Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Funding Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District outlines special‑education funding approach, reporting and staffing needs tied to student costs
Summary
Staff described a detailed tracking mechanism used to classify special‑education student costs and cited staffing and health insurance as primary drivers of budget increases; the board discussed hiring social worker and psychologist and the difficulty of recruiting those roles.
Finance and special‑education staff told the committee Feb. 25 that the district uses a per‑student cost tracking mechanism to classify special‑education placements and to maximize state reimbursements under Act 16 reporting. Staff said the system lists each special‑education student and the direct costs associated with that student’s placement, personal care aides, transportation and other services.
That tracking system, staff said, enabled the district to reclassify several students and increase special‑education funding in prior years; staff reported the change prompted inquiries from state officials about the district’s unusually large shift in reported costs. Staff underscored that special‑education reimbursements are calculated by categories of per‑student annual costs and that accurate cost accounting matters to state allocations.
On staffing, the presentation and board discussion focused on planned new positions, including a social worker and a psychologist. Staff said those positions would be placed on the teacher salary scale (master’s level) and budgeted at the higher end of the scale—examples given were around $95,000 for those positions at a fully loaded rate—because those qualifications are required and those candidates are difficult to recruit. Staff also noted health insurance budgeting used a family coverage assumption for planning purposes because many hires historically take family coverage.
Board members and staff discussed strategies to fund and offset these positions, including the recapture of three autistic classes (described as “taking back” placements) and projected Ready to Learn and charter‑refund funds. Staff emphasized recruiting risks: psychologists, social workers and nurses are in short supply and can often command higher private‑practice rates.
Ending: Staff asked the board to review the packet and return with questions; no hiring vote occurred that evening.
