Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Special Education Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Milton Public Schools outlines plan to bring two NEC classrooms in‑house, projects $350,000 net savings

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

District staff presented financial details for transitioning two NEC‑staffed special‑education classrooms to Milton Public Schools employees, estimating $350,000 in net savings next year while flagging unresolved BCBA costs and programmatic risks for students and families.

Milton Public Schools officials presented a proposal to transition two of three classrooms currently staffed by NEC (an outside special‑education provider) to district employees next school year, estimating $350,000 in net savings while acknowledging unresolved questions about behavior‑specialist (BCBA) support and family impact.

District finance staff said the NEC model today includes two classrooms fully staffed by NEC teachers at roughly $200,000 each and additional consultative services of about $90,000. Katie, a staff member who prepared the costing, told the school committee the district’s current total expense for the NEC program this year is $586,000. Hiring two district classroom teachers and purchasing curriculum and materials, Katie said, would cost about $240,000, producing a projected net savings of $350,000 for next year. She added that retaining one NEC‑provided classroom instead would reduce the projected savings to about $100,000.

The nut graf: The financial math offered by staff focuses on personnel and curriculum costs but does not include the full cost of BCBA (Board Certified Behavior Analyst) services, which staff say NEC currently supplies and which Milton would need to replace if it phases out NEC support. Committee members cautioned that fiscal savings could be offset by programmatic risk if staffing, certification and transition timelines are not fully resolved before the next school year.

In the meeting, staff clarified what costs are already carried by the district: instructional assistants in the NEC classrooms are Milton Public Schools employees and are included in the FY26 payroll figures. Katie explained that the $200,000 figure refers to each NEC classroom teacher and the services tied to that teacher; consultative services Milton pays where the district furnishes the teacher are summarized as a $90,000 line. The district’s proposal would hire two teachers and absorb curriculum and material costs into a $240,000 expense, producing the stated $350,000 net savings compared with the current NEC contract costs.

Committee members pushed for detail about how behavioral supports would be provided post‑transition. Amanda, a school committee member, repeated a concern repeated by others: the BCBA supports currently tied to NEC are not included in the $240,000 hiring projection, and if the district must hire BCBAs or purchase equivalent consultative services, much of the savings could be reduced or eliminated. Katie said the BCBA cost was not factored into the classroom teacher estimate and that NEC currently provides a BCBA who supports the broader program rather than a single classroom.

Members also flagged operational constraints and timing: staff noted one NEC classroom currently has an enrollment limit (discussed as seven to nine students during the meeting) and that high‑needs positions are hard to recruit on short notice. Amanda and other committee members said the April timing makes hiring and a smooth programmatic transition challenging; they asked staff for a clearer, written transition plan that states whether savings assume a full‑year change or a phased transition and how families’ services and consultation will be maintained during the shift.

Katie and other staff said they would provide more details for upcoming finance and school committee meetings, including written communications to families that the district is preparing jointly with other staff (Danielle and Nick were named in the meeting as staff working on communications). Committee members asked that communication include clear descriptions of what services would look like under each transition scenario and the financial assumptions behind the stated savings.

Ending: Committee members did not vote on the proposal during this meeting. They directed staff to return with more detailed transition timelines, explicit cost lines for BCBA and consultative services, and written communications for families and the finance committee before taking formal action.