Student Assistance Team Process                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                      


                                                                         Classroom





                                                                            Problem






                                                                    Pre-Referral Process






                                                             STUDENT REVIEW TEAM





 

Student Study Team                         School Resources                             Interventions                         Referral to Outside Agency


  
 Assessment                                                                                             Student Review Team Follow-up Evaluation


 
 

  IEP Meeting                                                                                                 Successful                Unsuccessful

 

   Eligible               Ineligible                                                             SRT Monitors        Modify Interventions      Assessment

 



SPED   Placement                                                                                                                                         


                                                                                                                                                  SRT Evaluation          IEP Meeting

                                                                                                                  Success   Other Placement       Ineligible    SPED Placement

Page Links:

Pre-referral Team (I-Team, Teacher) Process

Functional Behavioral Assessments: What, Why, When, Where, and Who?

Discipline for Children With Disabilities: Questions & Answers from OSEP

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 

Pre-referral Team (I-Team, Teacher) Process

1 Continue the current program with no modifications, the student may need to adjust to a new setting.
2. Classroom modifications:
    a. modify curriculum
    b. modify the work load
    c. modify instruction
    d. teach strategies
3. Utilize other categorical or general education programs (homework club, peer tutoring, or home tutor.
4. Satisfactory progress, monitor and adjust accordingly.
5. Unsatisfactory progress, have an SST and inform SRT.

Student Study Team

The SST may consist of the following people:

Student
Parent
General Education Teacher(s)
Special Education Resource Teacher
School Counselor
Nurse or Health Representative
Academic Advisor
School Psychologist
Speech and Language Pathologist
Administrator

The SST Discusses

Academic History
Behavior History
Family History
Vision
Auditory
Current Behavior
Current Academic Status
Motivation
Health Concerns
Social Relationships with Peers and Adults
Attendance and Punctuality
Language Proficiency
Strengths and Weaknesses

The SST Receives Input From

The Family or Surrogate
The Student
All Other Professional Contacts

The SST

Brainstorms Ideas
Decides on Future Steps (Modifications, Interventions, Assessment)
Summarizes and Synthesizes the Meeting
Agrees to meet in six weeks to determine the success of the recommendations and/or modifications.

The Student Referral Team

The Student Referral Team is made up of the Principal, Assistant Principal, Counselor, Psychologist, Resource Teacher(s), Academic Advisor, and Speech and Language Pathologist, and Nurse.

The SRT reviews teachers' referrals and student issues raised by anyone and may: (a) make suggestions and/or recommendations as to how to modify a student's program; (b) recommend a supplementary program; (c) have a resource teacher work with student and the teacher(s); (d) recommend that an SST be held; (e) an assessment be conducted; (f) anything else within the scope of the school that will assist the student in becoming successful.

Referral to the SST should be made after interventions and I-Team (teacher) conferences have been held and the student has not progressed in targeted areas. The referring I- Team completes the SRT referral form and submits it to the assistant principal three days in advance of the next SRT meeting.


SRT Referral Form

A student should be referred to the SRT after the strategies listed below have been utilized consistently, without success, by the classroom teacher/I-Team.

Student's Name: _________________________________Grade:____________

Referring I-Team:_________________________________Date:_____________

I-Team/Parent Conference Date:______________________ Results: Attach Details

Reason for Referral:
___1. Consistent academic failure
___2. Consistent behavior problems
___3. Consistent lack of motivation
___4. Chronic tardies and/or absences


Strategies used prior to the referral:

___1. Teacher conference with the student
___2. Parent Contact                                      Explain________________________________________________________________________________
___3. Parent Conference
___4. Positive reinforcements and/or behavior modification strategies
___5. Teacher/I-Team consequences
___6. Consulted with the counselor
___7. Consulted with the resource teacher
___8. Assistant principal referral
___9. Modified class room assignments/individualized program
___10.Tutoring
___11. Other

Additional Information:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The assistant principal reviews the referral and may make recommendations to the I-Team before bringing the referral to the SRT.

1. The assistant principal, counselor, and academic advisor contact the parent and begin gathering information from the cumulative student     record, parent(s) and all available sources.
2. The counselor sends out student information surveys to the student's teachers.
3. The assistant principal synthesizes the information for the weekly SRT. SRT meets, reviews and discusses the information, and makes
decisions/recommendations.


