Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Visitor Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
USD 383 committee outlines complexities of in‑class ABA therapy; board cites liability limits and keeps current visitor policy
Summary
A district advisory committee reported on Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) in classrooms and potential workflow and insurance issues; after the presentation board members said legal and insurance barriers prevent allowing third‑party visitors to provide ABA unsupervised and reaffirmed the existing visitor policy while noting the district can contract for services when IEPs require them.
A volunteer advisory committee presented a detailed review of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) services and how they intersect with district procedures, insurance coverage and special‑education obligations, prompting the Manhattan‑Ogden USD 383 board to reaffirm limits in its adopted guest‑visitor policy.
The committee — convened by the board to study whether non‑district providers should be allowed to provide ABA services in classrooms — summarized testimony that district‑employed providers (paraprofessionals supervised by licensed staff, school psychologists, BCBAs and school social workers) are covered by district insurance and fit existing workflows. Committee members warned that third‑party vendors, though valuable, can introduce communication and supervision challenges and typically are not covered under district insurance.
"When the district directly hires staff or employees or second‑party vendors, those personnel are working for the district," the committee report said. "Third‑party vendors can introduce workflow obstacles, including confusion regarding communication, supervision of staff, differing objectives and goals, and they are not covered under the district insurance." (Committee summary presented to board by Jennifer Rose Boom and Dr. Natalie Bartlett.)
Board members said the committee’s factual review was valuable but cited repeated legal opinions and insurance constraints as barriers to authorizing non‑district visitors to provide ABA in classrooms.
"My position on this policy has not changed," board member Kurt Herman said after the presentation. "Although after a thorough review and deep reflection... I remain supportive of the policy as adopted. The intent of this policy has always been to empower our professional staff to develop and implement IEPs that meet each student's needs, while maintaining a system that is both responsible and effective for the entire district."
Other board members echoed concern about liability and noted legal guidance from Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB) and the district’s counsel. Several members emphasized that districts can still secure necessary ABA services by contracting directly with providers under district oversight when IEP teams determine those services are required.
The committee presented its findings "without recommendation," and board members said they will use the report to inform future decisions but will not change the visitor policy now. The board did not vote to change policy at this meeting.
What happens next: Board members asked administrators to continue exploring capacity within the district’s special‑education staff and the feasibility of contracting for needed services when IEPs require them; the committee report will remain a resource if parents or staff request further changes.
