District presents special‑education audit recommending data‑driven refinements and three‑year plan

At the Jan. 26 meeting the district’s director of student specialized services, Ginny Sulik, presented the results of a recent special‑education audit and a three‑year plan to strengthen program quality and fiscal sustainability.

Sulik said the audit found District 65’s special‑education program is legally compliant but recommended refinements to improve long‑term sustainability and student outcomes. Key recommendations included: stronger data use to monitor student outcomes; more consistent MTSS (multi‑tiered system of supports) implementation; refining the continuum of services (including consideration of co‑teaching, pull‑out and self‑contained options); analyzing and reducing reliance on costly out‑of‑district placements where appropriate; refining staffing models and workload analysis; strengthening fiscal tracking and maintenance of effort (MOE) documentation required for IDEA; and targeted professional learning to build in‑district capacity.

Sulik explained maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements: state/local expenditures set a threshold the district must meet or justify under federal rules for the IDEA grant. She described allowable reasons for reductions (attrition, fewer students receiving services, one‑time costs that no longer recur) and warned that unexplained reductions could jeopardize IDEA funding. Sulik also presented district trends in out‑of‑district placements, explained planned coding and expenditure tracking improvements to break out special‑education spending more granularly, and outlined a phased approach: Year 1 — data collection and systems; Year 2 — implementation; Year 3 — sustainability.

Board members pressed for clarification on MOE timelines (staff said MOE reporting is typically a year in arrears), the relationship between program changes and cost projections, recruitment and training plans for in‑house staffing to reduce contract placements, and whether students would be adversely affected by any incremental adjustments. Sulik and colleagues emphasized that all changes to services will follow the IEP process and that the district intends to prioritize program quality and compliance while seeking fiscal efficiencies.

The presentation concluded with the district committing to further community and stakeholder engagement (CCDI, CASE, Moran Center) and to share a management discussion and analysis written so non‑finance audiences can understand financial implications. No formal board action was required on the audit that evening; the presentation frames planned work to be returned to the board with implementation details and metrics.