Lawmakers probe rising special‑education costs as districts, private providers and RESCs push different fixes

Legislators pressed state and local officials on how to slow rapidly rising special‑education costs during an Education Committee public hearing, as superintendents, regional education service centers and private approved special‑education programs described conflicting pressures.

Why it matters: Connecticut school districts reported steep year‑over‑year increases in special‑education tuition for outplaced students and rising transportation and related costs. Municipal budget officers and school leaders said the surge is unsustainable without additional state support; private and nonprofit program operators warned that arbitrary statewide rate caps would jeopardize the programs that serve the state’s highest‑need students.

State Department of Education testimony: CSDE officials and the hearing’s witnesses described a complex picture. The department acknowledged bills under discussion (including Senate Bill 12 44) that would provide grants for in‑district program development and asked for more resources to support rate‑setting studies and oversight. CSDE staff said the state is studying rate methodologies used elsewhere and working to develop approaches that avoid unintended closures.

Districts push for formula weight and predictable reimbursements: Hartford Public Schools officials urged the committee to add a special‑education weight to the state Education Cost Sharing formula, saying special‑education expenses consumed about a third of their total revenue and that the state’s excess‑cost reimbursement currently covers a very small share. Hartford’s chief financial officer estimated a 50% weight would yield roughly $16 million in additional revenue for the district.

Superintendents from smaller districts told the committee that outplacement costs have jumped dramatically. “In Derby, the average cost of our outplacements has gone from $92,000 per student to $158,000 in four years,” Superintendent Matt Conway testified, calling for rate predictability and better sharing mechanisms among districts.

Private schools and providers warn of closures if prices are capped: Leaders of nonprofit approved special‑education programs – which provide residential or day placements for students whose needs exceed nearby district capabilities – told lawmakers a state‑imposed price ceiling would likely force reductions in services or school closures. “If tuition rates are set prematurely or set too low, schools may not have the resources to provide support services,” said Lisa Gregory, CEO of Milestones Behavioral Services, noting many programs operate year‑round with high staffing costs.

Proposals and trade‑offs: Bills under consideration include a competitive grant program to build more in‑district programs and language directing CSDE to study and potentially set maximum tuition schedules for approved private special‑education programs. Advocates for rate limits argued for more accountability and reporting from private providers; providers warned that what looks like savings up front could raise long‑term costs if regional capacity shrinks and more students require more expensive out‑of‑state placements.

Transportation and administrative factors: Witnesses also highlighted transportation as an often‑hidden driver of cost and urged the state to explore regional arrangements and procurement strategies to reduce trip expenses. Several speakers urged more CSDE oversight of approved private programs, recommending annual site reviews and standardized reporting on staffing and restraint and seclusion data.

Next steps: Committee members asked CSDE to share its rate‑setting study and to work with stakeholders—including districts, RESCs and private providers—before considering statutory caps. Several legislators signalled interest in moving temporary relief funds into the excess‑cost grant in the near term while crafting longer‑term reforms.

Ending: The hearing left one clear conclusion: there is no single short‑term fix. Lawmakers face a choice between near‑term budget relief, long‑term rate and market reforms, and investments in local capacity that could reduce future outplacement demand.