04 SES 15 A, Financing Inclusive Education: Implications for the Implementation of Inclusive Education
The Netherlands has a long history of a multitrack education system (Bossaert et al., 2015), meaning that there is a continuum of special and regular education. This has resulted in a highly segregated education system, in which app. 5.5% of the student population (in primary and secondary education) attends special education (Koopman and Ledoux, 2016). In order to strive for inclusive education, and to decrease the financial costs for extra educational support and therefore the number of students in special education, a new policy on inclusive education became in act in August 2014. One of the main consequences of this policy is the change in funding model. While the previous policy was based on an input model (so-called: pupil bound budget), the new policy is based on a throughput model. The input model did not result in reaching the goals: an increase in students attending special education was visible, and the used medical approach resulted in an increase in labelling. Based on the attendance rates of students in special education in 2011, a fixed budget for extra educational support (among which special education) is equally distributed across the country to regional cooperation alliances. This equalization across the country has consequences: the budget of cooperation alliances with low participation rates in special education in 2011 received increased budgets (positive equalization). In cooperation alliances with high participation rates the opposite happened: they received less budget (negative equalization) (Gubbels, Coppens and de Wolf, 2018). The question rises whether this change in funding model has resulted in less student attendance in special education and if the equalization relates to the student rates. It is reasonable to believe that a negative equalization would lead to less referral to special education. In a national evaluation program, data has been gathered about the development of student attendance and the relationship with a negative or positive budget equalization. In this presentation we will discuss the following aspects: 1) policy changes, 2) funding model and equalization, 3) student rates in special education, and 4) the relationship between equalization and student rates in special education.
Bossaert, G., de Boer, A.A., Frostad, P., Pijl, S.J., and K. Petry (2015). Social Participation of Students with Special Educational Needs in Different Educational Systems. Irish Educational Studies, 34(1), 43-54, DOI: 10.1080/03323315.2015.1010703. Gubbels, J., Coppens, K.M., and I. de Wolf (2018). Inclusive Education in the Netherlands: How Funding Arrangements and Demographic Trends Relate to Dropout and Participation Rates. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(11), 1137-1153, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2017.1416684 Koopman, P.J., and G. Ledoux (2020). “Ontwikkelingen in deelname aan speciaal onderwijs, periode 2011-2019, en de effecten van verevening. [The Development of Special Education Attendance between 2011-2019 and the Effects of Equalization]”. In E. van Aarsen, A. Suijkerbuijk, E. Smeets, R. Kennis, D. Weijers, P.J. Koopman and G. Ledoux (Eds.), Extra analyses ten behoeve van de Evaluatie Passend onderwijs [Extra analysis regarding the Evaluation of Education that Fits]. Utrecht: Oberon, Nijmegen: KBA, Amsterdam: Kohnstamm Instituut.
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.