Jay P. Greene on Special Education Funding

[Chef Dave]

I am starting this thread to see what you think about Dr. Greene's thoughts regarding special education funding. Jay P. Greene is the coauthor of a book called Education Myths: What Special-Interest Groups Want You to Believe About Our Schools and Why it Isn't So.

According to Dr. Greene, school districts have traditionally received state funding based upon the size of their special education programs. Dr. Greene has referred to this type of funding as a "bounty," a financial incentive to refer students into special education. He says that states with the traditional bounty system have more annual growth in special education than do states which have lump sum payments.

Moreover, with the passage of NCLB and the rise of high-stakes testing, schools now allegedly have the added incentive to remove low scoring students from the testing pool by placing them in special education where they'll be test exempt.

Dr. Greene has suggested that "Schools are increasingly diagnosing students as disabled and placing them in special education for reasons unrelated to those students’ genuine need for special education services." He further suggests that this is why many states have demonstrated a higher rate of graduation for special education students. The influx of low academic ability students who not actually learning disabled has effectively raised the average performance of special education students.

So ... what do you think?

Do schools tweak test scores by transferring low ability students into special education? Do schools put kids into special education programs simply so they can get increased funding?

Effects of Funding Incentives on Special Education Enrollment
by Jay P. Greene, Ph.D.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_32.htm

[Bananas]

According to Dr. Greene, school districts have traditionally received state funding based upon the size of their special education programs. Dr. Greene has referred to this type of funding as a "bounty," a financial incentive to refer students into special education. He says that states with the traditional bounty system have more annual growth in special education than do states which have lump sum payments.

Moreover, with the passage of NCLB and the rise of high-stakes testing, schools now allegedly have the added incentive to remove low scoring students from the testing pool by placing them in special education where they'll be test exempt.

Dr. Greene has suggested that "Schools are increasingly diagnosing students as disabled and placing them in special education for reasons unrelated to those students’ genuine need for special education services." He further suggests that this is why many states have demonstrated a higher rate of graduation for special education students. The influx of low academic ability students who not actually learning disabled has effectively raised the average performance of special education students.

So ... what do you think?

Do schools tweak test scores by transferring low ability students into special education? Do schools put kids into special education programs simply so they can get increased funding?

Effects of Funding Incentives on Special Education Enrollment
by Jay P. Greene, Ph.D.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_32.htm

My assumption would be that school get increased funding for special ed student. These students see more money spent on them, and with all the paperwork and data we supply for the funding, I would agree with that.

Things have changed over the past few years. NCLB is being reauthorized. IDEA has been reauthorized, and our state has finally just handed down their latest policies and procedures to comply the the current IDEA.

With NCLB, the there is huge pressure in watching that subgroup amount of 40 students receiving services to make a subgroup. Our state has projected percentages of the amount of students receiving special ed services in proportion to the general population. These percentages are to gradually decrease. Putting the numbers to make a subgroup makes it harder for the district.

The eligibility determination process has also changed quite a bit. The discrepancy model is gone, and the guidelines for LD has also changed. Whereas a student who was eligible for services could be placed in resource for any subject by determination of the team as a whole, now I am told resource is only an option if that is the area for which they qualified.

There must be intense documentation of meetings and efforts before even referring a student for initial evaluation for services. Even if found eligible, the push for inclusion increases, and this can be done with less special ed teachers. An aide could help service these needs, depending on the makeup of the students' needs.

Where is this being exempt from testing under the cover of being in special ed? Never heard of that. A small percentage of students may take alternate testing, but those are the severe profound, and it was 1-2% the last I heard. We had an 8th grader taking that grade level standardized test, even though he read at a 2nd grade level. His test was figured in.
After filling in his bubble answer sheet with a quick pretty design, his misbehavior out of his frustration ruined the validity of how many other students?

RtI is really being utilized in schools now, with the promise of that increasing. This is under the general education, not special ed. Hitting the skills hard before they will ever need services is the theory and intent.

It has been the exact opposite of low-ability students getting services in raising the special ed scores. If they have a low ability, they will probably not qualify. They are performing where they should be.