Hingham plans small in‑district elementary therapeutic pilot at Plymouth River

The Hingham School Committee on June 2 agreed to pursue a small, in‑district pilot therapeutic program at Plymouth River School for the 2025–26 school year that district leaders said would begin with a handful of elementary students and rely on monthly consultation from the South Shore Educational Collaborative.

District Superintendent Katie (first name only) told the committee that after examining a plan to host a South Shore Educational Collaborative (SSCC) program on Hingham campus, administrators decided to “pivot” to a homegrown model that would be staffed by Hingham personnel and supported by SSCC consultants.

The pilot will begin with a very small cohort — committee discussion referenced “3 to 5” students for the first year, with 8 students identified as a longer‑term maximum — and would be housed at Plymouth River School because committee members and staff said its single‑level layout and lower enrollment make it easier to deliver intensive services without overloading building specialists. The district plans to use existing staff where possible, reallocate behavior techs who currently work with students offsite, and contract or assign specialized providers (for example, part‑time behavior analysts or behavior technicians) as needed.

Greg Lamoth (staff member present for site visits) and Dr. Christine Panarizi, the district’s executive director for related services, described an SSCC consult model in which collaborative staff would review cases roughly monthly and increase frequency to biweekly for higher‑need students while Hingham builds internal capacity. Michael Loesch, identified in the packet as SSCC’s director, also participated in earlier site visits and discussions, district staff said.

Committee members asked how students would be selected and how families would be informed. Greg Lamoth and the district’s speakers said placements would rely on established special‑education procedures, including review of functional behavior assessments and an individual determination that the district can meet the student’s needs. Staff emphasized they would not accept students whose needs exceed the district’s ability to provide required services. The district said families and CPAC (the committee that advises on special‑education matters) have been kept informed during planning.

Administrators described this as a multi‑year, iterative effort intended to reduce out‑of‑district placements over time and to build middle‑school capacity later. They did not present a final budget increase for the pilot and said the first year is intended to be budget‑neutral through reallocation of existing staff and use of current district specialists, though long‑term growth would require future staffing analyses.

Committee members broadly expressed support but also raised concerns that a very small first cohort could make it harder to build the classroom community that therapeutic programs rely on. District staff acknowledged that risk and said the first year is meant to be a measured step that will inform decisions about expansion.

Next steps described by staff include finalizing the program design, formalizing SSCC consult arrangements, establishing selection criteria, and returning to the committee with implementation details and any staffing or budget changes required for expansion.