Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and providers press board to allow third‑party medical ABA in classrooms; board approves a policy update and forms advisory committee
Summary
After hours of public comment from parents, clinicians and advocates, the USD 383 board approved revisions to its visitors‑in‑schools policy and directed an advisory committee to study outside providers — including medically prescribed ABA — with an initial report due by November.
Parents, clinicians and advocates urged the Manhattan‑Ogden USD 383 Board of Education to preserve access to medical applied behavior analysis (ABA) services in school classrooms during public comment on revisions to the district’s visitors‑in‑schools policy.
Kevin Steinmetz, a parent of a student at Theodore Roosevelt, described classroom‑based medical ABA as a medically prescribed intervention that “works” for many children on the autism spectrum and stressed the difference between medical ABA and classroom‑based educational supports. “This is why ABA therapy is the go to prescribed medical intervention for autism. It works,” Steinmetz said, and urged the board not to adopt a policy that would bar medically prescribed ABA providers from delivering services in classrooms.
Other parents and local clinicians echoed those concerns. Rebecca Price, a parent who has chosen to keep her medically complex child at home until classroom supports can be guaranteed, told the board that requiring privately funded therapists to work only outside the classroom would risk students’ free and appropriate public education (FAPE) by removing supports needed to access instruction. Dr. Kate (surname not specified), a Manhattan pediatrician, said ABA is commonly recommended by clinicians after a medical diagnosis of autism and that having therapy available in school helps students model social behaviors and remain available for academic learning.
Board members and administrators discussed legal and logistical questions, including liability, staff supervision, memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and how services provided by non‑district professionals should be scheduled and documented. Several trustees said they wanted to balance support for children’s medically prescribed services with district responsibilities for safety, privacy and compliance with federal and state law.
After extended discussion the board voted to proceed with the second reading and final approval of the proposed policy language while also directing administration to convene an advisory committee to study outside providers and the specific impacts of medically prescribed ABA services in schools. The board set an initial report deadline of November and said the committee should consider a broader range of outside services, not only ABA.
Action recorded: the board approved the policy revision and the committee motion on a 7–0 vote.
Speakers during the public‑comment period and the discussion included parents and clinicians who described both the clinical role of ABA and family experiences arranging services, as well as board members who emphasized the need for a structured approach. Administrators and legal counsel had previously provided the board with a memorandum summarizing district legal concerns; parents provided alternative policy language and cited federal civil‑rights protections including the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act when urging accommodation of medically prescribed services.
The board did not adopt operational details at the meeting. Trustees asked administration to convene the advisory committee — to include parents, clinicians, building administrators and legal counsel — and return with recommendations on MOUs, supervision protocols, privacy protections and scheduling to allow medically prescribed services in ways that comply with district policies and applicable law.
