The Costs of INCLUSION

MARGARET J. McLAUGHLIN

Reallocating Financial and Human Resources to Include Students with Disabilities

Inclusion of students with significant disabilities into regular classrooms is increasing in school districts across the country.

The term "inclusion" means different things to different people. Ideally, inclusive schools are those that coordinate and unify educational programs and services to educate all students together, regardless of individual learner needs. Students with disabilities attend their home schools and participate fully with their peers in regular classes.

For some students with significant disabilities, inclusion also can mean providing specialized services or education outside the regular class for a limited time.

Resource Drain

The move to inclusion is driven by a respect for diversity and by a strong philosophical commitment to the rights of individuals with disabilities to be part of every community. Inclusion also can offer a more efficient way to use resources to support the learning needs of a broader group of students.

At the same time, some educators and parents fear that inclusion practices will drain resources for the system, shortchanging students in regular classrooms.

Some fear that inclusion could be used as a means to save money at the expense of students who need specialized educational services. One concern is that special education teaching positions may be reduced as students move into integrated classrooms. Some charge that the entire movement is designed to save transportation costs.

Although inclusion is being extensively debated across the county, information related to costs is notably lacking, particularly regarding resource allocations or how those allocations change with a move to inclusion.

To obtain information about costs, researchers at the University of Maryland interviewed special education directors, principals, and other administrators in 14 schools or districts committed to including all students with disabilities. These individuals were asked about the impact of inclusion on budgets. They identified five areas affected by a move to inclusion: teachers and instructional assistants, transportation, facilities, materials and equipment, and professional development.

Classroom Teachers

When special education service delivery changes from a categorical model to inclusion, substantial changes occur in how special education personnel are deployed. Teachers who formerly had self-contained classrooms and were responsible for developing and implementing a limited number of individualized education plans must change roles to accommodate the new ways and places in which students with disabilities now are educated.

These self-contained positions convert to consultants, support facilitators, inclusion specialists, and similar roles. The major responsibilities of the individuals change from providing instruction directly to students to interacting with other teachers and specialists and directing the activities of teaching assistants or aides.

The function of the special educator usually is to lead the development of the individualized education plan, provide case management services, and help regular classroom teachers implement students' IEPs. Some teachers may provide limited direct instruction to individual students.

In larger schools with several special education teachers, grade-level teams have been established. Special education teachers serve as team members and co-teach, consult with, and otherwise relate to a limited number of teachers at a specific grade level. The goal is to shift that responsibility to the regular classroom teacher.

Changing the roles and responsibilities of special education teachers is complicated by class size regulations and by funding restrictions. Including students with disabilities from existing special education classrooms into regular classrooms can increase class sizes and, in some instances, can increase the need for regular education teachers.

In one district, the special education levy supplemented the general education personnel budget to support an additional classroom teacher.

State and local special education and Title I funding restrictions posed problems in a few districts. To use these specially funded teachers as team members, positions routinely were multi-funded from several sources based on careful analyses of how the teachers spent their time.

Instructional Aides

In inclusive schools, instructional assistants or aides have many more responsibilities, including providing direct instruction and support to students with disabilities in their classrooms.

All districts in the study increased the number of these personnel. One district hired one-third more classroom aides. Another district increased the number of aides by almost 50 percent over a two-year period and two-thirds of all aides work specifically with students with disabilities.

The South Burlington, Vt., School District, which has 140 special education students among its 2,000 students, moved from seven instructional assistants five years ago to 50 today. The district's policy is to hire one instructional assistant for every student with a significant disability. A few districts and schools did not hire more instructional assistants because the current personnel were deemed sufficient and because they did not have the funds.

Despite the increase in the number of instructional assistants being assigned to inclusive classes, those administrators most experienced with inclusion said that this is a temporary support. Regular classroom teachers tend to request less and less support as they gain confidence in working with students with disabilities. One administrator said, "Teachers new to inclusion frequently ask for an aide; the old pros say they don't need or want one! The aide is an extra body in the classroom."

