Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears sharp rise in special‑education outplacements and legal costs; requests audit
Summary
Staff reported nonpublic school placements rose sharply to about 250 students, driving large tuition increases; commissioners asked for a programmatic review and an independent special-education audit; board approved related legal fee allocations but asked for better timing and reporting.
San Francisco Unified School District staff told the board that the number of students placed in non‑public schools (NPS) rose significantly this year, from roughly 148–190 in prior years to about 250 students, driving unexpected tuition costs that required supplemental allocations during the Sept. 9 meeting.
Special‑education staff said the increase included more students with emotional disturbances and students with more severe autism-spectrum needs, many of whom require specialized non‑public placements. "We have 250 students in NPS schools," staff said, noting increases were concentrated late in the prior semester and pointing to capacity and program gaps inside the district.
Commissioners — who have previously discussed building in‑district capacity — pressed staff for detail on why placements rose so quickly, how encroachment on general funds would be managed, and whether in‑district program options could be expanded to reduce outplacements. Several commissioners asked that the discussion and data be brought to the budget committee and a future public meeting so the board could consider program development and cost tradeoffs.
The board also considered two retroactive allocations to outside counsel for special‑education legal work (K30 and K31). Legal staff explained bills for services rendered in June were received in July after the board’s summer recess; the legal office said the new panel-of-firms model has, to date, kept spending under prior years’ totals but that June’s workload required extra allocations. Commissioners requested a yearly special‑education legal-cost summary and clearer resolution language when retroactive amounts are brought forward.
Outcome: Board approved the contract amendments and legal allocations as presented (roll calls recorded). Commissioners directed staff to schedule a programmatic review and an independent third‑party audit of special education services and costs.