These recommendations may include:

a. accommodations and/or modifications to the curriculum
b. behavior interventions
c. vision screening
d. auditory screening
e. weekly report card
f. counseling
e. SST
g. informal classroom assessment
h. informal classroom behavior observation
i. 504 Plan
j. Assessment


If an Assessment is Recommended

Assessment Process

California Requires a Multi-Disciplinary Assessment. The assessment team may include the school psychologist, resource teacher, speech and language pathologist, behavioral optometrist, and the teacher(s) and parent(s). Teacher(s) and parent(s) may be asked to complete rating scales.

Assessment Parts May Include

a. Health and Developmental History
b. Classroom Observations
c. Student Portfolio or Work Samples
d. Student, Parent, and Staff interviews or rating scales
e. Criterion referenced and norm-referenced instruments, curriculum based assessments, intelligence testing, behavior/emotional testing, language testing.

Following the Assessment

IEP Meeting-Determination of Eligibility, a complete explanation of the assessment. There is a written report for the parents. Possible scenarios:

a. Ineligible for special education services: refer back to general education with recommendations and modifications.
b. Eligible for special education services: Determine program and services with an understanding of the necessity for the least restrictive environment.

Develop measurable goals and objectives.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Functional Behavioral Assessments: What, Why, When, Where, and Who?
                                                                                                    by Stephen Starin, Ph.D.


The recent amendments to IDEA are final. School districts are now required to conduct functional behavioral analyses of problem behaviors, under certain circumstances.

Unfortunately, IDEA does not provide specific guidelines regarding the conduct of a functional behavioral assessment. Each school district is left to its own devices when interpreting the guidelines and may opt for lower quality standards.

Below are my comments on conducting a functional behavioral assessment (FBA). These comments are based upon my formal training as a behavior analyst and over 20 years experience working with children, adolescents, and adults with serious problem behaviors. I've tried to avoid technical jargon for ease of discussion.

What is a "Functional Behavioral Assessment"?

The term "Functional Behavioral Assessment" comes from what is called a "Functional Assessment" or "Functional Analysis" in the field of applied behavior analysis. This is the process of determining the cause (or "function") of behavior before developing an intervention. The intervention must be based on the hypothesized cause (function) of behavior.

Why Do Functional Behavioral Assessments?

Failure to base the intervention on the specific cause (function) very often results in ineffective and unnecessarily restrictive procedures.

For example, consider the case of a young child who has learned that screaming is an effective way of avoiding or escaping unpleasant tasks. Using timeout in this situation would provide the child with exactly what he wants (avoiding the task) and is likely to make the problem worse, not better. Without an adequate functional behavioral assessment, we would not know the true function of the young child’s screaming and therefore may select an inappropriate intervention.

How Do You Determine the Cause or Function of Behavior?

There are three ways of getting at the function (cause) of the behavior:

(a) interviews and rating scales,
(b) direct and systematic observation of the person's behavior, and
(c) manipulating different environmental events to see how behavior changes.
 

The first two are generally referred to as functional assessments whereas the third is generally referred to as a functional analysis. Several different interviews and rating scales have been developed to try to get at the function (cause) of behavior. However, reliability is usually poor and these should be used only as a starting point for systematic and direct observation of the person’s behavior. Relying exclusively on interviews and rating scales should never be considered a functional assessment. Besides having poor reliability, it would never hold up in court with an expert witness.

Observe and Analyze Behavior in Natural Environment

A more reliable method involves directly observing the person's behavior in his or her natural environment and analyzing the behavior’s antecedents (environmental events that immediately precede the problem behavior) and consequences (environmental events that immediately follow the problem behavior).

Types of Problem Behavior

Problem behavior typically falls into one or more of three general categories:

(a) behavior that produces attention and other desired events (e.g., access to toys, desired activities),
(b) behavior that allows the person to avoid or escape demands or other undesired events/activities, and
(c) behavior that occurs because of its sensory consequences (relieves pain, feels good, etc.).
 

The antecedents and consequences are analyzed to see which function(s) the behavior fulfills. Problem behavior can also serve more than one function, further complicating the matter. The interview, combined with direct observation of the behavior is what most people use in determining the function of the behavior. This is fine when the data collected on the antecedents and consequences is clear. Most of the time this is sufficient in determining the behavior’s function(s). Systematic Manipulation of Environment

In some cases, however, direct observation does not give a clear picture of the behavior’s functions and systematically manipulating various environmental events becomes necessary. The most common way of systematically manipulating the environment is to put the person in several different situations and carefully observe how the behavior changes.