Transportation

Some suburban and urban districts reported savings in transportation costs, particularly when students attend their home school and walk to school or ride regular buses. The Weld County, Colo., School District reported more than 300 students needed specialized transportation three years ago compared to about 125 students today.

Some districts formerly bused their students with severe disabilities to cooperatives or centralized multi-district programs requiring long bus rides and high transportation costs. These students now, by and large, ride regular buses at significantly lower costs. Some districts added bus lifts on the regular routes to accommodate students with physical disabilities.

Every district still provides door-to-door transportation and special vans or lift-equipped buses for some students. However, the big difference seems to be that this is now done on a child-by-child basis. For example, one child who uses a wheelchair walks to school with his brother and friends and uses a special van only during the most inclement weather.

Despite reducing the overall use of special transportation, several school districts, especially in rural communities, did increase the number of lift-equipped buses or vans. Several districts needed to retrofit at a cost of around $50,000 per vehicle. In some instances, however, these costs were offset by an overall decrease in the use of specialized transportation.

Facilities

Ensuring building accessibility is a major issue in creating inclusive schools. Most administrators believed their schools were accessible for the most part. The majority of the school districts have renovated as needed in individual schools to meet the needs of specific students. The most frequent renovations were increasing the size of restrooms, cutting curbs, and installing ramps. Some schools also have added special lifts to give students access to upper levels.

At least one affluent suburban district has invested $40,000 to $100,000 per school to make buildings "functionally accessible." Renovations included creating bathrooms large enough to catheterize students, providing low drinking fountains, and installing washers and dryers.

Expenses for these renovations typically were covered by capital expenditures, district-targeted funds to implement the Americans with Disabilities Act, or, in one instance, special inclusion funds provided by the state education agency. Most often, if districts could not afford costly renovations, a class that included a student with a mobility impairment would be located on a first floor, along with all other classes at that grade level.

Administrators reported the need for more group space for teachers to work together. The concepts of teacher collaboration and multi-age grouping were not included in the design of many schools.

Adaptive Materials

In districts where students are moving from cluster programs to home schools, some adaptive equipment (e.g., trunk standers, positioning boards, computers, specialized chairs, and mobility devices) may need to be duplicated in each school.

Equipment costs varied. For example, the Lake Washington, Wash., school district invested about $30,000 to equip each school with computers and some adaptive devices. Another district spent about $1,500 per school for duplicate adaptive equipment.

Some material costs actually decreased because special education teachers began ordering materials from general catalogs. Some materials, including computer software, are less expensive when ordered through the general district curriculum catalogs than similar items purchased in specialty catalogs. Once teachers discovered there is no mystique to special education, they began to use more general education materials.

Staff Development

All districts invested heavily in professional development. Typically, professional development activities began before students were included. Teachers, principals, and instructional assistants attended workshops, seminars, and institutes, and visited other districts to see how inclusion works.

Most administrators supported professional development activities with funds from several sources, in large part because insufficient funds were allocated for professional development. In districts where the school board provided strong support, a one-time infusion of money was earmarked for professional development.

In the Weld County, Colo., school district, the board approved $25,000 in new funding to support professional development targeted at inclusion. The school board of the Fayetteville-Manlius, N.Y., district earmarked $10,000 to provide professional development in schools committed to inclusion. Professional development included giving each building principal resources to hire the equivalent of one FTE substitute teacher each week to provide release time for teachers to meet and collaborate.

Vermont has one of the most ambitious professional development efforts. "I-Teams," or interdisciplinary teams, have been established regionally with the support of the state education agency to help local districts move toward inclusion. The I-Team, composed of educators, psychologists, related service personnel, and parents, consults with teachers and administrators in local districts to develop specific educational plans for students. It also provides crisis management.

Most costs associated with professional development went to hire substitute teachers to release teachers for joint planning among special and regular education teachers. Outside consultants rarely were used. Districts relied heavily on their own teachers and parents to provide staff development.

Specialized professional development for instructional assistants was a new focus for most districts. This training is critical in light of new roles for instructional assistants in inclusive settings.

