Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Special Education Funding topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

East Grand Forks board backs application for state AD‑SIS funds to add behavior specialists

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The East Grand Forks Public School District board gave informal approval to apply to the Minnesota Department of Education for AD‑SIS state special‑education aid to fund two behavior interventionists in year 1 and add reading specialists in year 2, with an estimated two‑year district cost of about $145,600 if fully implemented.

The East Grand Forks Public School District board on Aug. 11 gave informal approval for district staff to apply to the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) for AD‑SIS state special‑education aid and to post one additional behavior interventionist position for the 2025–26 school year.

The funds, Soraya, a district staff member, told the board, are “state special ed aid to fund early academic and behavior supports in general education” and are intended to pay for tier‑2 and tier‑3 interventions that keep students in general education settings. Soraya said the district already has one behavior interventionist and is proposing to add one more this year at the elementary level; in year two the plan would add two reading specialists at the secondary level.

The board’s informal endorsement — given by consensus rather than a formal roll‑call vote — allows administrators to finalize a two‑year staffing and budget plan and submit the application to MDE. Soraya told the board the aid is not a one‑time grant but state aid that is paid the year after services are delivered: “It’s paid the year after services are delivered,” she said. Historically, she said, reimbursement has ranged from about 55% to 61%; the district used a 60% estimate in its planning.

Why it matters: AD‑SIS money is tied to reporting and measurable outcomes. Soraya told the board the department expects clear documentation that the intervention work reduces discipline referrals and special‑education referrals, and that the district will report quarterly on entry and exit criteria, goal setting, staff training and weekly data reviews. She said the district will track outcomes such as fewer discipline referrals, reduced lost instructional time, improved attendance and on‑task behavior, and a reduction in inappropriate special‑education referrals.

Budget and timeline: For year 1 the district estimated salary and benefits for two behavior specialists at about $182,000; at a roughly 60% reimbursement rate that would yield about $109,000 from the state and reduce the district’s net cost. For year 2 the district estimated adding two reading specialists, with total reimbursements and district contributions explained in Soraya’s presentation (district cost estimates, after projected reimbursements, were presented as roughly $145,600 over the two years if the full plan is implemented). Soraya said the district will finalize the staffing plan and submit the application to MDE immediately; if approved, state reimbursement follows the year after services are provided.

Accountability and oversight: Soraya said building principals will supervise the interventionists and that the district will code the positions to AD‑SIS access funds. She described duties that include running targeted groups and individual interventions, serving on Student Assistance Teams, supporting restorative‑practice responses to behavior incidents, coordinating makeup work for students who are removed, and communicating with families. Soraya also noted the district will monitor equity in service delivery.

Board response: Trustees asked about timing, the difference between the current plan and an earlier AD‑SIS plan, and whether the district would be able to prove outcomes. Soraya replied that the district has prepared more robust data collection and reporting this time and that the MDE contact who reviewed the draft supported the district moving forward. A majority of trustees indicated informal support for submitting the application and beginning recruitment; the superintendent said the work could proceed without a formal, recorded vote and that the board would revisit year‑two staffing and budget decisions the following March.

Votes at a glance (routine board actions taken during the meeting): • Agenda approval — voice vote; motion carried. • Consent agenda approval — voice vote; motion carried. • Donations accepted from EGF Boosters totaling $6,572.52 (baseball $2,100; cheer tumbling mats $2,985.50; girls golf $557.48; tennis court maintenance $929.54) — voice vote; motion carried. • Payment of claims (K‑12 bills 129883 through 129953) — voice vote; motion carried. • Motion to adjourn — voice vote; motion carried.

What’s next: District staff will finalize the AD‑SIS staffing plan and submit the application to MDE this week; if the plan is approved, the district will recruit for the additional behavior interventionist for the 2025–26 school year and return to the board with quarterly reports on outcomes and budget impacts.