# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding Autism: A Guide for Secondary School Teachers (Part 2)

# data[].attributes.headline
The Use of Evidence-Based Practices Through Teacher-Parent Collaboration

# data[].attributes.subject
The Use of Evidence-Based Practices Through Teacher-Parent Collaboration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effective Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices Through Parents

# data[].attributes.headline
Accommodations and Modifications for Students with Disabilities

# data[].attributes.subject
Accommodations and Modifications for Students with Disabilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Accommodations and Modifications for Students with Disabilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California_Special-Ed.pdf#___text=In general, to qualify for special education in,and age requirements. Cal. Educ. Code §§ 56026(c)-(d).

# data[].attributes.headline
Youth with Special Education Needs in Justice Settings 

# data[].attributes.subject
Youth with Special Education Needs in Justice Settings 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5f4ede9c0d2af7e672802ef7_Supporting Students with Disabilities  in the Classroom within a PBIS Framework

# data[].attributes.headline
Assistive Technology Laws and Legislation 

# data[].attributes.subject
Assistive Technology Laws and Legislation 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Assistive Technology (AT), as officially defined in 1987, improves learning for individuals with physical impairments, cognitive problems and learning disabilities by compensating for the person's limitations. AT can be defined as "any item, piece of equipment, or product system...that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities."- Assistive Technology devices may be as simple as a magnifying glass or as complicated as a high tech computer program that highlights text and reads it back to the student (gene link https://www.ldrfa.org/assistive-technology)/.
Assistive Technology can be defined as "any item, piece of equipment, or product system...that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities."
There are four major Federal laws that discuss access to and funding of Assistive Technology and rights of the Disabled We briefly will review each one. ( AT Resources Funding Guide)

#1 The Technology Related Assistance For Individuals with Disabilities Act

The Technology Related Assistance For Individuals with Disabilities Act, (Tech Act) first passed in 1988, and reauthorized in 1994 and 1998 reaffirmed that technology is a valuable tool that can be used to improve the lives of Americans with disabilities. (P.L. 105-394) The Tech Act allocates to States a grant to fund an Assistive Technology Act Project (ATAP). ATAP provides services to persons with disabilities for their entire lifespan, as well as to their families or guardians and service providers, agencies or other entities providing education or employment services to individuals with disabilities.

In NY State the Justice Center administers the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities ( TRIAD) a program to coordinate access to and acquisition of AT in the areas of education, employment, community living and information technology/telecommunications. An AT Exchange to facilitate equipment exchanges between individuals at lower than market price or for no cost can be acquired on the website. In NY City, ADAPT Community Network formerly United Cerebral Palsy of New York City is the regional center to provide free assistance for all New York City children and adults; educating and acquiring AT for them.

#2 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) -1990

The ADA is a civil rights law to make sure that individuals with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. It guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services, and telecommunications. The ADA is divided into five sections that relate to different areas of public life. ADA protects individuals with disabilities from employment discrimination. Employers must provide reasonable accommodations to qualified applicants or employees. A reasonable accommodation is any modification or adjustment to a job or work environment that will enable an applicant or employee with a disability to participate in the application process or to perform essential job functions. The the use of Assistive Technology may be considered a reasonable accommodation and may facilitate a person's employment or application/credentialing process with a company or profession that may have otherwise have been denied.

#3 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) -2004

IDEA requires schools to find and evaluate students suspected of having a disabilities, at no cost to parents. This Act ensures that every student with a disability receives a Free, Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that is tailored to their unique needs and prepares them for further education, employment and independent living. There are 13 Disability Categories that IDEA covers and the child must need special education because of that disability. Educators utilize a process Response to Intervention (RTI) to help evaluate and monitor students struggling with a skill or lesson and to help identify a specific learning disability. This is often done prior to or in conjunction with the development of the Individual Education Plan (IEP). Once a child has been evaluated and qualifies for special education, The IEP is developed by the team and the parent/guardian. An IEP is a legal document that spells out a child's educational goals and the services and support the school will provide. In 1997 an Amendment to IDEA was enacted. It required that AT devices and services be an accommodation consideration for every student who is being evaluated for an IEP and if deemed appropriate, must be provided at no cost to parents.

#4 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 1992, 1998

Section 504 is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Section 504 ensures that the child with a disability has equal access to an education. The child may receive accommodations and modifications., Assistive Technology is a reasonable accommodation according to Section 504.