Some administrators reported that their districts may have spent more resources on professional development than necessary. Two districts had emphasized workshops and training for all staff in the entire school system and community at large. In both districts, inclusion plans stalled because teachers became increasingly anxious about what they would be expected to do.

The best professional development seemed to be ongoing support and specialized training provided in the context of serving a specific student.

As teachers came to know the students, they were better able to use their new knowledge and anxiety dissipated.

Cost Caveats

Does inclusion cost more? Any answer to that question must be tempered by two considerations: the relatively small number of school districts involved in this study, and the fact that inclusion is a new service delivery model that most districts have implemented within the past five years.

Given these caveats, inclusion does cost more initially. Whether those costs entail new expenditures to renovate buildings and hire new instructional assistants or represent a reallocation of existing funds, from tuition to staff development, is not answered in this preliminary study.

Obviously, start-up costs are associated with inclusion, and a move toward inclusion appears to put increased demands on district special education and operational budgets as districts build the capacity of individual schools to serve students with multiple and severe disabilities.

Does inclusion cost more relative to other modes of service delivery? Most likely not. When the costs of providing services in home schools are examined relative to costs of transporting and educating services in cluster programs or specialized schools, inclusion can be less expensive.

In the Rutland Southwest, Vt., Supervisory Union, one administrator cited two students with severe disabilities who had been enrolled in special day schools and had been transported each day to the school. The district had spent $86,000 for tuition and transportation for both students. When these students returned to their home schools, the district provided ongoing behavior management consultation (through an external consultant), hired two instructional assistants (one for each student), purchased a Canon Communicator for each child, and sent a team of teachers from each school to a one-week institute to help them develop instructional plans for the students.

The cost for these services was $65,000, representing a savings of $21,000. This full amount did not transfer directly to the district.

Transportation is one area where districts may recognize significant cost savings over time. As more students are able to walk or use the regular school buses to get to neighborhood schools, the number of routes, buses, and miles of specialized transportation will decrease. These savings can be significant. According to estimates from the U.S. Department of Education, the calculated costs for special transportation provided during 1991-92 exceeded the total federal contribution under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to special education for that school year.

If the transportation savings can be applied to other budget lines, such as personnel or staff development, a district will be able to adequately support the instruction of individual students with disabilities in regular schools.

With inclusion, some increase in personnel is likely, even over the long term. The increases will be primarily in the area of paraprofessionals since some additional classroom-based support is likely to be needed for some students.

The study found no indication of decreases in professional personnel, such as replacing teachers with aides. However, at present, special education staffing is determined by state regulation and the central-office model for delivering special education services. Local administrators are bound by district and state policies and had limited autonomy in this area.

Pushing Ahead

None of the sites providing information for this investigation was involved in inclusion to save money. Each site was committed to providing high-quality education to each student with a disability in settings with non-disabled peers. This commitment was prompted by the belief that schools should be structured to support diversity and that individuals with all types of disabilities are entitled to be part of the schools and communities where non-disabled individuals live and attend school.

Almost every person interviewed cited specific examples of how inclusion worked in the local school or district. Some told anecdotes about how individual students had increased their abilities to communicate or how quickly challenging behaviors disappeared when students were engaged with non-disabled peers.

In one instance, where a student's parents were reluctant to move him into a regular middle school, the school staff arranged for the student to visit the middle school classes for several days. The student did not want to return to his special school, and the parents now are considering making the change to regular school.

One impression that remains from the interviews is that school districts are pushing forward with inclusion because people in these districts believe it is the right thing to do.

Owing to these beliefs, district administrators do not appear to be stymied by lack of funds. If they can garner support from school boards and state education agencies, they put resources into it. If new money is not readily available, they piece together funds to do what they can.

The administrators do not necessarily view inclusion as a way to save money, but they are radically rethinking special education. They do not halt the initiative because of lack of funds. In short, the effort can be as expansive as the funds available or as constrained as the budget, but creating inclusive schools will continue.

