Grand Rapids schools summarize special-education services, funding and recent gains

Anna Lloyd, director of special services for Grand Rapids Area Schools, gave the board a detailed briefing on how the district identifies students for special education, how Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are developed and funded, and recent operational and outcome trends.

Lloyd summarized the federally required process under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), noting that evaluations require parental consent, eligibility is determined by a multidisciplinary team, and IEPs are legally binding documents that must be reviewed annually. She told the board the district expects to complete about 350 evaluations this school year and said the December 1 child count shows roughly 21 percent of K–12 students receive special-education services.

Lloyd outlined funding sources and fiscal limits: the district generated close to $11,000,000 in special-education revenue last year, funded mainly by state aid and federal special-education aid; the district also pursues medical-assistance (MA) reimbursement for eligible in-school medical services, which produced roughly $500,000 to $800,000 annually in recent years. She said special-education aid funds excess costs only; general-education funds pay universal costs such as district-issued devices.

Staffing and service delivery: Lloyd said the district serves students from birth through age 22, including preschool, private-school and homeschooled students within the resident district, and reported 931 students receiving special education and about 178 special-education staff (including 34 districtwide specialists). She described low-incidence specialists (audiologist, deaf/hard-of-hearing teacher, physical and occupational therapists, a braillist) and noted some services are shared through regional partnerships.

Evaluations, testing and placements: Lloyd explained that most students take Minnesota’s statewide MCA tests with accommodations where appropriate; about 1 percent of students take the highly modified MTAS alternative assessment. She said the district has increased inclusive placements: students in the least-restrictive setting (setting 1) increased by about 5.5 percent while restrictive placements decreased by roughly the same margin.

Program outcomes and changes: Lloyd listed several operational improvements—an 85 percent reduction in the use of restrictive procedures since 2021, investment in transition programming and work-based learning (including a PAES lab), increased reading proficiency among elementary students using Orton-Gillingham-based interventions and reduced disproportionality in identification for emotional/behavioral disorders.

Regulation and monitoring: Lloyd reviewed monitoring obligations from the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), including annual program file reviews and a comprehensive six-year monitoring cycle. She said the district is currently considered “low risk” by the state monitor.

Why it matters: Lloyd framed these items as both compliance duties under IDEA and Minnesota law and as operational priorities affecting roughly one-fifth of the district’s students; she also flagged budget pressure from variable revenue sources, including MA billing and special-transportation reimbursements, and a 95 percent proration factor applied to this year’s formula funding.

Board questions and next steps: Board members asked for clarifications about testing accommodations, staffing FTEs and how special-education plans intersect with graduation requirements and post-secondary options. Lloyd said IEPs do not automatically prevent access to college but that teams must plan transitions carefully. No formal board action was taken during the presentation; the briefing was informational.