更多的钱是不够的:(重新)考虑增加联邦特殊教育资金的政策建议

IF 2 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH American Journal of Education Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1086/721846
Tammy Kolbe, Elizabeth Dhuey, S. Doutré
{"title":"更多的钱是不够的:(重新)考虑增加联邦特殊教育资金的政策建议","authors":"Tammy Kolbe, Elizabeth Dhuey, S. Doutré","doi":"10.1086/721846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: New policy proposals to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—including recent efforts by the Biden-Harris administration to “fully fund” IDEA—bring a new sense of urgency to understanding how federal special education dollars are distributed among states. In this study, we evaluate whether the existing formula equitably distributes IDEA funding and show how potential future funding increases would be allocated. Research Methods/Approach: We apply concepts and empirical methods used in K–12 education finance policy research to evaluate the extent of existing variation in federal grant aid among states and whether systematic differences exist among states in the allocation of IDEA funding according to relevant need and other factors. Policy simulations illustrate how the distribution of funding among states will be affected by proposed increases in IDEA appropriations if the current formula is used. Findings: The existing formula results in substantial disparities among states and systematically disadvantages large states and states with more poor, disabled, and non-White children. Policy simulations show that increasing federal funding without modifying the formula used to calculate state grants will perpetuate and even exacerbate existing funding disparities. Simply adding additional dollars to existing appropriations without modifying the current formula works against policy makers’ goals to equitably distribute IDEA funding to states. Implications: Moving forward, achieving goals for equitably allocating IDEA funding will require changes to the statutory formula used to calculate states’ grant allocations.","PeriodicalId":47629,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Education","volume":"129 1","pages":"79 - 108"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"More Money Is Not Enough: (Re)Considering Policy Proposals to Increase Federal Funding for Special Education\",\"authors\":\"Tammy Kolbe, Elizabeth Dhuey, S. Doutré\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/721846\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: New policy proposals to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—including recent efforts by the Biden-Harris administration to “fully fund” IDEA—bring a new sense of urgency to understanding how federal special education dollars are distributed among states. In this study, we evaluate whether the existing formula equitably distributes IDEA funding and show how potential future funding increases would be allocated. Research Methods/Approach: We apply concepts and empirical methods used in K–12 education finance policy research to evaluate the extent of existing variation in federal grant aid among states and whether systematic differences exist among states in the allocation of IDEA funding according to relevant need and other factors. Policy simulations illustrate how the distribution of funding among states will be affected by proposed increases in IDEA appropriations if the current formula is used. Findings: The existing formula results in substantial disparities among states and systematically disadvantages large states and states with more poor, disabled, and non-White children. Policy simulations show that increasing federal funding without modifying the formula used to calculate state grants will perpetuate and even exacerbate existing funding disparities. Simply adding additional dollars to existing appropriations without modifying the current formula works against policy makers’ goals to equitably distribute IDEA funding to states. Implications: Moving forward, achieving goals for equitably allocating IDEA funding will require changes to the statutory formula used to calculate states’ grant allocations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47629,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Education\",\"volume\":\"129 1\",\"pages\":\"79 - 108\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/721846\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/721846","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:增加《残疾人教育法》(IDEA)资金的新政策提案——包括拜登-哈里斯政府最近为“全额资助”IDEA所做的努力——为理解联邦特殊教育资金如何在各州之间分配带来了新的紧迫感。在这项研究中,我们评估了现有公式是否公平分配IDEA资金,并展示了未来潜在的资金增长将如何分配。研究方法/方法:我们应用K-12教育财政政策研究中使用的概念和实证方法,根据相关需求和其他因素,评估各州联邦拨款援助的现有差异程度,以及各州在IDEA资金分配方面是否存在系统性差异。政策模拟说明了如果使用当前公式,各州之间的资金分配将如何受到IDEA拨款增加的影响。调查结果:现有的公式导致了各州之间的巨大差异,并系统地使大州和贫困、残疾和非白人儿童较多的州处于不利地位。政策模拟表明,在不修改用于计算州拨款的公式的情况下增加联邦资金将使现有的资金差距长期存在,甚至加剧。在不修改现行公式的情况下,简单地在现有拨款中增加额外美元,就违背了政策制定者向各州公平分配IDEA资金的目标。影响:为了实现公平分配IDEA资金的目标,需要改变用于计算各州拨款的法定公式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
More Money Is Not Enough: (Re)Considering Policy Proposals to Increase Federal Funding for Special Education
Purpose: New policy proposals to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—including recent efforts by the Biden-Harris administration to “fully fund” IDEA—bring a new sense of urgency to understanding how federal special education dollars are distributed among states. In this study, we evaluate whether the existing formula equitably distributes IDEA funding and show how potential future funding increases would be allocated. Research Methods/Approach: We apply concepts and empirical methods used in K–12 education finance policy research to evaluate the extent of existing variation in federal grant aid among states and whether systematic differences exist among states in the allocation of IDEA funding according to relevant need and other factors. Policy simulations illustrate how the distribution of funding among states will be affected by proposed increases in IDEA appropriations if the current formula is used. Findings: The existing formula results in substantial disparities among states and systematically disadvantages large states and states with more poor, disabled, and non-White children. Policy simulations show that increasing federal funding without modifying the formula used to calculate state grants will perpetuate and even exacerbate existing funding disparities. Simply adding additional dollars to existing appropriations without modifying the current formula works against policy makers’ goals to equitably distribute IDEA funding to states. Implications: Moving forward, achieving goals for equitably allocating IDEA funding will require changes to the statutory formula used to calculate states’ grant allocations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Education
American Journal of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
4.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Founded as School Review in 1893, the American Journal of Education acquired its present name in November 1979. The Journal seeks to bridge and integrate the intellectual, methodological, and substantive diversity of educational scholarship, and to encourage a vigorous dialogue between educational scholars and practitioners. To achieve that goal, papers are published that present research, theoretical statements, philosophical arguments, critical syntheses of a field of educational inquiry, and integrations of educational scholarship, policy, and practice.
期刊最新文献
Cultivating Critical Hope While Leading during Crisis: A Qualitative Cross-Comparative Analysis The Persistence of and Challenges to Whiteness in Parent Engagement The Power of the Inner Voice: Examining Self-Talk’s Relationship with Academic Outcomes “Figuring Out My Part in All of This”: Understanding Ambiguity and Uncertainty in Shaping Teacher Learning within Reform Breaking the Mold: The One Social Class Model and Saving Face among Undocumented and Mixed-Status Chinese Immigrant Families
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1