Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education.special Education.therapeutic Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermont districts create in-district therapeutic programs to curb special-education costs
Summary
At a May 15 House Education hearing, Mount Mansfield Unified and Essex Westford described district-run therapeutic programs they say lower costs, keep students connected to community and reduce reliance on high-cost out-of-district placements, while raising questions about transportation, staffing and state funding incentives.
MONTPELIER — On May 15, 2025, the Vermont House Committee on Education heard from two school districts that have created in-district therapeutic programs to address shrinking access to outside therapeutic placements and rapidly rising special-education costs.
Mount Mansfield Unified Union School District and Essex Westford School District told the committee their programs have allowed some students to remain in their home communities while producing substantial per-student savings compared with expensive out-of-district tuition placements.
District leaders said the programs also pose practical challenges — chiefly staffing, space and transportation — and raised concerns about how Vermont’s current funding incentives for extraordinary special-education costs can affect district decisions.
Nicole Fortier, director of finance and operations for the Mount Mansfield Unified Union School District, described two in-district programs. Team Evolve, at Browns River Middle School, serves about 10 students and is staffed by two licensed teachers and two paraprofessionals. Fortier said the program cost about $25,000 per student in fiscal 2025.
Fortier said Mount Mansfield launched an earlier Multi-Age Program that evolved into Team Evolve and later created an elementary program, Team Elevate, housed at Smiley Memorial School. Team Elevate currently serves seven students, is staffed for 10–12 and had a fiscal-2025 per-student cost reported at about $52,000; Fortier said that at capacity the per-student cost would be about $33,000.
"These in district alternative programs are undeniably cost effective, but just as importantly they allow our students to stay connected to their school communities and work towards reintegration into a traditional classroom," Fortier said.
Heather Bushey, director of finance for the Essex Westford School District and president of the Vermont Association of School Business Officials, said her district launched a district-based therapeutic program in fiscal 2024 for grades 3–8 and plans to add high-school slots in fiscal 2026. Bushey said Essex Westford has been able to transition some students from high-cost outside placements back to district programs.
Bushey and other district witnesses described out-of-district tuition rates that, excluding transportation, have ranged dramatically. Bushey said some out-of-district placements for Essex Westford students have reached "as high as $150,000 to $175,000" per student. Committee members and witnesses contrasted those figures with the districts' in-district per-student costs.
On the funding side, committee members asked whether the state’s extraordinary-cost reimbursement formula creates incentives to place students out of district. Bushey told the committee, "the more you spend above 65,000, the greater percentage of cost you get reimbursed from the state," and said the formula’s structure merited review.
District witnesses described transportation as another major cost and logistical challenge when students attend distant programs. "Transportation is a real challenge," said Dylan, co-director of student support services for Essex Westford, noting that districts must sometimes run fragmented routes to reach programs in several towns and occasionally provide staff supervision on buses or vans.
Witnesses also discussed staffing and space constraints. Districts said recruiting qualified special-education staff is difficult in parts of Vermont and that smaller districts may lack the scale to justify in-house programs without regional collaboration or technical assistance. Several speakers pointed to last year’s BOCES-related legislation and existing consortium models — for example the Garvin School in Williston, which operates in partnership with the Howard Center — as potential templates for regional approaches.
Committee members raised the state moratorium on approval of additional "approved independent schools," a policy that some said has encouraged districts to develop in-district programs. Witnesses also suggested that some districts would welcome state-funded technical assistance on program design and start-up.
No formal committee action was taken. Committee members asked district officials for follow-up information: Fortier said she would provide numbers about historical outplacement rates on request, and Bushey agreed to share written testimony she previously submitted to other panels.
The testimony highlighted trade-offs districts face: in-district programs appear to reduce per-student tuition costs and maintain community ties for students with intensive needs, but they require investments in staff, dedicated space and transportation and may interact with state funding rules in ways districts said should be reviewed by policymakers.
