Funding patterns for exceptional children: Current approaches and suggested alternatives.

Abstract

Presently, school personnel must formally label special needs children if the cost of services rendered to these children is to be reimbursed by governmental agencies. Research indicates that current diagnostic systems are characterized by limited reliability and questionable validity. There is considerable, although not conclusive, evidence indicating that the labeling process may be harmful to children. It is hypothesized that categorical funding strategies have also restricted school psychologists from delivering a full range of services to schools. An alternative approach is presented that includes (a) a move away from categorical labeling, (b) the distribution of special education funds to school districts on a lump-sum basis, and (c) the provision of reinforcers to appropriate school personnel for successful remedial interventions. The incorporation of these concepts into new funding laws should result in a higher quality of educational programming, fewer children who are unnecessarily stigmatized, and a more appropriate utilization of school psychological services.The manner in which special education funds are allocated within school systems is of central importance to school psychologists and the children they serve. Funding laws have had a major, although probably inadvertent, impact on several crucial parameters relating to the delivery of psychological services in schools and are therefore deserving of close scrutiny. A primary focus of this analysis concerns the efficacy of federal and state statutes that require children to be categorized and labeled (e.g., emotionally disturbed, learning disabled, etc.) before special education funds can be spent in their behalf. Current StatusCurrently, laws in virtually every state (Massachusetts being the clearest exception) mandate psychological labeling as a prerequisite to service delivery if local school districts are to be reimbursed by the state for the cost of special services. Recent federal legislation, in particular Public Law 94-142, 1 has reinforced this arrangement. Needless to say, special services are expensive, and most local districts are therefore largely dependent on these external state and federal funds if they are to provide such services for their students.The advantages of current funding approaches are clear and were no doubt largely responsible for their original establishment. Local school districts benefit by receiving large sums of revenue that can be utilized to help meet the educational and psychological needs of their exceptional children. Labeling practices benefit state and federal governments by providing a structure of accountability so that funds earmarked for children 1

Resistance to school-based consultation: A behavioral analysis of the problem

“…But above and beyond this, the existence of overwhelming caseloads and referrals for testing makes it very difficult for many psychologists to shift into a consultation framework. Although the use of consultation techniques may well serve to improve consultee skills (Curtis & Watson, 1980;Gutkin, 1980;Gutkin, Singer, & Brown, 1980) and facilitate secondary prevention, it may take years for these factors to reach the critical mass necessary to decrease teacher referrals and requests for testing (Ritter, 1978). In the interim, the consulting psychologist must continue to fulfill his/her traditional obligations in addition to carrying through with consultation programs.…”

The influence of acceptability and social system variables on teachers' use of classroom interventions

“…School districts receive reimbursement based on the number and severity of students diagnosed as handicapped. Gutkin and Tieger (1979) Finally, Piersel and Gutkin (1983) Graden, Casey, and Bonstrom (1985) provide empirical support for many of the system level factors identified by Piersel and Gutkin (1983) The importance of administrative support and the social system variable of willingness to look at school-wide issues corroborates results presented by Goldman and Cowan (1976) examining the use of school-based consultation. These investigators found that consultants were most effective and used most frequently in schools where they were also utilized actively by the principals.…”

“…Other authors have also identified similar variables (Abidin, 1972;Gallessich, 1973;Reppucci, 1977;Reppucci & Saunders, 1974). School system and building level variables such as administrative support (both internal and external to the building), provision of adequate resources, and funding pressures to keep existing programs in place (Gutkin & Tieger, 1979) may be power ful determiners of the degree of use of classroom interventions. More over, some teachers apparently do not believe that they are primarily responsible for behavior and social-emotional developmental concerns (Lambert, 1976) and instead deem referral to special education as the intervention of choice (Algozzine, Ysseldyke, Christenson, & Thurlow, 1982).…”

Time management training for school psychologists.

“…During the past decade, the role of the school psychologist has been expanded beyond the area of assessment to include service activities such as counseling, consultation, and program evaluation (Bardon & Bennett, 1974;Gutkin & Tieger, 1979;Maher, 1980a). This expansion in role and function means that practitioners must use their professional time very efficiently.…”