This Act may also be used to obtain Assistive Technology for students who were not granted AT under the IDEA.

Students who do not qualify for Special Education according to the IDEA criteria may still be eligible for accommodations such at AT under Section 504.

Who Determines Whether Assistive Technology Will Benefit a Child?

An IEP team will usually determine whether a child needs an assistive technology device or service. An assistive technology evaluation may then be requested by the team. If the parents disagree with the IEP team's evaluation of their child's need for Assistive Technology, the parents have the right to request an independent AT evaluation at the school's expense.

The law requires that a student's participation in their learning experience be in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). The use of AT provides support for a child with a disability, allowing the student to benefit from instructional materials and to communicate effectively. Assistive Technology is included in the definition of "supplementary aids and services" and an accommodation as defined in both IDEA and 504.

Assistive Technology Summary

Federal Legislation has over the years been enacted to enable better access to and provision of technology that supports individuals with disabilities. Assistive Technology (AT) was federally defined in 1987 and written into law with the Tech Act of 1988. This ACT supports the goal of our education system which is to ensure that all students have meaningful access to the curriculum. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA) requires schools to provide special education and related services, based on the Individual Education Plan (IEP), customized to meet the student's specific needs. The 1997 Amendments to IDEA required that Assistive Technology be considered for every student with a disability as part of the IEP process. AT is classified as an accommodation and provided as a device or a service.

The IEP team usually recommends and evaluates a child for Assistive Technology, however, a parent may submit a written request for an evaluation. If the IEP team denies the need for AT, the parents have the right to request an independent AT evaluation at the school's expense.

The school is tasked to ensure that the IEP team considers current Assistive Technologies and that AT mandates are provided in a timely manner. The Department of Education is to provide AT assessment, training, resources, and implementation to support students, families and teachers. With the use of Assistive Technology, it is hoped that the student will attain their academic and instructional goals allowing the student to benefit from instructional materials and communicate effectively.

** These Laws and their interpretations can present with many complexities. Although parents are included in the IEP process, it is best for the parent to work with an advocate, someone who has experience with these matters. **

Photo Credit: Pixabay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Parents Should Know about Assistive Technology Laws and Legislation - LDRFA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Assistive Technology (AT) , as officially defined in 1987, improves learning for individuals with physical impairments, cognitive problems and learning disabilities by compensating for the person's limitations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Accommodations to the Physical Environment: Setting Up a Classroom for Students with Visual Disabilities

# data[].attributes.subject
Accommodations to the Physical Environment: Setting Up a Classroom for Students with Visual Disabilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Challenge

View the movie below and then proceed to the Initial Thoughts section (time: 0:56).

Transcript: Challenge

Yesterday, just three days before the first day of school, Ms. Milton found out that she would have two students with visual disabilities in her class. Evan is blind, and Emily has low vision. Their IEPs say that they should be seated in the front of the room. Emily needs a larger desk for equipment and access to an electrical outlet. Ms. Milton had already put all of the students' desks in groups because she wants her students to do a lot of group work this year.

Earlier this morning, a deliveryman arrived with boxes of equipment from the special education department. Looking at this stack of strange devices, Ms. Milton realizes she doesn't even know the names of most of this equipment, let alone how to use it or where to put it.

Here's Your Challenge:

What resources should Ms. Milton consult to learn more about Evan and Emily's needs?

What should Ms. Milton consider when planning her room?

What is all this equipment? Where should Ms. Milton put it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
View the movie below and then proceed to the Initial Thoughts section (time: 0:56). Transcript: Challenge Yesterday, just three days before the first day of school, Ms. Milton found out that she would have two students with visual disabilities in her class. Evan is blind, and Emily has low vision.

# data[].attributes.headline
Overview of Special Education Funding Models

# data[].attributes.subject
Overview of Special Education Funding Models

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary

Since the 1970s, federal law has required public schools to provide special education services to students with disabilities that interfere with their ability to learn. Schools in California cover special education costs through a combination of local unrestricted, state categorical, and federal categorical funding. Trailer legislation from the 2021‑22 budget package specifies that state special education funds will only be allocated in the 2022‑23 budget if statutory changes designed to improve the academic outcomes of students with disabilities are included in the budget. These changes may include modifications to the existing funding allocations, clarification of different roles and responsibilities within the special education system, and expansion of inclusive practices.

