Introduction
During this symposium, I would like to share with you the journey that Michelle Cormack and I have taken as we worked together on a major project to develop new policies and practices in South Australia for the allocation of resources for children and students with disabilities.
In 1992/3 I managed a project we called "Schools for All" for the Ministerial Advisory Committee: Students with Disabilities. Four schools used action research to trial inclusion. Dorothy Kerzner Lipsky and Alan Gartner, (New York), worked with us by visiting the 4 schools and challenging our thinking on (almost) a daily basis. Michelle Cormack worked in one of those schools. The project confirmed that one of the major blockers to inclusion was (the format of) funding! In South Australia funding mechanisms were and still are based on history, politics, lobbying, values, logic, some research and sound policies.
After checking with other states and territories we confirmed that resource allocation was a common issue that needed national research and debate. The Ministerial Advisory Committee: Students with Disabilities agreed to take on that project. It was called "Children and Students Count" Effective funding for children and students with disabilities - towards a new practice.
The Process
In 1996 with national funding and significant commitments from all states and territories, Michelle Cormack and I visited all capital cities to discuss the topic with both the government and non government schooling sectors. At each meeting we shared with our peers a vision that future funding would be characterised by equity, understandability, flexibility, effectiveness and accountability.
We found that everyone agreed that the:-
We made a commitment to those we consulted to publish information as we progressed through the project rather than waiting until the end.
The capital city consultations provided the steering committee with five common themes for action research projects. These were:-
These were researched by 9 teams of educators from all over Australia using action research. We provided each team with information, mentors and encouragement to complete the task.
These projects were documented in 2 volumes in some detail by the Ministerial Advisory Committee: Students with Disabilities
During the consultations a series of issues were raised that required further investigation. Consequently a series of focus groups debated and documented issues such as:-
The resultant document "Issues and Realities", together with the Action Research reports showed people's thinking at the time and provided motivation for each state and territory to challenge the status quo - and to renew efforts of reform.
At the beginning of the project we negotiated support from several international/national experts, to act as 'critical friends', such as Alan Gartner and Dorothy Kerzner Lipsky, Philippa Russell, Jim Ysseldyke, David Mitchell, Tom Parrish, Seamus Hegarty, Toshiro Ochiai. We found this to be an excellent process for staying on task and not forgetting anything from experience or the literature (published and unpublished). At the time the literature was a bit sparse, but publication was gathering momentum, and much of the information was in education sectors policy guidelines and memos.
Simple questions
The questions about funding which supports inclusive education are very basic:-
The number of stakeholders in all those questions and their answers is considerable! The tensions are numerous.
After all the work over 2 years a definitive answer was illusive. In fact there were many answers and in a country as big as Australia where each of the states and 2 territories are responsible for education, the answers will be different for each education department/sector. However, I think we did reach consensus on several policy issues:-
1. Policy principles for developing funding models should be based on:-
- Children and Students
Funding should support the teaching and
learning needs of children and students with disabilities and therefore assist
children and students with disabilities to achieve learning outcomes.
- Context
The funding system should enable equitable services to
children and students with disabilities in a range of options for educational
provision. The funding system should be responsive to the changing needs of
teachers and children and students with disabilities.
- Simplicity
The concepts underlying the funding system and the
procedures to implement it should be straight forward and avoid unnecessary
complexity. The administration of the funding system should be efficient at all
levels so that costs and effort to maintain it are minimised and data
requirements, record keeping and reporting are reasonable.
- Clarity of Eligibility
The funding system should enable
assessment for eligibility for funds to be minimised, not duplicated and to
contribute to knowledge of the teaching and learning needs of the child or
student with a disability. Services for children and students with disabilities
should be determined by their teaching and learning needs rather than a label
of disability.
- Equity
Funds should be distributed equitably to enable
consistent service quality.
- Effectiveness
The funding system, allocative mechanisms and
underlying policy objectives should be documented, published and evaluated.
Procedures should be included in the funding system to ensure efficiency
and effectiveness of the funding process. The funding system should support and
reward improvement in teachers' and schools' ability and effort to meet the
teaching and learning needs of children and students with disabilities.
NOTE: Considerable attention needs to be given to rewarding best
practise rather than compensating poor practice.
- Accountability
Transparent accounting procedures should be
followed within the funding system. Monitoring of local services and schools
which receive funding should be based on the principles of quality service. The
use of funds should be linked to the achievement of education outcomes for
children and students with disabilities.
