Georgia: "Students have more complex needs"; 1 in 7 students receives SPED services
- The end of childhood
- 23 hours ago
- 2 min read
Feb 2, 2026, Atlanta Journal Constitution: Georgia’s outdated school funding formula doesn’t add up
The process for funding Georgia’s public school classrooms has not changed since the mid-1980s. The state’s Quality Basic Education formula was created before the internet, before the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was fully realized and before inclusion of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities became an expectation.
Forty years later, research has deepened our understanding of how students learn and develop. Educational practice has moved toward inclusion, higher expectations and instruction that reaches more students.
There is a good reason for that movement. A wide body of research shows outcomes for all students improve when students with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities are educated together . . . .
At its core, QBE funds schools by counting students and assigning them to broad instructional categories. QBE was not designed for today’s classrooms, where inclusive education is the expectation. Students have more complex needs, and schools are asked to deliver results for every child.
Roughly 1 in 7 Georgia students receives special education services. These students may need specialized instruction, assistive technology, speech or occupational therapy, behavioral supports or smaller class sizes. These supports are essential to students’ ability to learn and participate in school. . . .
But students with intellectual and developmental disabilities will struggle to seize those opportunities if they don’t get what they need in our schools.
Georgia should modernize QBE by adding a tiered, needs-based special education weight that follows students receiving IDEA services and reflects the intensity of supports required, rather than disability labels or restrictive placements.
This would better align funding with inclusive practices like co-teaching, paraprofessional support and related services, directly addressing documented statewide gaps in staffing, service delivery and Individualized Education Program implementation reported by families and educators. Southern peers such as North Carolina show this approach can be implemented within an existing funding structure by pairing enrollment-based funding with guardrails that ensure placement decisions are driven by student need, not funding incentives.
This is not a partisan issue. It is a practical one. Lawmakers from both parties routinely express support for inclusive classrooms, strong schools and accountability. If Georgia aims to strengthen its schools, improve outcomes and honor its commitments to children, it must begin by valuing inclusive classrooms and their benefits for all students.
Ultimately, the question before our state leaders is not whether Georgia can afford to rethink how it funds education. It is whether Georgia can afford not to.
Comments