To help inform future discussions, this brief provides an overview of special education models used by California and other states and provides the Legislature with a framework for evaluating these models. The brief begins by providing background on the state's current funding allocation formula for special education. California provides most special education funding based on overall student attendance, with roughly 16 percent of state special education funding provided through other programs based on alternative formulas and/or for specific types of special education services, including those for students with higher‑cost disabilities. The brief also describes the four primary models used by states to distribute special education funding to schools-census‑based, weighted, reimbursement, and resource‑based.

Next, the brief sets forth a simplified framework that describes three key criteria for evaluating special education funding models: (1) appropriate fiscal incentives, (2) alignment of funding and costs, and (3) transparency and ease of implementation. These criteria were developed based on our review of the academic literature. The brief concludes by offering some issues for the Legislature to consider. Specifically, we note that (1) all funding models have specific strengths and weaknesses, (2) legislative policy priorities and state context should drive changes to the funding formula, (3) the state can also make changes within its existing funding system, and (4) other changes are likely required to address key policy priorities.

Special Education Supported by Combination of Local, State, and Federal Funding. Schools receive billions of dollars each year (mainly as local general purpose funding from the Local Control Funding Formula) to educate all students, including students with disabilities. These funds can be used for any educational purpose but primarily cover general education costs such as teacher compensation. Beyond these general education costs, schools incur additional costs to serve students with disabilities (for example, to provide specialized instructional support and adaptive equipment). To help cover these additional costs, in 2021‑22, schools received about $6 billion combined from state and federal categorical funding specifically for special education. These fund sources together cover roughly one‑third of the additional cost of special education services. Schools cover remaining special education costs with their local general purpose funding.

Share of California Students Receiving Special Education Has Increased in Last Decade, Despite Declining Student Attendance. The share of California students receiving special education was virtually flat from 1997‑98 through 2007‑08, then grew notably in subsequent years-increasing from about 10 percent in 2008‑09 to almost 12 percent in 2019‑20.Much of this growth is due to an increasing share of students diagnosed with relatively severe disabilities, most notably autism, which typically require more costly services. Although the share of students receiving special education has increased in the past decade, overall statewide student attendance has declined every year since 2013‑14. As AB 602 provides funding based on overall student attendance, the formula generally allocates less funding when statewide attendance declines, even if the share of students receiving special education increases. As a result, schools have reported covering an increasing share of their special education expenditures with local general purpose funding.

Currently, Other States Use Various Special Education Funding Models. Figure 1 describes the four primary models used by states to distribute special education funding to schools. With the exception of the census‑based model, most models include some indicator of special education cost. For instance, weighted formulas-the most common model used by states-typically allocate funds based on counts of students with disabilities. As with California, many states use a combination of these approaches to allocate funds. For example, Massachusetts allocates most special education funding under a census‑based model but also maintains an extraordinary cost pool to reimburse schools serving students with high‑cost services.

Figure 1

Types of Special Education Funding Models
Used by States

Census‑Based

Provides funding based on overall student attendance or enrollment. Assumes per‑student special education costs do not significantly vary across the state.

Allocates funds based on counts of students with disabilities. Variations of this model include (1) a single, flat weight where students with disabilities generate the same amount of funding and (2) tiered weights where students with disabilities generate different levels of funding based on disability category, placement type, or service levels.

Resource‑Based

Provides funding based on special education resources, including teachers, instructional aides, and specialists. Level of resources typically are determined by staff‑to‑student ratios that can vary by disability category, placement type, or service levels.

Reimbursement

Reimburses schools for all or a percentage of actual, eligible expenditures. May include high‑cost formulas that only provide reimbursement after a certain cost threshold.

Alignment of Funding and Costs. Students with disabilities require additional services and supports to access their education. The cost associated with providing these special education services varies based on each student's specific needs. Costs can also substantially vary within each disability category, across different regions of a state, the educational setting, and by other factors. As a result, special education costs can vary significantly across schools. Models that closely link special education funding to the actual costs of providing services more efficiently distribute state funding and allow schools to better support students with varying needs, including those with higher‑cost services.

Transparency and Ease of Implementation. A formula that is simple and easy to understand reduces administrative burden at both the state and local level and allows for more efficient use of special education funding. A formula that relies on straightforward procedures for a school to receive funding is also likely to reduce administrative burden, as well as potentially allow schools to project anticipated special education funding for budgeting and planning purposes. Funding formulas that require frequent, complex modifications are more administratively burdensome to update and require more work from program administrators to stay aware of formula changes. If these modifications are challenging or only sporadically implemented, funding models can become outdated and, over time, no longer aligned to the initial legislative intent.

