Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District proposes part‑time para after special‑education teacher reassignment at Craig’s Creek
Summary
Administrators said reassigning an itinerant special‑education teacher back to Craig’s Creek created the need for a part‑time paraeducator to support an autistic‑support classroom capped at 12 students; the district said the position can be funded from savings by serving students in‑district instead of sending them out for specialized placements.
District officials told the board they are requesting a part‑time paraeducator at Craig’s Creek Elementary after they reallocated a full‑time itinerant special‑education teacher to that building.
The reassignment followed enrollment increases of students with emotional and autism‑support needs in other buildings and contractual caps on classroom size. “The current need happened that we had to reassign our full time … special education teacher for autistic support back to Craig’s Creek full time,” a district administrator said, noting classroom caps of 12 students for that program.
Why this matters: Staff said keeping students in district reduces outplacement costs. Administrators estimated that the cost of placing two students in external programs could be $40,000–$50,000 each per year, while the proposed paraeducator salary is about $25,000. “So right now, it's a net gain,” a staff member said, describing savings from not sending those students out for services.
Details: The board was told the district has existing budget authority to cover some outplacement costs; because recent enrollments were higher than planned, staff said in‑district services will use savings from avoided placements to fund the new para. Administrators warned that very high‑need students may still require placements outside the district if their needs exceed local capacity.
Requests and next steps: Staff moved the item to Thursday for formal approval and said they would present full budget implications at that meeting. No formal vote was taken at Monday’s meeting.
Ending: The board signaled support for using in‑district capacity where appropriate but asked staff to return with the cost/benefit detail and cross‑budget impacts before final approval.
