Funding

This section elaborates on some important aspects that constitute effective practices inclusive beyond the classroom context. One of the major considerations here is funding, which provides the financial assistance for staff professional development, curriculum materials, teaching resources, special equipment and facilities to successfully implement inclusive education. In most countries financial assistance is given by the national government to assist schools in successfully implementing an inclusive education programmes in schools (Frost, 2002).

According to the EFA 2000 Global Assessment, 63% of the cost of education was covered by governments, 35% by the private sector (including parents), and 2% by external cooperation (UNESCO EFA, 2000a). In many countries, the state is the major source of funding, with voluntary bodies being the alternative source (e.g. Lesotho). In most countries, the issue of resources seems not so much a question of levels of funding as it is a question of distribution and allocation of funds.

The Salamanca Statement (1994) emphasises that inclusive education is both cost- efficient and cost-effective, and that "equity is the way to excellence, thus assuring increased achievement and performances for all students" (Skrtic, 1991:148-206; Dyson, 2001; Dyson & Forlin, 1999:35). Adequate funding is seen as an essential element of inclusive education. Particularly, monetary policies and their incorporated incentives (or disincentives) for inclusive education "may be as important in affecting program provision as the amounts allocated" (Parrish, 2002:213-227). Countries advocating inclusive education need to adapt both legislative and fiscal policies in order to achieve their goal of inclusion (European Agency for Development in Special NeedsEducation [EADSNE], 2003).

Generally, two main parameters are used when it comes to the allocation of funding, namely destination locus and funding indicators. The first parameter relates to where the funding is being directed. In principle, funding can be allocated in many different ways: to the clients of the educational system – the students and/or the parents; to schools – special or mainstream (regular); to groups of schools or other regional institutions – such as resource centres (EADSNE, 2003; Fletcher-Campbell, 2002:20). The first three parameters fit the trans-Europe and UK situation, while the last parameter is more suited to the US, where governments allocate funding to states (Peters, 2004:48).

Funding indicators can be defined as input, throughput or output funding (Meijer, Pijl & Hegarty, 1999; Fletcher-Campbell, 2002:20; EADSNE, 2003). Input funding is established on the identification of need of each of the intended levels, for instance the number of pupils with special needs in a school, municipality or region. This possibly may be described in terms of referral rates, low achievement scores and number of disadvantaged students. The crucial issue to student-based funding is that the financial assistance is centred on the measured or expressed needs. Input funding is the most frequent type of funding used, but produces the most negative criticism from countries reporting its use. Less integration, more labelling and rising costs are amongst the most cited problems (EADSNE, 1999).

Throughput funding is based on functions or tasks that need to be developed. This resource-based model is founded on services supplied rather than on needs. Studies have indicated a move away from a student-based model to that of resource-based funding (Pijl & Dyson, 1998:261-279). Funding is equally allocated to municipalities or regions, based on total enrolment or numbers of students educated. Accompanying this model are fiscal policies mandating instruction or programmes, which focus on teacher resources and support to provide quality education to special needs students (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education [EADSNE], 2003).

Output funding allocates resources based on productivity. In other words, the number of referred students (the lower the number, the more funds) or the achievement scores (the higher the achievement scores, the more funds). Although most countries have accepted the need for accountability and evaluation of programmes as part of cost-effectiveness, and do not use an output model, the US is

an exception with its "No Child Left Behind" legislation. The relevant act ties funding and school certification directly to student achievement scores, with economic penalties for "failure to achieve". Peters (2002:287-308) has noted that this type of funding penalises schools for conditions outside their control: for example, absentee rates of children, inadequate funding for textbooks and adapted curriculum materials. Countries of the North have experienced widespread economic recession, inflation an increasing aging population, as expanding social and welfare services. Due to the increase in medical and social services and an increasing aging population, pressure has been mounting to control education budgets. This has resulted in the lack of funding being directed to educational services, leading to under-resourced and poor quality education systems, which in turn leads to the marginalisation of students with disabilities and special educational needs (Casely-Hayford & Lynch, 2003:4). Countries of the South have also experienced increased population growth, increasing poverty, war and HIV/Aids leading to the destabilisation of economies and limited financial resources (UNESCO, 2002b; EADSNE, 2003; Peters, 2004; Dyson & Forlin, 1999). These issues have put a strain on fiscal spending, necessitating the control of education budgets.

Countries are progressively realising the inadequacy of multiple systems of administration, organisational structures and services and the financially impractical options of special schools. Previously, financial studies often referred to financial resources as "What do the budgets purchase?" paying less attention to the way in which monies were allocated and distributed (Fletcher-Campbell, 2002). Attention is being paid increasingly to developing regulations facilitating inclusive education (Eurydice, 2003). In other words, greater interest is being shown in the connection between education budgets and educational outputs.

Confronted with serious financial restriction, countries of the North and South are initiating cost-effective programmes to promote inclusive education. While "school- as-a-whole" strategies are seen to be dominating economic reform in countries of the North, "community-as-a-whole" strategies are being implemented in the South (Engelbrecht, Howell & Bassett, 2002:59-72).

It has been estimated that the cost of providing special education as well as other services to students with special needs are 2.3 times greater than the cost of

providing for students without special needs (Chaikind, Danielson & Brauen, 1993:345). While pressure for accountability towards special needs and inclusive education is on the increase, few cost-effective studies or models for evaluation exist (Peters, 2004:51). A study undertaken by the European Agency for Development in Special Educational Needs (EADSNE), involving all its members (the European Union, Iceland and Norway), pointed out that if funds are not allocated in accordance with an implicit inclusion policy, inclusion is unlikely to happen in practice (UNESCO, 2003b:14).