- Management of Change
Changes to funding should be managed
within present budgets. Creative use of available funding to meet the needs of
children and students with disabilities should be supported by the funding
system. Funding systems should concur with the requirements of the relevant
current legislation. Eg. NON DISCRIMINATORY Changes to the funding system
should not result in disruption, dislocation, duplication and overlap of
services for children and students with disabilities.
These principles resolved within the project affirmed the writings in the early to mid nineties of Hartman and Parrish. A further thought about these principles is that they are all inter related. Reforms often have both intended and unintended impacts when tinkering occurs so another principle: independence and collaboration, was added to the list.
- Interdependence and collaboration
A clear conceptual link to
the general education finance system should be evident in the funding system
for targeted additional funds for children and students with disabilities. The
funding system should be designed so that integration of funding is likely to
enable integration of services. - inclusive education
(Ministerial Advisory Committee Students with Disabilities. Effective Funding for children and students with disabilities - towards a new practice. Reflections and Recommendations, November 1997.)
We found in the project Children and Students Count that all systems and sectors of education were at different points of the journey of reform but if they held on to those principles it provided a way to progress the tasks.
Other points of consensus are best expressed by these quotes:-
Focussing criteria on the curriculum intervention seems more acceptable, given that it is, after all, the intervention that costs the money - rather than the difficulty per se.
Fletcher-Campbell 1996, source. Reflections and Recommendations, p45
Decisions have to be made about who is to be assisted and in what measure, thus defining and emphasising the nature of a group which is difficult to define and who might prefer anyway to be set less obviously among their peers.
McRae 1996, Reflections and Recommendations, p1
We often found that consensus was difficult to reach on accountability and I think that is because two levels of accountability were unclear. John Ainley of the ACER recently argued for two levels of accountability:-
Ainley, J. Accountability issues related to the new index
of disadvantage. p1 (unpublished 2000)
My journey from the Ministerial Advisory Committee: Students with Disabilities projects has taken me into the Department of Education, Training and Employment. Many reform and research tasks have already been completed - with many more to follow in order to make the systems funding adhere to the principles I've just identified in a system quickly devolving from centralised to local management. This wave of reform has provided a great opportunity.
Some of the action has included:-
The Global Budget team has developed transparent resource profiles with and for sites prior to sign-on into Partnerships 21. Currently Special Education allocations have been shown to lack:-
- equity
- efficiency
- accountability
- transparency and
- simplicity.
This situation has produced a ground swell of determination for change from schools, preschools and within the system - almost an opportune time for reform. History can be dismantled to support student learning and provide flexibility in resources.
The funding model that will eventuate in South Australia will be based within the global budgets of locally managed sites which take into account the:-
- context of the site (primary, secondary, rural, special…)
- year levels of the student
- plus differential funding for specific needs eg. Aboriginality, Non English speaking backgrounds and disability.
And will have the policy principles I've identified.
Conclusion
Michelle Cormack and I have travelled quite a journey together and separately since we began in 1993. There is a lot of related work for us in South Australia to do in the area of policy review and reform for students with disabilities and resource allocation should not drive the policy. Student achievement - learning outcomes and the needs of the learner to succeed are the drivers. Funding policy, allocative mechanisms and decision making processes are the tools and the "enablers" for all the stakeholders.
As we said in Reflections and Recommendations in 1997, curriculum is the key, eligibility, equity and effectiveness are the dilemmas and quality is the answer. Quality planning, inclusive programs, leadership, robust curriculum, partnerships and funding mechanisms are what makes the difference for children and students with disabilities.
Patricia Winter
Superintendent
Special Education and Equity
Department of Education,
Training and Employment
South Australia,
Australia
With acknowledgment to Michelle Cormack, recently of the Ministerial Advisory Committee: Student with Disabilities, now class teacher, Hackham West Primary School.
Ministerial Advisory Committee: Students with Disabilities
http://www.macswd.sa.gov.au
Bibliography
Ministerial Advisory Committee: Students with Disabilities. Effective Funding for children and students with disabilities - towards a new practice. Issues and Realities, March 1997.
Ministerial Advisory Committee: Students with Disabilities. Effective Funding for children and students with disabilities - towards a new practice. Action Research Reports, Volume 1, May 1997.
Ministerial Advisory Committee: Students with Disabilities. Effective Funding for children and students with disabilities - towards a new practice. Action Research Reports, Volume 2, May 1997.
Ministerial Advisory Committee Students with Disabilities. Effective Funding for children and students with disabilities - towards a new practice. Reflections and Recommendations, November 1997.
 |
 |