The authors: Julie Tollefson, director of communications, Center for Research on Learning, and Carl Skordahl, retired director of special education, Osseo Area Schools, Maple Grove, Minnesota. A version of this article originally appeared in the May 2001 issue of Stratenotes, a newsletter for SIM Professional Developers.
Revenue. Expenditure.
The concepts these words represent are foundational to understanding school finance, and understanding school finance could be your key to getting more funds to support your professional development efforts, whether you are an independent trainer, an administrator, or a staff development specialist within a district.
SIM Trainer Carl Skordahl, retired director of special education for Osseo Area Schools in Maple Grove, Minnesota, was able to increase the allocation of staff development funds for his school district by understanding school finance issues. Skordahl shared his fiscal insight during the 2000 International SIM Trainers' Conference last summer in Lawrence, Kansas.
Under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, state education agencies receive an allocation of federal money (Federal B funds) based on the number of individualized education programs (IEPs) in effect in the state each year. The state agencies take a percentage of the money for administrative costs and special project grants (including some SIM programs in Minnesota a couple of years ago), then allocate the rest to local districts, based on the number of IEPs in each district.
"What I discovered is that a substantial percentage of the Federal B funds were targeted at the IEP population that represented approximately 20 percent of the students on IEPs (primarily the low-incidence population). In no way is the importance of supporting effective programming for these students being minimized here! All students with disabilities need effective programming," he said.
Skordahl thought, however, that students with higher-incidence disabilities needed more funds to improve their programming and services.
As mandated by federal regulations, services for students with disabilities fall on a continuum from placement in general education classrooms at one end to placement in residential facilities and homebound/hospital placements on the other. Skordahl's concern focused on students with the least severe disabilities, many of whom spend the full day in the general education setting with minimal pullout.
"I felt this group was falling through the cracks," he said.
The effect of these students' disabilities is more subtle than the disabilities of students with more severe problems, Skordahl said. As a result, decision-makers may not think programs that focus on their needs are as critical.
Skordahl looked at the situation and saw a different story.
These students constitute as much as 80 or 85 percent of the students for whom IEPs are in effect each year, he said, yet the bulk of the Federal B funds were funneled to programs for students with more severe disabilities.
To change the way this money was spent, Skordahl set out to methodically change district attitudes toward the budget and the students who needed the money.
Skordahl wanted to increase the amount of Federal B funds spent on professional development for both general education and special education teachers because, he said, the students he targeted benefit most from teachers who have been through intensive inservice programs focused on their needs. In addition, preparing general education teachers to work effectively with students who have disabilities can actually reduce the number of referrals to special education.
"The case I made is that if we had 80 percent of the money in Federal B being generated by these students, then a substantial amount of these funds should be targeted at programming and service for these students," Skordahl said.
To generate support for the shift in funds, Skordahl began by "planting seeds" with individuals he considered to be the strongest staff members--those who were more verbal, more challenging, unafraid to ask the tough questions at meetings. He also planted seeds with building principals, focusing on how SIM helps students with disabilities.
The next year, Skordahl talked with administrators, who had the final decision-making authority for the budget, to get their support.
The next challenge facing Skordahl was to work with the district's teachers to sell them on the changes. Some teachers resisted, seeing little benefit to changing their approach.
Skordahl's argument eventually succeeded. The last time he developed a budget, he was able to allocate a substantial increase in the percentage of the district's Federal B funds for professional development.
That year, Skordahl's district had a total of 2,450 students on active IEPs. Of that, 1,286 were in general education classrooms with some pullout activities, and 800 received more pullout instruction. Together, these students made up about 66 percent of the district's IEPs.
The district received about $550 per IEP in Federal B funds that year. Of that, federal regulations required $12 per IEP be allocated to professional development activities. Skordahl went beyond that and allocated another $100 per IEP for staff development.
Skordahl's budget success meant that many more teachers were exposed to effective, research-validated ways of improving the educational experience for students with disabilities, just the result he expected.
"I've always had a belief that effective instruction and inclusion is critical to kids with disabilities if they're going to be successful in society," he said. "I've always maintained that passion as a special educator."
Skordahl is retired but still active in education both locally and in the SIM International Training Network. He was in education as a classroom teacher, program supervisor, and director of special education totaling 34 years.
Return to Article Archive
