Therapeutic independent schools tell Senate Education panel they serve high‑need students and need funding predictability
Loading...
Summary
Directors from several therapeutic independent schools told the committee that their programs serve a small share of students but provide intensive clinical and educational services for children with complex trauma and special‑education needs, urged stable tuition and regulatory clarity from the Agency of Education, and described operational constraints including transportation and facility costs.
Elisa Walker, school director at the Mill School in Winooski, told the Senate Education Committee on Feb. 6 that therapeutic independent schools serve a tiny proportion of Vermont students—"less than 1% of Vermont's overall student population"—but a disproportionate share of high‑needs special‑education cases. Walker said students at the Mill School commonly face severe trauma, housing insecurity and multiple behavioral and clinical needs that public schools struggle to address.
"How would we ensure that all Vermont students receive the education that they need?" Walker asked the committee, and framed the question around two linked problems: ensuring those children can access education that meets their needs, and doing so within limited public resources. She described the Mill School's model—high staff‑to‑student ratios, embedded clinicians who review each student daily, individualized education plans and apprenticeships to support post‑school transitions—and said the school caps enrollment at 25 students.
Sector context and oversight: Witnesses said Vermont has an ecosystem of roughly 26 therapeutic schools serving students by public‑school referral and operating under AOE approval and ongoing oversight. Speakers emphasized that therapeutic schools typically operate as partners to public districts: schools accept students only after a district’s IEP team determines the district cannot meet the child’s needs and makes an out‑of‑district referral.
Funding and operational challenges: Witnesses said tuition is set by the Agency of Education and that transportation costs are paid by the sending district. They described constraints faced by some therapeutic schools—facility maintenance and capital needs, limits on grant eligibility tied to corporate or for‑profit status, and inconsistent guidance from AOE—that make long‑term planning difficult. Walker asked for "financial predictability, regulatory predictability, and statutory predictability" so programs can plan staffing and services.
Illustrative case and outcomes: Walker presented an individual success story, with a student referred to as JT who arrived with juvenile‑justice involvement and multiple behavioral diagnoses and who later completed the school’s graduation requirements and secured stable employment after an apprenticeship. Witnesses acknowledged they do not have a randomized counterfactual to quantify program impact, but they presented outcome anecdotes and program metrics to argue therapeutic schools deliver services public schools cannot reliably provide.
Next steps: Committee members asked about the existing moratorium on new therapeutic schools and whether it should be lifted; witnesses urged clearer rules, better coordination with AOE and predictable funding models before rapid expansion. The committee signaled it would follow up with additional questions and staff work.
