Fountain Hills Unified School board approves $121,000 contract for special‑education teacher amid staffing concerns

The Fountain Hills Unified School board voted 3–1 to approve a contract with EPIC Special Education Staffing to provide a self‑contained special‑education teacher at McDowell Mountain Elementary School for the 2024–25 school year.

Jay, district staff, told the board the district had been unable to hire a qualified district employee for the position after months of recruiting and recommended contracting to ensure a teacher is in place before school begins. "Without having that teacher in place, it would... cause us to have to look at outside placement possibly," he said, framing the contract as a way to avoid more expensive private placements.

The vote followed extended discussion about cost, equity and long‑term staffing strategy. The contract figure in the agenda was about $121,000. Board members pressed Jay on how much of that sum goes to the teacher versus the staffing company; Jay said vendor practices vary and estimated—without firm vendor disclosure—that a large portion ("maybe 75%") might reach the employee in some cases, but that the companies often do not provide exact breakdowns.

Madison, a board member, said she opposed contracting out because it "creates a disparity" with in‑district staff and called the arrangement "gross," arguing the district should consider raising the in‑house salary or expanding a pathway for existing teachers to get needed certifications. "I really don't like it. I'm gonna be a no go because I don't think there are answers," Madison said.

Dr. Rakowski and other board members echoed concerns about equity but acknowledged a practical shortage of qualified special‑education teachers. Jay said creating certification pathways and considering hard‑to‑fill stipends were priorities but would take time—"it could take 2 years"—and that some students otherwise would require outside placements such as ACES or Sierra Academy, which he described as substantially more expensive once transportation and placement costs are included. When asked for specifics, Jay estimated there are "somewhere between 5 to 7 kids in that program" and agreed to provide the board with an official cost comparison for outside placement.

Board members confirmed the contract amount was already built into the district budget and would not push the district over budget. Several members asked staff to calculate the total cost difference between hiring through the vendor and the district's salary plus benefits and retirement obligations; Jay said the district would prepare that comparison.

Board President moved the approval for the 2024–25 school year and a second was given. On the roll call, one member voted no; the motion passed 3–1. The board asked staff for follow‑up information on outside placement costs and updates on efforts to create in‑district pathways and stipend strategies.

The board adjourned after the vote.