Petersburg school district reports high share of intensive‑needs students and staffing tradeoffs in rural settings

Cindy Fry, director of special education services for Petersburg Borough School District, told the House Education Committee on April 7 that the district of 458 students includes 70 students receiving special education services (15.2%), and 19 students who qualify for intensive needs services.

Fry described the district’s evaluation process and the data‑driven criteria for eligibility. She said intensive‑needs students require “daily, direct instruction by the special education teacher,” multiple related services and, in some cases, special transportation arrangements. Fry said Petersburg contracts taxis for some students when necessary and uses bus monitors for others.

Fry outlined the breadth of responsibilities for special education staff in small, rural districts: directors and teachers often cover 504 coordination, testing, behavior supports, reading intervention, substitute teaching and after‑school supports. She said many paraeducators fill teacher‑level functions where certified special education teachers are not available; her team estimates 15–25% of caseloads are being served without an on‑site special education teacher.

On staffing, Fry cited statewide shortages and recruitment pressures. She reported 178 special education teacher vacancies posted statewide (29 in rural districts) and described districts’ use of J‑1 and H‑1B visa hires, international recruiting and retired teachers as stopgap solutions. Fry said the Great Alaska Project, a grant program partnering with the University of Alaska System to support paraprofessionals to become certified teachers, is one strategy Petersburg uses to “raise our own.”

Committee members asked about service delivery methods. Fry said itinerant related‑service providers (speech, occupational and physical therapy) typically visit a few times a year and provide training; district teachers implement the recommended supports between visits. She said tele‑services tried during the pandemic sometimes produced evaluation results the district considered less valid than in‑person assessments.

Fry said her district values partnerships with the Department of Education, the Special Education Service Agency and nonprofit providers, and credited those relationships with expanding options for assistive technology, transition planning and early learning supports.

During the presentation, Don Enoch, state director for special education, told the committee that statewide special education percentages vary but that a percentage in the mid‑teens would not automatically trigger concern. Fry emphasized the emotional and workload toll on staff, noting national indicators that special education teachers face higher rates of burnout and attrition than general educators.

Fry closed by urging continued support for recruitment, competitive pay and programs that build local capacity to serve students in rural communities.