Margaret McLaughlin is associate director of the Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth, where Sandra Warren is a faculty research associate.

Reassigning Teachers in Inclusive Schools

Relatively little change in the number of professional special education personnel occurred in districts implementing inclusion, according to our study of 14 schools and school districts.

Two relatively affluent suburban districts with strong commitments to inclusion did add professional personnel. In the Fayetteville-Manlius, N.Y, school district, which is moving this year to a home-school model for its 300 special education students, one special education teacher will be hired at the elementary level so that five full-time equivalent special educators will serve three schools. At least one additional half-time special education teacher will be needed at the middle school to serve the anticipated students.

In the Indian Prairie, Ill., school district, which has 500 students in special education, the inclusion model called for each elementary school to have a full-time resource teacher, a full-time speech and language therapist, a half-time psychologist, and a halftime remedial reading teacher. Two new psychologists were hired to meet this ratio. (This district also built two new elementary schools during this time, so one new psychologist might have been needed anyway to maintain the prior level of services.)

New Assignments

Only one site, the Lake Washington, Wash., school district, actually reported the loss of a professional staff position. This occurred when one school opted to convert one full-time professional position to 2.5 instructional assistants because the remaining special educator in the building was able to provide the necessary consultant support and supervision.

Administrators interviewed in all other districts said they needed every special educator position, but these personnel had to be used differently. For example, the nine self-contained classroom teaching positions in Indian Prairie became support facilitators, and one was assigned to each building. Six of the support facilitators were former special education self-contained classroom teachers. However, three of the teachers believed they could not make the change and moved to other districts as self-contained special education teachers.

In the Montgomery County, Va., school district, special education teachers are assigned to grade-level teams. Because Virginia is a categorical state, the state education agency granted a waiver to permit special education teachers to provide special education services to students outside of the teachers' certification areas.

However, case management for an individual student remained the responsibility of a special education teacher in the school who was certified in the student's disability. Self-contained classroom teaching positions no longer needed were converted to itinerant inclusion specialists who serve on planning and support teams for students with moderate and significant disabilities.

These former self-contained classroom teachers spend most of their time interacting with adults, although some still provide limited direct instruction to individual students as needed. Some teachers could not make the switch from the autonomy of having their own classroom to interacting with adults, but others reportedly see the change as advantageous.

In larger schools with multiple special education teachers, almost all districts have established grade-level teams. Special education teachers serve as team members and co-teach, consult with, and otherwise relate to a limited number of teachers at a specific grade level. In one middle school with more than 1,000 students, the resource room teacher previously had to relate to all 40 regular education teachers, but now is part of a specific grade-level team along with the other nine special education teachers.

At the high school level, a community-based vocational program continues to operate in virtually every district. Students with disabilities in these programs are supervised and supported by special education staff. When the students are back in the high school, they may spend varying amounts of time in regular classrooms, but inclusion remains less well defined at the secondary level. One director said, "I'm still waiting for someone to show me how to do it right.

Minimal Change

In about half of the interview sites, little restructuring has taken place regarding the roles and responsibilities of resource room teachers of students with mild disabilities. By and large, these teachers continued to serve students in pull-out programs for varying time periods during the day.

Asked about the lack of change in these positions, the administrators said their first priority was to include students with moderate and significant disabilities. They indicated their districts probably would look next at the resource room models.

However, in New Mexico and some districts in Vermont, resource room teachers already were converted to consultant teachers some years ago. Also, in one Maryland site, the inclusion model covered only students with mild to moderate disabilities, and all former resource room and self-contained classroom teachers co-taught with regular education peers in grade-level teams.

-Margaret McLaughlin and Sandra Warren

The Challenge of Fiscal Analysis

Determining the actual costs of inclusion is difficult for school district administrators. This is due in large part to a new way of doing business, both in teaching and in managing resources.

During this time of transition, many districts still operate in a fiscal environment that is fairly traditional and exemplified by isolated, non-integrated budgets. The new approach erases artificial barriers across programs and budgets to create a more fluid system of services.