Figure 3

Summary of Trade‑Offs for Special Education Funding Models

Appropriate Fiscal
Incentives

Alignment of
Funding and Costs

Transparency and Ease of Implementation

Census‑Based

+ Does not encourage overidentification of students.

+ Allows for service flexibility and innovation.

+ Encourages services to be delivered in most cost efficient way.

‑ Does not account for significant differences in cost.

+ Simple, easy to understand formula.

+ Does not require routine updating.

‑ May introduce incentive to overidentify and serve students for special education.

+ Provides additional funding based on students likely to have higher costs.

+ Easy to understand formula.

‑ Formula weights may need to be updated over time to reflect changes in relative cost.

Reimbursement

+ Less likely to encourage overidentification.

‑ Does not encourage cost efficiency.

+ Provides additional funding for schools with higher special education costs.

‑ Typically administratively burdensome to calculate costs eligible for reimbursement.

Resource‑Based

‑ Could constrain service delivery based on how staff ratios are set.

‑ Could encourage identifying students to fill slots in more restrictive classrooms with higher funding.

+ Provides additional funding based on resources needed to support students with disabilities.

‑ Specific funding requirements can vary in complexity.

‑ May require updates to align with changes in service delivery.

...But Does Not Account for Significant Differences in Cost. The most notable drawback of a census‑based model is that it does not direct additional funding to schools serving students with higher‑cost services. For instance, if a large school district serves disproportionately higher shares of students with high‑cost disabilities-such as traumatic brain injury or orthopedic impairment-the census‑based model would provide this district the same amount of funding as a similarly sized district serving a low share of students with high‑cost disabilities. In California and in other states, the organization of smaller districts into regional collaboratives for special education purposes helps to address variations in identification rates across the state. Furthermore, the state funds several categorical programs aimed at higher‑cost students with disabilities. For instance, the Low‑Incidence Disabilities and extraordinary cost pool programs target some additional funding for students known to have high‑cost services and support needs. The Out‑of‑Home Care program provides additional funding for students with developmental disabilities and foster youth, known to be identified for special education at higher rates than other students. (In the early 2000s, the state also had a special disabilities adjustment that provided additional funding for schools serving higher shares of high‑cost students but was eliminated in 2011‑12 due to various challenges with updating the formula.)

Other Formulas Can Better Target Additional Funding Based on Higher Costs. In contrast to the census‑based model, the other three special education funding models better target funding, as they include some indicator of cost. Weighted formulas use counts of students with disabilities as a proxy for cost and can account for cost variations due to differences in the share of students identified for special education, the severity levels of disabilities, the types of placements, and the number of services students receive. Resource‑based formulas provide funding based on staffing levels-the costliest component of special education-by allocating funds according to staffing needs and established staff‑to‑student ratios. Reimbursement formulas provide funding based on actual, allowable special education costs. Although these formulas can better target special education funds, they have other limitations, which we discuss below.

Weighted Formulas Could Introduce Fiscal Incentives to Overidentify or Misclassify Students With Disabilities. Under weighted formulas, schools only generate additional funding when a student is identified for special education. A notable concern is that weighted formulas could create a fiscal incentive for schools to overidentify or misclassify students with disabilities. Research using data from the 1990s showed that schools in Texas identified more students with speech language impairments and specific learning disabilities to increase funding under the state's weighted formula. The study found an increase in the overall identification rate, especially for districts with higher shares of black students and fiscally constrained districts with limited state education funding. Formulas with weights that vary by different disability categories may also encourage misclassifying students as having more severe disabilities than they actually do to qualify for higher funding levels. The fiscal incentives introduced by weighted formulas could undermine attempts in California and other states to provide early intervention services and appropriate supports to students struggling academically in the general education classroom first. These activities are intended to prevent significant developmental and academic delays, thereby reducing the number of students who will need special education services and the associated funding generated under a weighted model.

Resource‑Based Formulas Can Result in More Restrictive Placements, Administrative Workload, and Limited Innovation. Resource‑based formulas could also introduce adverse fiscal incentives. For instance, resource‑based formulas can encourage schools to identify students to fill slots in specific classrooms-most likely classes attended only by students with disabilities associated with lower teacher‑to‑student ratios and more funding. Prior to AB 602, California used a resource‑based formula to allocate special education funding, and the fiscal incentive to place students in more restricted settings to increase funding was a primary reason for the state's transition to a census‑based model. In addition, resource‑based formulas can be more administratively burdensome, as they typically require schools to document and report staffing and expenditure data to the state. Under California's old resource‑based formula, for example, schools sometimes hired outside consultants to help them navigate the complex formula. Furthermore, California's resource‑based formula only recognized certain types of service models and did not reflect changes in services and best practices over time, thus constraining schools' ability to implement innovative programs.

