Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Therapeutic Day School topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
USD 231 board tables therapeutic day school proposal for further review
Summary
After extended questions about staffing, location and timing, the USD 231 Board of Education voted to table consideration of a proposed therapeutic day school and asked committees to continue review before any implementation decision.
The USD 231 Board of Education on a motion to table delayed a decision on whether to create a therapeutic day school, citing remaining questions about staffing, student safety, facility location and the district's upcoming bond vote.
The proposal, presented by Dan Pollet, coordinator of social and emotional learning, asked the board to decide first whether the district should pursue a therapeutic day school program. Pollet said program planning to date included research, enrollment and capacity estimates and proposed staffing models; he and Executive Director Carter were available to answer questions. Pollet described an initial enrollment target of only a “handful of students” for a fall startup — roughly three to five students — and emphasized individualized behavior plans and a small staff-to-student ratio to reduce incidents.
Board members pressed Pollet and other district staff on operational details. Questions included what behavioral plans specifically would require, how one-to-one support and crisis response would be staffed, whether administrators at any proposed host school could respond quickly enough, and whether building administrators would receive specialized training. District staff said each student would have an individualized behavior plan developed with family and staff and that a crisis-response team and administrator training were part of the proposal. The district said it prefers not to decide a site until the board first agrees to pursue the program.
Several board members said they supported the program goal — returning students to in-district schooling with wraparound supports — but raised concerns about the implementation timeline. Members noted outstanding committee questions, the risk of displacing students if the bond vote fails, and the desire for additional input from special education, finance and facilities committees. One board member proposed tabling the item to allow further committee review and to consider an implementation timeline aiming at the 2026–27 school year.
A motion to table the proposal until further consideration was made, seconded and approved. The board did not set a definitive date for reconsideration; board members said they expect additional work in the district’s Education Services, Special Education and Finance committees and suggested a small stakeholder work group could be convened to gather families, special education staff and finance representatives.
Pollet and district staff said they will continue to provide information to those committees and to the board as requested.
The board took no further action on the program at the meeting.