For example, to determine the function of screaming, we could arrange for attention to be given to the child each time she screams and measure how frequently screaming occurs. We could also make demands on the child, terminating them each time she screams and measure how frequently it occurs. In addition, we could leave the child alone and measure how often screaming occurs. If screaming is more frequent when attention is given, we hypothesize that it occurs to get attention. If screaming is more frequent when demands are made, we can assume that screaming has served to let the person escape or avoid demands. Finally, if screaming is more frequent when left alone, we can assume that it is occurring because of its sensory consequences. This third method should be reserved only for situations in which the functions of behavior are not clear through systematic and direct observation.

What About Qualifications and Training?

An important question is "Who should be involved in the functional behavioral assessment?" The interview is important in gathering preliminary information that will guide later direct observation. As such, it is important to talk to the people who know the child the best: parents, teachers and significant others.

Direct observation should be carried out only by a person who has been thoroughly trained on collecting and analyzing this type of information. Directly manipulating environment events should be conducted only by a well-trained behavior analyst or someone else with a high degree of training and experience conducting these manipulations for they can pose danger to the person if not done correctly.

As can be seen, a functional behavioral assessment is more than a group of people sitting around a table trying to determine the cause. Although it is important to gather information from significant people in the person’s life, it is not enough.

Someone knowledgeable about behavior must be in the classroom and/or family home directly observing and measuring the behavior. Although this takes time, it is usually time well spent because the intervention is more likely to be effective than one developed without careful consideration of the behavior’s function(s).

Don’t Waste Valuable Time

Time is precious. Time should not be wasted on interventions (behavioral or otherwise) when there is no evidence that this particular intervention is likely to work, for this particular child, in this particular situation.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Discipline for Children With Disabilities: Questions & Answers from OSEP

                                                Answers to Some Commonly Asked Questions About Discipline Under IDEA

Prior to the amendments to the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) in 1975, (the EHA is today known as IDEA), the special educational needs of children with disabilities were not being met. More than half of the children with disabilities in the United States did not receive appropriate educational services, and a million children with disabilities were excluded entirely from the public school system.

All too often, school officials used disciplinary measures to exclude children with disabilities from education simply because they were different or more difficult to educate than non-disabled children. It is against that backdrop that Pub. L. 94-142 was developed, with one of its primary goals being the elimination of any exclusion of children with disabilities from education. In the IDEA reauthorization of 1997, Congress recognized that in certain instances school districts needed increased flexibility to deal with safety issues while maintaining needed due
process protections in the IDEA. The following questions and answers address:

(1) the proactive requirements of the IDEA designed to ensure that children with disabilities will be able to adhere to school rules;

(2) IDEA provisions regarding removal of students from their current placement when their behavior significantly violates school discipline codes; and

(3) the requirement of the IDEA for the continuation of services for children with disabilities who are disciplined.


Why are there special rules about discipline for children with disabilities?

The protections in the IDEA regarding discipline are designed to prevent the type of often speculative and subjective decision making by school officials that led to widespread abuses of the rights of children with disabilities to an appropriate education in the past. For example, in Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972) the court recognized that many children were being excluded entirely from education merely because they had been identified as having a behavior disorder. It is important to keep in mind, however, that these protections do not prevent school officials from maintaining a learning environment that is safe and conducive to learning for all children. Well run schools that have good leadership, well-trained teachers and high standards for all students have fewer discipline problems than schools that do not.

It is also extremely important to keep in mind that the provisions of the statute and regulation concerning the amount of time a child with a disability can be removed from his or her regular placement for disciplinary reasons are only called into play if the removal constitutes a change of placement and the parent objects to proposed action by school officials (or objects to a refusal by school officials to take an action) and requests a due process hearing. The discipline rules concerning the amount of time a child can be removed from his or her current placement essentially are exceptions to the generally applicable requirement that a child remains in his or her current placement during the pendency of due process, and subsequent judicial, proceedings. (See, section 615(j) of the Act and Sec. 300.514.)

If school officials believe that a child's placement is inappropriate they can work with the child's parent through the IEP and placement processes to come up with an appropriate placement for the child that will meet the needs of the child and result in his or her improved learning and the learning of others and ensure a safe environment. In addition to the other measures discussed in the following questions, the discipline provisions of the IDEA allow responsible and appropriate changes in placement of children with disabilities when their parents
do not object.

Does IDEA contain provisions that promote proactive up-front measures that will help prevent discipline problems?

