Board hears proposal to contract with Effective School Solutions to reduce out-of-district placements

At the March 3, 2025 meeting of the Maple Heights Board of Education, district staff presented a proposal to contract with Effective School Solutions (ESS) to provide intensive mental‑health and behavioral services aimed at reducing the district’s out‑of‑district placements for students with high needs.

The superintendent introduced the ESS proposal and turned the presentation over to Janille Love, who described a plan to place ESS clinicians in Maple Heights to work primarily with students identified at Tier 3 of the district’s multi‑tiered system of supports (MTSS). Love said ESS would provide two full‑time‑equivalent master’s‑level mental‑health clinicians, programmatic and clinical supervision, quality and risk management oversight, an online data dashboard (Mindbeat Pulse), weekly student reviews with school and district leadership, and 12 hours of districtwide professional development annually.

Love told the board the district currently has students placed in four types of separate facilities: 13 students at PEP (multiple locations), seven at LEAP, 10 at various alternative education locations and three at a reeducation site she described as as far as Mentor. She said the district has 33 students in separate facilities overall and that, including tuition and transportation, those placements currently cost the district “about $6.6 million” (presenter noted the calculation was approximate). Love said ESS would cost $682,750 “if we were to begin this program in April 25 and go until June 27” and that district staff estimated bringing back 15 students could reduce out‑of‑district tuition and transportation costs by roughly $2.3 million.

Love summarized ESS outcomes she said the vendor reports: a 95 percent prevention of outside therapeutic placements, a 59 percent decrease in severe disciplinary incidents, an average increase of one letter grade for participating students and a 34 percent decrease in absences. She described clinicians’ caseloads (10–12 students each), weekly individual therapy, daily group opportunities, biweekly family therapy, classroom “push‑in” support and comprehensive intake and clinical documentation aligned to students’ IEPs.

Board members asked operational questions about staffing, scope and local examples. An ESS clinical‑program staff member identified in the presentation as William confirmed that “classroom push‑in support” means clinicians can work inside a regular classroom alongside general and special‑education teachers. Board members asked staff to identify other Ohio districts using ESS and requested a site visit; several members said they preferred to observe an operating ESS program before voting on any contract. The superintendent and presenter confirmed staff would follow up with references and arrange visits before the item returns for a vote.

The presentation referenced MTSS definitions from the Ohio Leadership Advisory Council and a description of progress monitoring from the National Center for Learning Disabilities; those were cited as background during the presentation rather than as binding legal authorities.

The board took no formal vote on a contract at the March 3 meeting. Board members discussed tabling the decision pending site visits and further information from staff.

Why it matters: The district’s current use of multiple out‑of‑district placements represents a recurring operational and budgetary expense; the ESS proposal is presented as a potentially less costly way to provide intensive clinical services while keeping students in their home district.

Next steps: District staff said they will compile a list of districts currently using ESS, arrange visits, and provide additional budgeting and scope details when the item returns to the board for formal action.