basis under a “per capita” formula is the number of students.

Under this type of formula, funding follows the student.

4


The amount of funds the central government allocates to a municipality and then onto individual schools is determined by formula.

In simple form, the formula is:– The per capita amount X the number of pupils

However, in practice, the per capita funding amount systematically varies for certain categories of students.

5


Larger per capita amounts may be specified for such factors as:

differing grade/age, curriculum, location, minority language, social disadvantage, and disability status

6


These systematic variations in per capita funding amounts are sometimes referred to as funding “weights.”

These weights are prescribed multiples of the per capita funding amount specified for a “basic” student.

For example, a base student might be one with no special conditions (e.g. language minority) in primary school.

7


Key determinations to be made in per capita financing are:– What is the base funding amount?– What special categories of students will be

awarded higher funding amounts (or weights)?– What varying “weights” are appropriate for

the varying classification of students included in the formula?

8


These decisions, i.e. an appropriate base funding amount and the varying funding weights, are usually based on determinations of:– Adequacy: The resources needed and available

to meet national education goals– Cost analyses: What are the relative costs of

serving students with special conditions, e.g. language minority, in relation to a “base” level student?

9


These amounts also may be based on:– Historical national patterns of education

spending– Research within the country regarding

adequate education provision and cost differences among classifications of students

– Research and/or practice from other countries

10


An example of the total per capita allocation for a primary school with 100 pupils might be:

60 students with no special needs: (60 X 1 = 60) 30 students of social disadvantage (30 X 1.2 = 36) 7 students of language minority (7 X 1.5 = 10.5) 3 disability students (3 X 2.5 = 7.5)

11


For this school the total weighted student count equals: 114 (60 + 36 + 10.5 + 7.5)

Funding for this school would equal:– 114 X the base funding amount

(Note: the weights shown above are for illustrative purposes only.)

12

How does per capita financing relate to inclusion for students with disabilities?

For students with disabilities, a single funding weight may be used.

However, to the extent that a country has multiple sub-classifications for students with disabilities, it may be preferred to use differential weights.

13


For example, in the US, where approximately 13.5% of all public school children are identified as special education multiple classifications are used.

A primary category of disability is determined for each child.

Costs are shown to vary considerably within and across these categories.

14

Expenditures by Category of Disability – US (99/00)

Note: The overall average expenditure ($12,525) differs from the amount in the prior slide due to excluding students served in the home or hospital.

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

upper bound $13,193 $11,309 $13,528 $14,677 $16,389 $16,588 $16,128 $18,281 $19,562 $21,671 $22,108 $21,826 $30,264

average $12,525 $10,558 $10,958 $13,229 $14,147 $14,993 $15,040 $15,992 $16,542 $18,790 $18,811 $20,095 $25,580

lower bound $11,857 $9,807 $8,388 $11,781 $11,905 $13,398 $13,952 $13,703 $13,522 $15,909 $15,514 $18,364 $20,896

Overall SLD SLI OHI ED OI MR HI/D TBI AUT VI/B MD NPS

15


Per capita funding facilitates special education inclusion because the funding follows the child

This allows the resources for students with disabilities to follow where they are served.

It is more feasible for local schools to serve students with disabilities if they bring with them supplemental revenues to at least partly offset their additional cost.

16


In addition to using cost as a basis for determining differential weights within special education, they may also be used to meet educational goals.

For example, to meet national goals, a country may designate higher funding weights for students with disabilities when served in neighborhood schools and in mainstream classrooms.

17

What are the advantages of per capita financing for students with disabilities?

Adequacy/Sufficiency: It forces the consideration of how much funding is needed to reach national educational goals for varying classifications of students?

Equity: Funds are distributed in a clear, consistent, and transparent manner based on the education needs of the students served.

Efficient/cost-effective: Flexibility allows students to be served where their needs can best be met at a fixed level of spending.

18


Adequacy/Sufficiency: Whether a country’s education budget is fixed,

declining, or has the potential for expansion, it is important to consider how available funds may be best spent.

Per capita financing allows flexibility with expanding or contracting national budgets in that the base funding amount may vary over time.

The weights, however, may stay constant representing the different levels of support needed for varying classifications of students.

19


Equity: The basis for funding education for municipalities

and individual schools is consistent, clear and transparent.

Students are funded equally throughout the country based on their education needs.

However, other factors may be included in the funding formula to provide greater equity, e.g. urban versus rural cost differences.

20


Efficient/cost-effective: Per capita financing allows students to be served

where their needs can be best met. Differential funding weights can be used to create

fiscal incentives for practices that align with national education goals.

For example, per capita funding can be a powerful vehicle for de-institutionalizing services for students with disabilities to placement in neighborhood schools andmainstream classes.

21


Efficient/cost-effective: The amount of funding received across entities for

like students is comparable allowing better tracking of the use of funds and the results achieved.

The full cost of providing institutionalized care could compete with that of services provided in neighborhood schools.

The educational and social outcomes under these alternative settings can be more easily compared.

22


Efficient/cost-effective: Per capita funding facilitates consideration of the

cost-effectiveness of alternative forms of service and educational placement.

Over time, neighborhood services for students with disabilities are likely to cost less and produce more.

Research shows enhanced educational and social outcomes for students with disabilities in more inclusive settings.

Fiscal incentives for inclusion Changing funding policy is not the sole

answer to promoting inclusion At the same time:

– It is difficult to foster inclusion when fiscal policies clearly favor restrictive placements.

– Also, it is difficult to move away from restrictive services when they generate the most revenues for students with disabilities.

Fiscal incentives for inclusion

Fiscal policies should promote practices shown to be cost-effective such as inclusion

By primarily focusing on the costs of alternatives, the most important element of educational cost-effectiveness may be lost

While cost is a vital policy consideration, the greatest emphasis in evaluating alternatives must be what is being produced.

Contact Information

Tom Parrish, Managing DirectorAmerican Institutes for Research (AIR)

San Mateo, CA [email protected]

Website: csef.air.org

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Session 9: Per-Capita Financing of Education and Equity Issues