Yes. Research has shown that if teachers and other school personnel have the knowledge and expertise to provide appropriate behavioral interventions, future behavior problems can be greatly diminished if not totally avoided. Appropriate staff development activities and improved pre-service training programs at the university level with emphasis in the area of early identification of reading and behavior problems and appropriate interventions can help to ensure that regular and special education teachers and other school personnel have the needed knowledge and skills.

Changes in the IDEA emphasize the need of State and local educational agencies to work to ensure that superintendents, principals, teachers and other school personnel are equipped with the knowledge and skills that will enable them to appropriately address behavior problems when they occur.

In addition, the IDEA includes provisions that focus on individual children. If a child has behavior problems that interfere with his or her learning or the learning of others, the IEP team must consider whether strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports are needed to address the behavior. If the IEP team determines that such services are needed, they must be added to the IEP and must be provided. The Department has supported a number of activities such as training institutes, conferences, clearinghouses and other
technical assistance and research activities on this topic to help school personnel appropriately address behavioral concerns for children with
disabilities.


Can a child with a disability who is experiencing significant disciplinary problems be removed to another placement?

Yes. Even when school personnel are appropriately trained and are pro-actively addressing children's behavior issues through positive behavioral intervention supports, interventions, and strategies, there may be instances when a child must be removed from his or her current placement. When there is agreement between school personnel and the child's parents regarding a change in placement (as there frequently is), there will be no need to bring into play the discipline provisions of the law.

Even if agreement is not possible, in general, school officials can remove any child with a disability from his or her regular school placement for up to 10 school days at a time, even over the parents' objections, whenever discipline is appropriate and is administered consistent with the treatment of non-disabled children. Sec. 300.520(a)(1). However, school officials cannot use this authority to repeatedly remove a child from his or her current placement if that series of removals means the child is removed for more than 10 school days in a school year and factors such as the length of each removal, the total amount of time that the child is removed, and the proximity of the removals to one another lead to the conclusion that there has been a change in placement. Secs. 300.519-300.520(a)(1). There is no specific limit on the number of days in a school year that a child with a disability can be removed from his or her current placement.

After a child is removed from his or her current placement for more than 10 cumulative school days in a school year, services must be provided to the extent required under Sec. 300.121(d), which concerns the provision of FAPE for children suspended or expelled from school.

If the child's parents do not agree to a change of placement, school authorities can unilaterally remove a child with a disability from the child's regular placement for up to 45 days at a time if the child has brought a weapon to school or to a school function, or knowingly possessed or used illegal drugs or sold or solicited the sale of controlled substances while at school or a school function. Sec. 300.520(a)(2).

In addition, if school officials believe that a child with a disability is substantially likely to injure self or others in the child's regular placement, they can ask an impartial hearing officer to order that the child be removed to an interim alternative educational setting for a period of up to 45 days. Sec. 300.521. If at the end of an interim alternative educational placement of up to 45 days, school officials believe that it would be dangerous to return the child to the regular placement because the child would be substantially likely to injure self or others in that placement, they can ask an impartial hearing officer to order that the child remain in an interim alternative educational setting for an additional 45 days. Sec. 300.526(c). If necessary, school officials can also request subsequent extensions of these interim alternative educational settings for up to 45 days at a time if school officials continue to believe that the child would be substantially likely to injure self or others if returned to his or her regular placement. Sec. 300.526(c)(4).

Additionally, at any time, school officials may seek to obtain a court order to remove a child with a disability from school or to change a child's current educational placement if they believe that maintaining the child in the current educational placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others.

Finally, school officials can report crimes committed by children with disabilities to appropriate law enforcement authorities to the same extent as they do for crimes committed by non-disabled students. Sec. 300.529.

Do the IDEA regulations mean that a child with a disability cannot be removed from his or her current placement for more than ten school days in a school year?

No. School authorities may unilaterally suspend a child with a disability from the child's regular placement for not more than 10 school days at a time for any violation of school rules if non-disabled children would be subjected to removal for the same offense.
 

They also may implement additional suspensions of up to ten school days at a time in that same school year for separate incidents of misconduct if educational services are provided for the remainder of the removals, to the extent required under Sec. 300.121(d). (See the next question regarding the provision of educational services during periods of removal.)

However, school authorities may not remove a child in a series of short-term suspensions (up to 10 school days at a time), if these suspensions constitute a pattern that is a change of placement because the removals cumulate to more than 10 school days in a school year and because of factors such as the length of each removal, the total amount of time the child is removed, and the proximity of the removals to one another. But not all series of removals that cumulate to more than 10 school days in a school year would constitute a pattern under Sec.
300.519(b).

