Amherst Central staff report rising special-education caseloads, counseling data and mental-health programs

At a meeting of the Amherst Central School District board, district special‑education and pupil personnel staff reported a marked increase in students identified with disabilities and outlined the district’s counseling plan, crisis‑intervention reporting and several mental‑health and vocational partnerships.

District presenters said 505 school‑age students were classified as students with disabilities in the 2024–25 school year and 96 preschool‑age children were receiving some level of preschool special‑education services as of the April reporting date. Staff said recent years show a net increase in classified students in part because more students with existing individualized education programs have moved into the district: this year staff recorded 65 move‑ins of students with disabilities and 23 move‑outs, a net gain of 42 students.

Those enrolment changes matter because federal and state special‑education monitoring uses multiple data indicators and can prompt oversight. "When you reach a threshold of over $500,000 in revenue, you're required to have [a Medicaid compliance program]. Conveniently, that changed after we created it. So they shifted it to a million dollars," a district staff member said, describing a recent change to the Medicaid reporting threshold. Staff told the board the district maintains a Medicaid compliance program although current Medicaid revenue falls below the new $1 million threshold. Staff also noted that most Medicaid claims come from related services — speech, occupational and physical therapy — and that those claims typically require physician prescriptions and precise documentation.

Staff presented the district counseling plan and its advisory council, which sets targets tied to academic, social‑emotional and career readiness. The presenters said counseling referrals show patterns by grade band and need: academic advisement consumes much counselor time at the middle and high school levels, while anxiety and social‑skills needs remain a frequent reason for counseling at all grades; behavior referrals are more prominent in elementary schools. Staff said they are working to streamline referral data so interventions can be matched to common needs (for example, teacher training for a recurring skill deficit instead of individual counseling for many students).

Presenters highlighted disparities in referral rates by race. Using state enrollment categories, staff said Black/African American students were overrepresented among counseling referrals compared with their share of district enrollment and cautioned the board this suggests disproportionate referral patterns.

Staff also described recent reporting requirements for behavioral interventions. The state now requires districts to report incidents such as physical restraints and time‑out room usage. Presenters said the district’s broader incident count fell to 35 after changes in reporting practice, and that eight students accounted for incidents involving physical restraint this year. Staff attributed the decline in part to increased tier‑1 and tier‑2 supports and training (TCIS — Therapeutic Crisis Intervention and Support) and to efforts to push counseling into classrooms.

The presentation reviewed programs and partnerships designed to expand vocational and family support services. Julian Grover, the district’s transition coordinator, described People Inc.’s Free Employment Transition Services, a monthly vocational push‑in to teach pre‑vocational skills in a high‑school classroom. Staff also described a Wheels for Workers vocational internship based at Saint Paul’s that gives students hands‑on experience repairing bicycles for donation, and a licensed marriage and family therapist provided through a partnership with Verizon Health Services who offers evening family sessions.

Staff reported the district is in year three of a $500,000 mental‑health awareness and training grant and said the grant has supported staff training and the rollout of youth mental‑health first aid for students. Presenters said they have trained staff and are expanding student training through curriculum delivered in physical‑education classes; however, the transcript did not specify the exact number of staff trained to date.

Board members asked for additional detail about preschool counts and how the 96‑student figure compares with the district preschool population. A board member requested follow‑up to calculate what percentage of the preschool population the 96 students represent; staff offered to estimate that percentage by comparing the preschool count with an average cohort size of incoming kindergarten classes.

District staff emphasized that eligibility rules differ for preschool and school‑age special education: a preschool student may qualify with one area of severe need or two areas of moderate need, whereas school‑age eligibility uses different classification criteria. Staff urged the board to view preschool counts as an early signal for future school‑age needs and to use the data to forecast resource allocation.

Board discussion also touched on data disaggregation. Presenters said the district collects more granular ethnicity data internally (for example, Middle Eastern/Arabic identities) but that state reporting categories limit direct comparison with state metrics.

The board later approved consent items, including personnel and financial items, and recognized 22 employees who achieved tenure.

Questions and requests for follow‑up centered on clarifying the preschool population denominator, continuing to monitor disproportionality in referrals, and ensuring the district’s documentation and Medicaid compliance processes meet state expectations.