Anoka-Hennepin administrators present full overview of special-education service delivery and programs

Anoka-Hennepin Public School District special-education administrators presented the third installment of a three-part series on June 9, detailing program structure and locations across the birth-to-22 continuum and summarizing current enrollments and program types.

“Early intervention is a family-centered program,” said Shannon Flago, describing the district’s birth-to-3 Early Intervention (EIP) program. At the time of the presentation, Flago said the district was “currently supporting 647 families in the Anoka Hennepin District.” She described services delivered in natural environments — such as family homes, daycares and ECFE programs — and listed related services including specialized instruction, speech-language therapy, occupational and physical therapy, nursing and audiology.

At the preschool level (ages 3–5), district administrators reported serving 857 students across multiple settings — district preschool classrooms, private preschools, self-contained classrooms and licensed childcare centers — and noted the district’s established early-childhood sites (Riverview Education Center, Blaine Early Childhood Center and Soderberg Early Childhood Center). Administrators said the 2025–26 early-childhood enrollment figure was 690 students at the time of the meeting and that the program historically places additional students as evaluations are completed.

At the elementary level, Special Education Administrator Jen Babaracki described the continuum of service delivery from push-in instruction during intervention blocks to resource rooms and specialized “center‑based” classrooms hosted in neighborhood schools. She summarized district elementary center programs that include Developmental Cognitive Delay (DCD) — about 288 elementary students reported accessing that program — Learners with Autism and Unique Challenges ("Launch"), with about 163 students, a recently expanded Ready, Set, Launch program that supports a distinct learning profile, and Emotional/Behavioral Disorder (EBD) programs (five host schools, 64 students reported).

Middle- and high‑school program administrators described co‑taught classes (general and special education teachers sharing instruction), “replacement” or essential courses for students who require modified pacing or focused academic skill instruction, and functional or alternative curricula for students with more significant needs. Middle-school administrator Andrew Heidemann said co-teaching is the fastest-growing middle-school model and described data used to place students (MAP testing, MCA data and classroom assessments).

Administrators discussed more restrictive programming provided in middle and high schools — setting 3 programs — and named sites offering DCD, Launch/ASD and EBD programs across middle and high schools. Heather Johnson, who supports high-school programs, said all high schools provide ASD (Launch), DCD and EBD programming so students can “attend their home high school” while receiving specialized services, and described transition and life-skills coursework tied to post‑secondary and vocational options.

The district highlighted River Trail Learning Center (RTLC) as a comprehensive setting for students needing more intensive, specialized programming. RTLC operates K–12 “communities” (Stream and Creek) and other groupings for students with cognitive/communication delays, ASD with more profound need, social‑emotional/behavioral needs and rapid‑response behavioral classrooms; administrators said RTLC programming is growing and that forecasted enrollment showed an upward trend over recent years.

Paige Dapp described the Two Rivers transition program at Franklin for students age 18–22 focused on post‑secondary education/training, employment skills and independent living. Administrators said Two Rivers had strong family turnout at recent open-house events and anticipated enrollment of about 250 students for the coming year.

Throughout the presentation, administrators emphasized that placement decisions are IEP‑team driven and that the district aims to provide services in the least restrictive environment, reintegrating students into neighborhood schools when appropriate. They noted staff training (including science-of-reading initiatives) and collaboration between general- and special‑education staff as priorities.

Board members asked for follow-up data on reevaluation/dismissal rates from special education (a district official said she could provide percentages on request) and about the timeline and staffing implications of expanding co‑teaching and adjusting essential courses. Administrators said some program expansions were paused to ensure staffing and supports were in place before changing placement models.

The presentation concluded with administrators thanking staff and noting continued collaboration with families and school teams to plan placements and services.