Of course, in the case of less serious infractions, schools can address the misconduct through appropriate instructional and/or related services, including conflict management, behavior management strategies, and measures such as study carrels, time-outs, and restrictions in privileges, so long as they are not inconsistent with the child's IEP. If a child's IEP or behavior intervention plan addresses a particular behavior, it generally would be inappropriate to utilize some other response, such as suspension, to that behavior.

What must a school district do when removing a child with a disability from his or her current placement for the eleventh cumulative day in a
school year?

Beginning on the eleventh cumulative day in a school year that a child with a disability is removed from his or her current placement, the school district must provide those services that school personnel (for example, the school administrator or other appropriate school personnel) in consultation with the child's special education teacher determine to be necessary to enable the child to appropriately progress in the general curriculum and appropriately advance toward achieving the goals set out in the child's IEP. School personnel would determine where those services would be provided. This means that for the remainder of the removal that includes the eleventh day, and for any subsequent removals, services must be provided to the extent determined necessary, while the removal continues. Sec. 300.121(d)(2) and (3).

Not later than 10 business days after removing a child with a disability for more than 10 school days in a school year, the school district must convene an IEP team meeting to develop a behavioral assessment plan if the district has not already conducted a functional behavioral assessment and implemented a behavioral intervention plan for the child. If a child with a disability who is being removed for the eleventh cumulative school day in a school year already has a behavioral intervention plan, the school district must convene the IEP team (either before or not later than 10 business days after first removing the child for more than 10 school days in a school year) to review the plan and its
implementation, and modify the plan and its implementation as necessary to address the behavior. Sec. 300.520(b).
 

A manifestation determination would not be required unless the removal that includes the eleventh cumulative school day of removal in a school year is a change of placement. Sec. 300.523(a).

Does the IDEA or its regulations mean that a child with a disability can never be suspended for more than 10 school days at a time or expelled for behavior that is not a manifestation of his or her disability?

No. If the IEP team concludes that the child's behavior was not a manifestation of the child's disability, the child can be disciplined in the same manner as non-disabled children, except that appropriate educational services must be provided. Sec. 300.524(a). This means that if non-disabled children are long-term suspended or expelled for a particular violation of school rules, the child with disabilities may also be long-term suspended or expelled. Educational services must be provided to the extent the child's IEP team determines necessary to enable the child to appropriately progress in the general curriculum and appropriately advance toward the goals set out in the child's IEP. Sec. 300.121(d)(2).

______________________________________________________________________________
 

Quiz 1

1. What qualifies a student for special education services?
2. What is an IEP?
3. What is Least Restrictive Environment?
4. Is the IEP a legal contract?
5. What is the WISC IV?
6. Who at your school is qualified to administer the WISC IV?
7. In what other languages is the WISC IV normed?

8. List the 4 major tenets of No Child Left Behind.
9. What is a Student Study Team?
10. Who was Brown in Brown v. Board of Education?
11. Who was Charles Houston?
12. What is a learning disability?
13. Does a surrogate parent have the same rights as a natural parent?

14. What is OHI?
15. What is the purpose of special education?
16. What is assistive technology?
17. What is Child Find?
18. When are parents rights explained to the parent(s)?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Here are questions to the five part article you read:

1. What is RTI and why is it a better indicator of learning disabilities

than lengthy testing?

2. What are the characteristics of a good reading program?

3. According to Lyon, should the federal government play a role in

education?
 

4. Does research reveal that one method of teaching is more likely

to decrease the learning gap experienced by the EL subgroup -identified as

being left behind- because of the NCLB law? Explain.


5. How will your college prepare teachers so that they can meet the

individual needs of their students? How are concepts like "differentiation

of instruction" and "multiple intelligences" misunderstood by the time

they are implemented in the classroom because I think they're like the

junk science of education. State Lyon's answer.
 

1. What is RTI and why is it a better indicator of learning

disabilities than lengthy testing?

RTI=Response to instruction

If students with LD are provided instruction that has been found

to be effective for most students through well designed studies,

then we can infer that the student has unexpected difficulty

learning. Thus, rather than requiring an IQ-achievement

discrepancy, an RTI discrepancy shows that the student

does not learn even when provided with quality instruction

that produces learning and achievement in the majority of

students. This is important because the definition and

identification of LD are now linked explicitly to instruction

rather than lengthy, expensive, and frequently invalid diagnostic

assessments.

