Under the premise of inclusive education, states with a long tradition of segregated school systems for children with and without special educational needs (SEN) face special challenges (Katzenbach & Schnell, 2013). During the transmission of the system, a double structure of inclusive schooling and special schooling occurs, that ties up scarce resources (Barrett, 2014; Peters, 2004). Based on this circumstance, the core issue of financing an inclusive education system is: How can scarce resources be allocated where they are needed? With regard to this problem, two forms of funding are found in practice: an input- and a throughput-based model (Meijer, 1999). Within the input-model, resources are allocated on the basis of diagnosed SENs, however, this may lead to an increasing number of diagnosed students and consequently to an increase in the needs for resources. Due to this development, some governments changed the system of allocating resources from an input- to a throughput-based system, in which resources are distributed via lump-sum (Banks, Frawley & McCoy, 2015; Banks & McCoy, 2011; Meijer, 1999). Although this system has the benefit of confining costs and diagnoses, there is a risk that the needs of students with SEN cannot be met. The present paper examines the question, whether a throughput-based funding system of teacher resources reaches the corresponding students with SEN subject to the type of school and the region where the schools are located. Based on official school statistical data from North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, it is analysed whether the number of students with SEN on single school level fits the desired value of 9.92 students per full-time SEN teacher resource that was allocated to these schools for the school year 2014/15. The findings for N = 4722 mainstream and N = 566 special schools show selective over- and under-supplies for students with SEN depending on the type of school and the region where the schools are located. The distribution measurements document that 20% of the mainstream schools face an under-supply with teacher resources (student-teacher-ratio above 12.5), whereas 30% have a supply below the value of 7.0 students per full-time teacher. Finally, the results are discussed with regard to the implication for efficient educational planning. It is argued that the newly implemented throughput-based funding system is not suitable (yet) to meet the needs of students with SEN properly, since more than 60 % of the teacher resources are still locked up in segregated special schools.

Banks, J., Frawley, D. & McCoy, S. (2015), Achieving inclusion? Effective resourcing of students with special educational needs, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(9);, pp. 926–943. Banks, J. & McCoy, S. (2011), A study on the prevalence of special educational needs, Dublin: NCSE. Barrett, D. (2014), Resourcing inclusive education, in Forlin, C. & Loreman, T. (Ed.), Measuring inclusive education, International perspectives on inclusive education [pp. 75–92.], 1. ed., Emerald, Bingley, UK. Katzenbach, D. & Schnell, I. (2013), Strukturelle Voraussetzungen inklusiver Bildung, in Moser, V. (Ed.), Die inklusive Schule: Standards für die Umsetzung [The Inclusive School: Standards for Implementation], 2nd ed., Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 23–41. Meijer, C.J.W. (1999), Financing of Special Needs Education. A seventeen-country Study of the Relationship between Financing of Special Needs Education and Inclusion, available at: https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/financing-of-special-needs-education_Financing-EN.pdf Peters, S. (2004), Inclusive education: An EFA strategy for all children, available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2004/11/5543076/inclusive-education-efa-strategy-all-children Preuss-Lausitz, U. (2016), Throughput instead of input: Herausforderungen beim Wegfall der Feststellungsdiagnostik in den Förderbereichen Lernen, Emotionale und soziale Entwicklung und Sprache [Challenges of the Omission of Diagnosing Educational Needs in Learning, Emotional and Social Behaviour and Speech, Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 67(5), pp. 204-214.