Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goshen Central presents audit of special‑education services; leaders cite staffing gaps, Medicaid work ahead
Summary
District staff presented a spring analysis of pupil personnel services showing strengths in IEP quality and graduation rates but noting staffing limits, below‑target LRE figures, increased meeting volume and plans to pursue Medicaid reimbursement after staff training.
GOSHEN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT — District staff presented the results of a spring analysis of the Pupil Personnel Services (PPS) department at a Goshen Central School District board meeting, outlining strengths in individualized education program (IEP) quality and graduation outcomes while flagging staffing limits, below‑target measures of least restrictive environment (LRE) placement and steps to begin Medicaid billing.
The analysis, delivered by Mister Thomas, covered a three‑year average of placements, program descriptions, staff capacity, related‑service staffing and out‑of‑district placements. Thomas said stakeholders were interviewed, and the review compared district practices with other Orange County districts and state guidance from the New York State Education Department.
Thomas told the board the report found the district’s IEPs were “well written and complete” and that the district’s five‑year graduation rate for students with disabilities exceeded the county average. He said the district “has returned approximately about 25 to 30 students from more restrictive environments outside of the district back into district” since 2017, a point the analysis identified as evidence of progress on serving students in district when possible.
At the same time, Thomas reported several operational pressures. He said the PPS department served about 890 students at the time of the audit and that the number was closer to 940 currently. He described a rise in meeting volume: “During the audit ... there were approximately 600 student meetings that were held … This past school year, that number had increased to about 1,700, with the PPS director chairing approximately 460 of those meetings.”
The audit also noted administrative capacity limits. Thomas said the department had two personnel services administrators and an effective caseload of about one administrator for every 290 special‑education students. The analysis recommended increasing school‑based administrative capacity so the district director can focus on programmatic enhancements.
On placement in general education settings, Thomas reported mixed findings. He said the review showed a three‑year average comparison to county peers and a six‑percent increase over the prior period, but that the district nevertheless “remain[s] lower than the state target. The state target is 59%, and we are currently at or about 48%,” a shortfall the analysis identified as an area for improvement. (Those figures were reported by the presenter.)
The report flagged possible program refinements, including clearer entry criteria and program descriptions, expanded professional development in co‑teaching and integrated instruction, and broader use of multi‑sensory reading and executive‑functioning training for staff. Thomas said the district already offers some professional development and regular meetings among PPS administrators, CSE (Committee on Special Education) teams and English language learner staff.
On funding, Thomas told the board the PPS department had not previously submitted Medicaid reimbursement claims but had begun training in June so it can start filing. He said Medicaid billing “requires extensive training” and the district anticipates that reimbursements will increase over time as documentation processes are established.
The analysis compared per‑student spending to county averages; Thomas said the district currently spends “about $1,600 less per student” than the county average and that the district will monitor service delivery while staying within budget constraints.
Board members were told the review would inform ongoing work: continuing partnerships for professional development, revisiting the district MTSS/RTI plan, assessing integrated‑teaching models and discussing with the board possible addition of a CSE chairperson role for enhanced oversight of programs and services.
No formal board votes or motions on the audit were recorded in the meeting transcript; the presentation concluded with staff describing next steps including Medicaid training, continuing professional development and monitoring of staffing and placements.
Looking ahead, Thomas said the district will “continue to build on our strengths” and use partnerships to support training and program development as it implements the analysis’ recommendations.
