Hopkins reviews special education services, staffing and budget gap at March workshop

Fonda Contreras, Hopkins Public Schools director of special services, told the school board at a March 11 workshop that federal and state requirements shape how the district identifies and serves students with disabilities and that demand and costs have risen sharply in recent years.

Why it matters: The presentation detailed how students qualify for special education services, what services the district offers from early childhood through Transition Plus, and how much those services cost. Board members said they were especially concerned about staffing shortages, growing caseloads and the district’s reliance on general-fund cross-subsidy to cover special-education costs.

“Able does not mean enabled. Disabled does not mean less able,” Contreras said in opening remarks, urging the board to apply person-first language when discussing services. She described special education as a federally mandated program under IDEA that provides a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and, in Minnesota, serves students from birth through age 22 under Parts C and B of the federal framework.

Contreras explained how students are identified. Teachers and school teams often try interventions in general education first and use a student assistance team (SAT) to coordinate supports; if those supports are not adequate or if parents request an evaluation, a referral to special education can follow. For early childhood, referrals arrive from parents, medical providers and initiatives such as Help Me Grow; the district has received “well over 300 referrals this school year,” she said.

The presentation listed the 13 categorical disability areas Minnesota uses for eligibility. Contreras described the state’s “DD” (developmental delay) label for young children and said Minnesota requires reassessment before a child turns 7 to determine whether a categorical label applies.

Programs and placements

Contreras outlined Hopkins’ continuum of placements, using the common federal setting labels 1–5. Settings 1 and 2 are least‑restrictive/resource supports; setting 3 describes center‑based programs where students spend 60% or more of the day in special education. Setting 4 refers to highly specialized day treatment placements and setting 5 to separate private schools, residential placements or hospitalization settings that are outside typical district operations.

She described recent local program growth: elementary center‑based autism programs and emotional/behavioral disorder (EBD) classrooms, two new DCD (developmental cognitive delay) mild‑to‑moderate classrooms at Glen Lake, and five mod‑to‑severe DCD classrooms at Gatewood. Contreras said Alice Smith and Meadowbrook now host EBD programs, Tanglein hosts the autism program and Eisenhower is the only elementary site without a center‑based placement.

Referral, evaluation and IEPs

Contreras reminded the board that an evaluation drives an IEP and that parents must give consent for both the evaluation and for IEP services. “Parents and caregivers are part of the team,” she said when Board Member Sharon Dreesen asked whether families are involved before a student is placed on an IEP. Related services such as speech, occupational and physical therapy appear on IEPs and can be billed to third parties, she added.

Staffing, billing and budgets

Contreras described Hopkins’ staffing mix, including itinerant specialists (for example, deaf‑and‑hard‑of‑hearing teachers who may be contracted through District 287), speech‑language pathologists, paraprofessionals, school social workers, CPI trainers and home‑bound teachers who serve medically fragile students. She said third‑party billing (for example, Medicaid identified in the presentation as “M.A.”) is one of the few revenue sources available to special education and that the district uses the reimbursements to fund positions.

The presentation highlighted two major cost drivers: personnel and assessment materials. “About 95% of our budget is staff,” Contreras said, and assessment protocols (standardized tests and materials used for evaluations) are another substantial recurring expense. She also said the district purchased mobility equipment such as walkers and sometimes maintains other assistive devices; families often supply wheelchairs when they are transferable.

Contreras told the board the district “tapped into about $7,000,000 in 2023 of cross‑subsidy” from the general fund to cover special‑education costs that state funding did not fully reimburse. She warned that higher‑need placements are more expensive: certain center‑based programs require high staff‑to‑student ratios for medically fragile students — she described an example where a classroom staffing pattern amounted to “6 students, 1 teacher, 2 paraprofessionals.” The presentation said staffing ratios for some center‑based programs must follow statute, which increases costs when more students qualify for higher settings.

Program highlights: Transition Plus, autism day treatment and early childhood practices

Contreras and colleagues noted local program expansions. Transition Plus — the district’s post‑secondary, pre‑employment and independent‑living program for young adults — is in its third year of operating up to age 22 (the state and federal rules were extended recently to allow services through age 22). The district also described a third year of an autism day‑treatment program in early childhood, run with a partner (St. David’s in the presentation) and still carrying a wait list.

Contreras said the early‑childhood “primary care” model now focuses visits and services based on family priorities rather than sending a full team to every home. She also noted district pilots of targeted academic interventions such as SIPs and Barton reading curricula for students with severe learning disabilities.

Board questions and concerns

Board members pressed staff on two ongoing issues: workforce shortages and long‑term funding. Contreras said recruiting speech‑language pathologists and social workers can be difficult and that paraprofessional staffing had historically been a challenge. She said the district builds a modest “movement cushion” into staffing to allow for students who qualify mid‑year.

Several board members raised budget concerns and the possible impact of changes at higher levels of government. “If at the federal level the Department of Education is undone, that would include a loss of federal funding streams to support special education,” Board Member Sharon Dreesen said, noting that the district must plan for any shifts in federal or state funding that could widen the existing gap.

Program spotlight: students and employment

As part of the evening’s programming, the board also heard from Transition Plus students and staff. The district described job‑site partnerships including Dunn Brothers coffee, where an employer used a state program to purchase an automated espresso machine to accommodate student workers. Student Ellie Swanson described working there two afternoons a week and interacting with customers while the machine handled drink preparation. Another Transition Plus student, Sam Broyles, described internships that included basic technology‑support tasks such as replacing keyboards and other hands‑on work.

What the district will do next

Contreras said the district is tracking data on students who attend early‑childhood autism day treatment to see how needs evolve at kindergarten and beyond. Staff asked for continued board support for recruitment and funding strategies and said they will continue to present data about caseload increases, placements and budget impacts.

Ending: The board did not take a formal action on special education at the workshop, but members asked administrators to continue reporting enrollment, staffing and budget details and to alert the board to any material changes in federal or state funding prospects.