One of the largest line items in school district budgets often is transportation. When students are bussed to schools outside their neighborhoods, the costs accelerate quickly. This is particularly true for students with disabilities who may ride special education busses that carry only a handful of students and an aide.

When students return to their home school or begin riding busses with their non-disabled peers, the need for specialized equipment and excessive routes is minimized and savings are realized. However, these savings typically are realized in the transportation budget and rarely are attributed to a restructuring of the special education system.

Inclusion results in a significantly different use of school personnel. One of the beauties of inclusion is the presence of additional resources in classrooms to support all students. Thus, students who have not been identified as eligible for special education services receive more intensive support from teachers and aides.

Personnel costs are readily apparent, but what is difficult to ascertain is the proportion of personnel expenditures relating to special education. Using the skills of all staff in creative ways furthers the development of inclusive schools but makes it more difficult to track the expenditures in discrete areas.

Facilities budgets also may change inclusive schools, yet it is difficult sometimes to identify changes resulting strictly from inclusion. One common example is the need for additional space for teachers to collaborate in planning activities. Since floor plans of many older schools do not facilitate the gathering of small groups of teachers to work together, additional space is needed increasingly (possibly in temporary buildings). Whether this need is a result of inclusion or the natural outgrowth of increased collaboration is not clear.

Another area related to facilities is the need for accessible schools. The need for accessibility for students with physical disabilities is obvious, but teachers and parents with physical disabilities also require barrier-free environments. Accommodating their needs is a result of the Americans with Disabilities Act rather than the specific focus of inclusive education.

Suffice it to say that the 1990s are bringing about a new era in education--a new way of doing business--and a new way of budgeting.

Margaret McLaughlin and Sandra Warren

Cost Analysis Profiles of Students in Special Education

The Minnesota Department of Education compared the costs of educating students with disabilities in a study that examined profiles of actual students at a certain point.

The study, released in 1991, assessed direct and indirect costs of the services provided, yielding a descriptive school-based perspective frequently missing from aggregate cost studies.

The study establishes comparative costs for students in their learning environments in various settings in a school district: preschool, second grade, eighth grade, and 11th grade. Each student with a disability was paired with a non-disabled peer in the same educational setting.

These statistical tables, which profile five second-grade students, account for the major portion of the local school district's costs. Not shown are funds raised at the local level through discretionary levies earmarked for special education and state special education aid figures.

Costs associated with direct instruction and special instruction were determined on a pro-rata system.

Copies of the study, "Regular Education and Special Education: Individual Student Analysis of Costs Data," are available by contacting the study's author, George Holt, at the Office of Special Education, Minnesota Department of Education, 550 Cedar St., St. Paul, Minn. 55101.

Jay P. Goldman

Classification: Regular Education Student

Joyce, a second-grader, works seriously, strives to make no errors, and checks frequently with the classroom teacher. She is in the middle reading group and does above-average work in math and spelling. She is social and pleasant to have in class.

Regular Education Expenditures
Service                    District Costs
Administration                    $199.11
Instruction                      2,643.74
Co-curricular                      237.51
District Support                   204.37
Cost of Education               $3,284.73
Revenues
General Education Revenue       $2,953.00
Net COST TO DISTRICT              $331.73

Classification: Special Learning Disability

Ann experienced difficulty in reading in the first grade and failed in language arts. She was average to above average in ability, but could not master the reading process. She was provided an alternative approach to reading and given extra tutoring in language arts.

In second grade she is back in the regular classroom with consultant services provided to the regular classroom teacher. She is succeeding with reading by being afforded extra time and differentiated assignments. Curriculum-based assessments are administered several times each quarter. Ann continues to succeed within the average range.

Special Education Expenditures
Service                         District Costs
Teacher                                $102.72
Special Ed. Administration              389.96
Regular Education Expenditures
Instruction                          $2,643.74
Building Support                        436.62
District Support                        204.37
Cost of Education                    $3,777.41
Revenues
Federal Funds                          $274.00
General Education Revenue             2,953.00
NET COST TO DISTRICT                   $550.41

Classification: Moderate Mental Disability

Kathy is a second--grade-aged student who is working at the pre-kindergarten level. She is learning pre-academics, such as writing her name, recognizing colors, and placing names with numbers. She recognizes the letters in her name, but not consistently.

