Colorado Input-Based Adequacy Study: Special Education��

​

February 7, 2025

Justin Silverstein and Tamara Durbin

Augenblick, Palaich and Associates

Special Education Study

• Examined current education funding system against national best practices
• Spoke to special education directors at BOCES and school districts, superintendents, others
• Identified funding recommendations that were incorporated into the EB results
• Included weights for mild and moderate students
• Full reimbursement for high cost students

​

2

Study Areas

Based on research, interviews and focus groups with stakeholders, and the experiences of special education experts and advocates, the following areas were explored

• Current special education funding levels and means statewide;
• Adequacy and transparency of current special education funding;
• Implications for AUs of current special education funding;
• Comparison of alternative state funding models; and
• Recommendations for Colorado’s special education funding formula.

​

3

Current Funding

• Examined the Tier A, B, and high-cost reimbursement
• Identified that funding is well below actual cost
• In particular common under funding of Tier B and low funding in high-cost
• Identified that 24-1448 will help increase funding
• Still identified a gap of around $800M

4

Adequacy, Transparency, and Implications

• Special Education funding is insufficient to cover costs
• Compounded by prior year counts and unexpected costs
• Tier B funding has not been adjusted by inflation, should be closer to a $9,000 target
• Tier C funding is not guaranteed with $4 million available annually for High Cost students

5

Adequacy, Transparency, and Implications

• Special Education funding has low transparency and limited predictability
• Tier A easily know but lags a year
• Tier B funded below targeted level
• High-cost is not easily predicted and is very inconsistent for most Aus
• Colorado districts shoulder most of the financial risk of special education costs

6

Address Needs of Small and Rural Districts

• Many small districts have higher than average special education costs
• Small districts have a harder time attracting and retaining high-quality related services staff
• These staff also have long travel times
• Study suggests more tele-support where possible
• High-cost students have bigger impact on smaller districts
• Hope is recommendation to fully fund will solve the issue

​

7

Alternative Models

• Formula-based
• Can used single or multiple weights
• Arizona uses 12 different weights
• Resource-based
• Funding determined through staffing ratios
• Census Block Grants
• Assumes a standard proportion of students in special education
• Cost Reimbursement
• Partial reimbursement of actual costs
• High-cost reimbursement models

8

Colorado Recommendations

• Recommendations built on the assumptions that:
• Special education and general ed funds do not work in silos
• The full costs of special education should be covered
• Provides transparency and consistency
• Allows for real-time adjustments
• Reflects critical importance of high-cost reimbursement

9

Colorado Recommendations

• Provides differential weights for:
• Mild - .44
• Assumes 7.5% of enrollment
• Moderate – 1.1
• Assumes 2.5%
• Includes full state funding for high costs students
• Assume 2% of students

10

Key Take-Aways

Tamara Durbin, Executive Director,

Northeast Colorado BOCES

Special Education Fiscal Advisory Committee (SEFAC) Chair

Special Education & �Adequacy Study

• Input was gathered from the field of special education:
• Professional Judgment Participants
• New Solutions K12 Hosted Interviews and Focus Groups
• Evidence Based Panel Discussions
• Surveys from Stakeholders
• Special Education Fiscal Advisory Committee (SEFAC) Annual Report

​

​

​

• The process was thorough and comprehensive providing:
• an understanding of how school districts serve student with disabilities;
• What challenges the current funding formula presents for special education.

12

Special education funding is insufficient.

​

• School districts or BOCES, via an AU, are mandated by IDEA, and the ECEA, to identify and deliver special education services to students.

​

• State and federal funding combined are too low to adequately cover the required resources, services, and unanticipated costs.

​

• School districts or BOCES, report expenditures of approximately $1.2 billion annually on special education expenditures.

​

• Currently, state and federal sources contribute approximately $400 million annually.

​

• AUs spend nearly $800 million more annually than they receive for special education services.

​

13

14

Financial Risk is on School Districts

15

Comparison of Models

16

Continue to Explore the Evidence Base Model

17

Summary of 2024 Colorado Evidence-Based Model Recommendations

18

​

​

Questions?

​

19