UNFUNDED MANDATE:
DOES MORE MONEY MEAN BETTER SPECIAL
EDUCATION COMPLIANCE?
Final Dissertation Presentation
prepared for the Final Committee Conference Call
by Wendy Bolduc
CAROLE BURNWORTH, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair
KATHLEEN MONDELL, Ph.D., Committee Member
BARRY PERSKY, Ph.D., Committee Member
Barbara Butts Williams, Ph.D., Dean, School of Education
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
CAPELLA UNIVERSITY
JUNE, 2012
DEDICATION
This effort is dedicated to my parents, who were
both lifelong learners. They instilled in me a love
of learning and a desire to pursue the truth. They
encouraged my endless curiosity, and taught me
the value of integrity and self-respect.
In memoriam, thank you Mom and Dad.
.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the advice and
support of my mentor, Dr. Carole Burnworth,
my dissertation committee members,
Dr. Kathleen Mondell and Dr. Barry Persky,
and my advisor Dr. Jonathan Gehrz
throughout this effort.
WHY THIS TOPIC WAS SELECTED
My experience has been that compliance with IDEA
is largely ignored until there is a threat of due
process or a loss of funding.
I believe that compliance with Part B of IDEA (2004)
will produce better educational and life outcomes
for students with disabilities and help them to
become independent contributors to society rather
than make them dependent upon society,
WHY TOPIC WAS SELECTED
(continued)
 We have a legal, ethical and moral responsibility
to students with disabilities and their families to
improve special education programs through
improved compliance in order to provide
successful educational experiences and life
outcomes for these students
 Beginning with funding levels, determining some
of the factors that may impact compliance
seemed to be a good starting place to improve
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
R1 What relationship, if any, exists between per pupil
funding for special education as provided through the
ARRA stimulus program for Part B of IDEA (2004) and
improved special education compliance as measured
by the twenty performance indicators reported in state
Annual Performance Reports (APRs)?
R2: Are there any significant or distinct characteristics
that states demonstrating adequate or improved
compliance with Part B of IDEA (2004) share?
R3 : Are there any significant or distinct characteristics
of states demonstrating inadequate or reduced compliance
with Part B of IDEA (2004)?
MAJOR POINTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW
No seminal studies on the relationship of
compliance to finance in special education were
identified (McLeskey & Landers , 2006)
Studies on special education funding and/or
compliance were separate
ARRA (2009) stimulus program doubled federal
special education funding in FFY09
Non-compliance results in high litigation costs to
the district, inadequate program outcomes and
poor relationships with families in special education
MAJOR POINTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW
Other factors identified in the literature which may
influence compliance:
IDEA (2004) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001)
requirements for SWDs
 Variations in state special education financing
methods
 Current state of the economy causing staffing and
program cuts
 Administrator awareness of special education legal
requirements
 Number of ELL and ESE students
RESEARCH METHODS
This was a quantitative correlational study
using measurable variables.
Compliance was first compared to funding, and
then to other factors to determine if any were
related to compliance
RESEARCH METHODS (continued)
 Compliance for each of the two study years was
measured using a calculated compliance rate.
The number of indicators for which the state target was met was
divided by the number of indicators reported by the state Annual
Performance Report (APRs), or from the Office of Special
Education’s Response Tables to the states.
 Funding was measured by the average per pupil
(APPE) special education grant amounts.
Special education APPEs were calculated from the total federal
special education grant amounts to the state divided by the
number of special education students served under Part B by the
state for each of the two study years.
RESEARCH METHODS
Compliance rates for states grouped and coded as
compliant and non-compliant were compared to
the number of Part B special education
students served by the state
the total number of special education disputes
for the state
the cost-of-living index
AND
RESEARCH METHODS (continued)
the percentage of students with disabilities
relative to school population
the percentage of ARRA funds obligated or
spent by March 4. 2011
region of the country
by performing statistical procedures to compare
means, paired samples t-tests, and correlations
using Predictive Analysis Statistics GradPack 18
software (PASW-18).
RESEARCH QUESTION 1 RESULTS
R1 : Is there a relationship between increased
funding and compliance?
NO
 No relationship between funding levels and
compliance for either study year was found
 There is a 91.7% probability that differences in
the two years can be attributed to chance
 The null hypothesis must be accepted for
research question one.
RESEARCH QUESTION 2 RESULTS
R2: Do states showing adequate or improved
compliance share significant or distinct
characteristics?
YES
States with
 smaller special education populations
 lower numbers of special education disputes
 location in the Central Plains, Southwest, West,
Northwest and Pacific regions
were more likely to show higher compliance rates for both
study years.
RESEARCH QUESTION 3 RESULTS
R3 : Do states showing reduced or inadequate
compliance rates share significant or
distinct characteristics?
YES
States
 with larger special education populations
 with more special education disputes
 located in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic,
Appalachia, Southeast, and Midwest regions
were more likely to have lower compliance rates for
both study years
ADDITIONAL RESULTS
 The percentage of students relative to the total
school population identified as disabled and
needing special education services was not found
to be significantly related to compliance rates
 The cost-of-living index for FFY09 showed a weak
inverse relationship to compliance rates for
FFY09
 The percentage of ARRA money obligated or spent
as of March 4, 2011 was not found to be
significantly related to compliance rates
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
States with large special education populations
might consider ways to break their special
education populations into smaller subgroups
States should focus on reducing the total number
of special education students, not percentages
High levels of poverty and large numbers of ELLs
tend to produce larger numbers of students in
special education programs (Baker & Ramsey,
2010) so districts should attempt to further
address ways to minimize the effects of these
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
(continued)
States should attempt to reduce the number of
complaints they experience (whether settled,
withdrawn or dismissed) by analyzing the types
and numbers of complaints to pinpoint areas of
improvement on which to focus
Encouraging the development of positive
relationships with the parents of students with
disabilities has been suggested in recent
literature as a way to reduce the number of
complaints (Diliberto & Brewer, 2012).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH
Further study into compliance rates and ARRA
funding for FFY10 is indicated
Long-term effects of programs funded through
ARRA should be examined
The point at which the number of special
education disputes and the number of special
education students begin to adversely affect
compliance should be examined
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH (continued)
Why region of the country appears to be a factor in
compliance should be studied
The performance indicator targets should be
examined more closely for consistency across
states. Meeting the target in one state can mean
something entirely different from meeting the
target in another.
CONCLUSIONS
Whether inadequate funding is the cause of
states’ failure to fully comply with IDEA has not
been settled by this study
 The study’s results can contribute to the
conversation about the relationship between
funding and compliance and has identified other
factors which may be as important if not more
important than funding in states’ efforts to be fully
compliant with IDEA requirements
CONCLUSIONS (continued)
 We have a legal, ethical and a moral responsibility
to provide students with disabilities with a free,
appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment and in so doing improve
their educational and life outcomes
 Full compliance with IDEA can help to ensure that
this becomes a reality. The futures of students
with disabilities, and their successful transition
into society when their schooling has ended
depend upon it.