Kathy is able to provide for her own self-care needs, though she was essentially non-verbal when she started special education. She now makes her needs known by words like potty, the teacher's name, or pointing. She is not completely toilet trained. She is on seizure medication.

For the First time, she is being integrated into the regular classroom with the assistance of a paraprofessional. She spends nine sours each week with a resource teacher and 100 minutes a week its speech and language therapy. Her peers accept her event with the limited language skills and are very responsive to Kathy.

Special Education Expenditures
Service                         District Costs
Teacher                               $ 693.36
Teacher's Aide                        1,793.04
Developmental Adapted Phys-Ed.          154.08
Speech/Language                       1,027.20
Occupational Therapy                    433.65
Special Ed. Administration              389.96
Regular Education Expenditures
Instruction                         $ 2,643.74
Building Support                        436.62
District Support                        204.37
Cost of Education                   $ 7,776.02
Revenues
Federal Funds                         $ 274.00
General Education Revenue             2,953.00
NET COST TO DISTRICT                $ 4,549.02

Classification: Emotional/Behavioral Disability

Todd is a second-grader attending a semi-segregated, tuition program that is attached to a regular elementary school. He does not participate in any regular classroom activities. He spends 6 1/2 hours a week with a behavioral specialist. He is hyperactive and is on medication to help control his often impulsive behavior. Todd spends 40 to 50 percent of the classroom day out of his seat. He cries easily and does so several times a day. When he does not get his way, he throws chairs, tears tip bulletin boards, or runs though the regular education classrooms, disrupting them.

Todd is academically bright and has above-average intelligence. His work is on the second grade level. His best work is accomplished on a one-to-one basis, though at times Todd can read stories by himself and work semi-independently. Todd is enrolled in the Upward Bound program.

Special Education Expenditures
Service                         District Costs
Tuition Agreement                   $10,396.75
Special Ed. Administration              389.96
Regular Education Expenditures
District Support                      $ 204.37
Cost of Education                   $10,991.08
Revenues
Federal Funds                         $ 274.00
General Education Revenue             2,953.00
NET COST TO DISTRICT                $ 7,764.08

Classification: Physical Disability

Beth is a child with cerebral palsy who participates in second grade with as much integration with her regular education peers as possible. She spends 7 1/2 hours each week with a resource teacher, 90 minutes each week in occupational therapy, and 80 minutes each week in physical therapy. She has difficulty with fine motor skills and has poor visual tracking ability.

Beth, a wheelchair user, requires toileting assistance and has no mobility. Her medical diagnosis is spastic quadriplegia cerebral palsy. She is of average intelligence and is eager to work and participate. Her information processing abilities are delayed, making it difficult for her to complete the assignments. Her writing is laborious. Beth is below grade level in math and reading and has the skills of a student who has completed first grade.

Beth's parents are involved actively in her education. Socially, she is well received by peers and teachers in the regular classroom.

Special Education Expenditures
Service                          District Costs
Resource Teacher                       $ 924.48
Teacher's Aide                         6,076.00
Developmental Adapted Phys.-Ed.          184.90
Physical Therapy                         865.24
Occupational Therapy                     975.84
Teacher of Physically Impaired           143.03
Special Ed. Atlministration              389.96
Regular Education Expenditures
Instruction                          $ 2,643.74
Building Support                         436.62
District Support                         204.37
Cost of Education                    $12,844.18
Revenues
Federal Funds                          $ 274.00
General Education Revenue              2,953.00
NET COST TO DISTRICT                 $ 9,617.18

Participating Inclusion Sites

The federal study on which the cover story is based, "Resource Implications of Inclusion: Impressions of Special Education Administrators at Selected Sites," examined policies and practices at the following school districts:

Chicago, Ill., Public Schools

Fayetteville-Manlius, N.Y.,

Central School District

Indian Prairie, Ill., School District

Lake Washington, Wash., School District

Montgomery County, Va., School District

Roswell, N.M., School District

Ruidoso, N.M., School District

Rutland Southwest, Vt., Supervisory Union

South Burlington, Vt., School District

Weld County, Colo., School District

Also participating were three schools in Prince George's County and Montgomery County in Maryland.