Legislative Policy Priorities and State Context Should Drive Changes to the Funding Formula. In recent years, the Legislature has signaled interest in increasing early intervention services-which can reduce the number of students identified as needing special education-and encouraging inclusive practices that serve students with disabilities in a general education setting. Both of these actions can lead to improved outcomes for students. In considering changes to special education funding, the Legislature may want to evaluate whether certain models can better promote these and/or other legislative priorities. For instance, a weighted formula could introduce fiscal incentives that discourage early intervention, as schools would only generate funding once a student is identified for special education. In contrast, a census‑based model could encourage early intervention as a more cost‑efficient approach to addressing learning gaps by removing fiscal incentives to identify students for special education. The Legislature may also want consider whether certain models are more appropriate for California given our state context, such as our unique school finance system. For example, California school districts are constitutionally restricted in their ability to raise local revenue due to Proposition 13 (1978), whereas districts in many other states are able to raise local taxes if they have extraordinarily high special education costs. Given these constraints on raising local revenue, districts in California likely rely more heavily on state education funding to align with their program costs, particularly when costs are extraordinarily high.

State Can Also Make Changes Within Existing Funding System. To address the key shortcoming of the census‑based model, the state provides some funding through other programs that target higher‑cost students with disabilities, such as the Low‑Incidence Disabilities program, extraordinary cost pools, and Out‑of‑Home Care funding. The limited funding and specific requirements of these programs allow the state to better target funding while continuing to avoid incentives to overidentify students with disabilities or spend funds inefficiently. If the Legislature wants more targeted funding for high‑cost services, the Legislature could modify or expand the existing funding system. It could, for example, expand the extraordinary cost pool, as applications for reimbursement consistently exceed the amount of funding set aside for the program.

Other Changes Likely Required to Address Key Policy Priorities. Although trailer legislation from the 2021‑22 budget package signals an interest in making changes to existing special education funding allocations, additional changes beyond the funding formula are likely necessary to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. For example, eliminating key barriers to promoting inclusive practices likely requires actions beyond funding changes. Surveys of special education teachers and school districts suggest that key barriers to inclusion include general education teachers feeling unprepared to work with students with disabilities, restrictive program requirements for inclusive early learning programs, and organizational structures that make collaboration between general education and special education more difficult. These barriers may be more effectively addressed directly rather than through the primary funding formula.

Each special education funding model has certain strengths and limitations. During the last overhaul of the special education funding system in 1997‑98, the state identified many strengths to transitioning to a census‑based model, namely avoiding adverse fiscal incentives and being administratively efficient. The strengths of the census‑based model continue to apply today, as does its inability to provide more funding for significantly higher costs. As the Legislature discusses potential changes to the current special education funding system, it will want to consider whether the strengths and limitations of an alternative funding model are preferable to that of the census‑based model, and whether the shortcomings of an alternative model can be sufficiently addressed through other programs.

Appendix: Selected References

Baker, B.D., Green, P.C., & Ramsey, M.J. (2012). Financing Education for Children with Special Needs. In J.B. Crockett, B. Billingsley, & M.L. Boscardin (Eds.), Handbook of Leadership and Administration (pp. 97-114). Routledge.

Cullen, J.B. (2003). "The Impact of Fiscal Incentives on Student Disability Rates." Journal of Public Economics, 87(2003), 1557-1589.

Fischer, A., Syverson, E., & Duncombe, C. (2021). 50-State Comparison: K-12 and Special Education Funding. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved November 30, 2021, from https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-12-and-special-education-funding/.

Kolbe, T. (2021). "State Funding for Special Education: Aligning Policy With Priorities." Journal of Special Education Leadership, 34(1), 19-31.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Overview of Special Education Funding Models

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since the 1970s, federal law has required public schools to provide special education services to students with disabilities that interfere with their ability to learn. Schools in California cover special education costs through a combination of local unrestricted, state categorical, and federal categorical funding.

# data[].attributes.headline
Research Based Practices for Teaching Students with Disabilities 

# data[].attributes.subject
Research Based Practices for Teaching Students with Disabilities 