SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDS CAN ENCOURAGE
COLLABORATION, INTEGRATED SERVICES, AUTHOR FINDS

	No radical changes in federal law are needed to pay for
services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), according to top policy makers and officials.  Instead, they
recommend a shift in emphasis to encourage a more consolidated
approach of delivering services and a stronger federal role in
providing assistance for children with disabilities.   

	The change in emphasis is described in "Toward More
Integrated Special Education Funding and Services: A Federal
Perspective," published in the fall by the American Institutes for
Research, Center for Special Education Funding.  A noted authority
on school financing, Deborah A. Verstegen surveyed 36 policy makers,
scholars and officials, examined testimony presented at IDEA
hearings and reviewed literature and statutes to learn what steps
the federal government can take to move beyond fragmented,
uncoordinated efforts to a new, more unified method of delivering
funds and services.

	Verstegen, an associate professor at the University of
Virginia's Curry School of Education, found that some of those
surveyed believe the current regulations are sufficiently flexible
that local and state officials can obtain funding to deliver
appropriate services in integrated settings.  However, Verstegen
notes, "Although school districts with unified methods of providing
service can be found, it is clear that current provisions and state
and local practices have, for the most part, resulted in disjointed,
rather than unified, schooling systems."

	Others surveyed felt that the fiscal accountability
provisions of aid programs were obstacles in integrating and
improving delivery of services.  However, they also noted that many
state and local practices are more stringent than federal law,
resulting in inappropriate segregation of special education
children. To address this problem, Verstegen and others in the
survey suggest that states provide a clear definition of federal and
state requirements.  They also recommend restructured accountability
systems and a unified vision of what is and is not required by
federal law.

	"What is needed is a shift in direction under the current
IDEA provisions so that there are clear policies on how to dispense
funds and measure results.  A unified vision of reform is required,
across all federal players -- in policy, program, monitoring and
accountability," Verstegen said.

	Among the top recommendations for integrated funding and
services in Verstegen's
study are:

¥	Do not provide block grants; instead, emphasize the
provisions of the law that allow localities to integrate and
coordinate programs and services for students with disabilities.
¥	Clearly define and disseminate to localities the methods of
accountability and monitoring the IDEA allows.

¥	Set aside 5 to 10 percent of assistance under IDEA to be
used at local discretion to bridge education services.

¥	Provide local guidance or regulations addressing
requirements under the incidental benefit rule.

	"It is important to keep federal funding streams for special
education separate from other revenue to assure funds reach children
with disabilities, but do not inappropriately separate children,"
Verstegen noted.

	For more information on special education funding, contact
Deborah Verstegen at (804) 924-0745 or via dav3e@virginia.edu.

###

February 12, 1996