The study, funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs, was managed by the Center for Special Education Finance at the American Institutes for Research.

One School District's Cost Analysis

Few school districts have attempted to analyze systematically the cost of inclusion at the local level.

One exception is Clark County, Ind., where a fiscal analysis of the inclusion program recently was conducted by Paul L. Roahrig, director of special education in the Johnson County, Ind., school district.

Four elementary schools in Clark County operated as fully inclusive schools in 1991-92. All students with disabilities who lived in their catchment areas attended their neighborhood school.

The K-5 schools had special-needs enrollment of 109, ranging between 23 and 30 students.

(This year, 19 of 21 elementary schools and three of seven middle schools served by the special education cooperative are operating as inclusive schools.)

The study was undertaken to determine the fiscal impact of direct and identifiable costs associated with instruction, administration, transportation, and staff development. These costs were compared to those at nine schools with a variety of special education programs provided in traditional service delivery models.

Copies of the report are available from William Littlejohn, Indiana State University, School of Education, Room 502, Terre Haute, Ind. 47809-5501 or Ann Schnepf, director of the Clark County Special Education Cooperative, 2710 Highway 62, Jeffersonville, Ind. 47130.

A summary of the findings follows.

Instruction

Costs that could be isolated for instruction were teacher and aide salaries and fringe benefits, travel, materials, supplies, and equipment.

The average per-pupil cost for special education at the inclusive schools was $4,096, compared to $4,267 at the traditional schools.

Average per-pupil costs in the traditional settings ranged more widely when broken down by degree of disability: $3,920 for students with mild disabilities, $8,017 for students with moderate or severe disabilities.

The ratio of special education instructional staff to students was 1 to 4.4 at the inclusion schools, 1 to 5.1 at the traditional schools.

Two of the inclusion schools selected a service delivery model in which the lead teacher coordinated the teacher assistants. The other two chose a more traditional staffing pattern.

Roahrig acknowledged that a cost comparison between inclusion and traditional service can be affected by salaries of individual teachers and aides, though he concluded the sample was typical of most school districts in terms of teacher and aide training and experience factors.

Administration

The involvement of central-office administrators and service personnel increased during the planning phase at the designated inclusion schools, but the, day-to-day operation after implementation reflected program needs in traditional models.

The study reviewed administrative and related services (psychologists, therapists, diagnosticians) across all special education delivery programs, arguing that regardless of the model, all students and staff deserve an equal share of central-office support.

The average per-pupil cost for administration and related services in special education was $300.

The study concluded that regardless of the planning district's delivery configuration for inclusion or traditional programs, funding realities do not allow many options for management or related services. Central-office staff adjusted their priorities and developed alternatives to support the inclusion schools in training and staff development.

Transportation

The study was unable to develop fiscal comparisons because the four inclusion schools maintained dual transportation systems during their first year of implementation. Students did not require special transportation to their home schools, but some special routes were retained because of the remaining traditional programs in the other elementary schools.

The study indicated a number of factors could cause transportation overhead to increase, such as installation of wheelchair lifts and locks, but the overall impact of inclusion should cause total transportation costs to decline.

Staff Development

The special education cooperative received $5,500 from the state education agency in flow-through discretionary federal staff development funds. About $200 per teacher was budgeted for materials, supplies, travel, and conferences.

An additional state grant of $28,500 for the inclusion program was targeted for site-based staff development.

Roahrig suggested an effective approach would be to support the equivalent of a single professional staff member to coordinate and provide staff development at the inclusion sites.

Jay P. Goldman

COPYRIGHT 1994 American Association of School Administrators
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group