2. What are the characteristics of a good reading program?

They're comprehensive and based upon substantial

converging evidence that learning to read, for example, is

complex and requires the learning and integration of phonemic

awareness, phonics, vocabulary, reading fluency, and reading

comprehension strategies.

3. According to Lyon, should the federal government play a role in

education?

The federal role is absolutely necessary. They have the nation's

welfare in mind and the organizational capability to base informed

policy and practice on the back of the best evidence available.

We do it with the FDA, we can do it with education.

4. Does research reveal that one method of teaching is more

likely to decrease the learning gap experienced by the EL

subgroup -identified as being left behind- because of the NCLB law?

Explain.

The NICD just finished their first 5 year trial of studying how

different instructional approaches benefit students whose first

language is Spanish. Some of the early data indicates that students

learn more efficiently if they are initially taught Spanish with a

transition to English once critical concepts have been learned but

the data might not be strong enough to change people's minds.

But keep in mind, even this conclusion is tempered by the fact that

different Spanish speaking students, from different environments,

with different exposure to English may respond equally well with

English only programs. The best people to discuss this issue

with are Peggy McCardle who has directed the NICHD Spanish

to English Research Program and Tim Shanahan who chaired the

National research Council Committee on second language learning.

5. How will your college prepare teachers so that they can meet

the individual needs of their students? How are concepts like

"differentiation of instruction" and "multiple intelligences"

misunderstood by the time they are implemented in the classroom

because I think they're like the junk science of education. State Lyon's

answer.

When we provide teachers and administrators with the most current and

accurate information, they will know how to determine whether

concepts such as multiple intelligences and differentiated instruction

are valid. They will know how to ask, "What evidence of effectiveness

do these approaches have, and have they been found to work with

students similar to those in my classroom?" This is the level of training

that is critical. Teachers and administrators must have the means to

make accurate decisions about kid's lives. Many prepared in our existing

colleges of education are not at that level.

PER PUPIL SPENDING ARTICLE

1. State spending on K-12 Education is guided by..........

2. Explain how education funding is calculated.

3. What other forms of funding are not included in Prop 98 calculation?

4. What are State funds used for other than K-12 students?

5. What do you think should be done to improve fiscal responsibility Statewide?

1. State spending on K-12 Education is guided by..........

State spending on K-12 education is guided by the requirements of Proposition 98, the 1988 voter-approved state

constitutional amendment that established a minimum funding level for K-12 schools and community colleges.


2. Explain how education funding is calculated.

Prop. 98 K-12 education funding is calculated as the sum of State General Fund dollars allocated by state

government to K-12 public schools plus local property tax revenues devoted to schools. In 1999-00, the Prop. 98

education funding total is estimated to be $33.6 billion.


3. What other forms of funding are not included in Prop 98 calculation?

For example, the federal government’s 1999-00 contribution of nearly $4.4 billion to education spending in California isn’t counted, even

though it accounts for 10 percent of total K-12 revenues. Big-ticket items included in this federal contribution:

approximately $1 billion in Title I money for poor and disadvantaged students, $513 million for special education,

and $129 million for class size reduction. Also omitted are hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local funds allocated annually to

pay for school capital costs, i.e. debt service on state and local school construction bonds.

This omission is curious given that every time a state or local school construction bond makes the ballot, supportive politicians and

education officials always claim that a vote for the bond is a vote for children’s education. How, they ask, can Johnny or Jenny learn if he

or she is sitting in a run-down overcrowded classroom? Yet, once those bonds are approved, the annual cost of those

bonds is not included in how much California spends to educate Johnny or Jenny. In addition, $786 million in State Lottery money, $2.6

billion from various local fund sources, and $65 million from various other state fund sources are not counted in calculating 1999-00 Prop.

98 K-12 funding. All these uncounted education revenue sources add up to about $10.7 billion. Add this amount to the $33.6 billion

in Prop. 98 K-12 funding and one gets a total of $44.3 billion in total K-12 revenues in California. This amounts to

more than a 10-percent increase over the $40.1 billion of total revenues devoted to K-12 in 1998-99.

4. What are State funds used for other than K-12 students?

Some of these funds are used for adult education, adult vocational education, and pre-kindergarten child-development programs.
What is the relationship between school resources and student performance?

After examining decades of academic research, University of Rochester Prof. Eric Hanushek, the nation’s leading

education economist, found that, "there is little systematic relationship between school resources and student

performance."4 The point, says Hanushek, is that "how money is spent is much more important than how much is

spent."

5. What do you think should be done to improve fiscal responsibility Statewide?