Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Autistic Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Penn Manor discusses bringing autistic-support classrooms in-house from IU to lower costs and increase local control
Summary
Administrators proposed bringing two autistic-support classrooms back to Penn Manor in year one (16 seats) and expanding over three years to contain costs and build district-based supports; trustees pressed for clearer caseload, staffing and BCBA coverage numbers before voting.
Penn Manor administrators presented a plan Feb. 2 to bring autistic-support classrooms currently operated by the intermediate unit (IU) into district oversight, saying the district could both control services locally and reduce per-student costs.
Presenters (Ms. Galen and Mr. Forry) described a phased plan: two classrooms in year one (about 16 students), adding three more elementary classrooms in year two and further expansion in year three, with the district hiring teachers, paraprofessionals and a speech therapist as needed. The presenters stated the IU per-student rate was about $55,000 in recent years and that, under the district plan, year-2 per-student costs could drop to roughly $40,000, producing projected savings (presenters estimated a $360,000 savings in year two and larger cumulative savings in later years). Presenters said the model assumes some shared specialist time (BCBA, consultant, speech) across classrooms and that the district would not take credit for services already provided in other district settings.
Board members questioned those assumptions. Trustees asked for the IUpayment-rate data the presenters used, the districtestimate of per-student costs if positions are hired locally, reasonable BCBA caseloads, and whether the IU would shrink administrative overhead if several districts returned classes. Presenters said a BCBA can cover multiple classrooms and that spreading district specialists across more classrooms could produce savings; they also noted the IU has multiple service lines and that removing some classes does not necessarily translate into immediate IU overhead reductions.
Trustees also raised staffing risks, including paraprofessional turnover and recruiting specialized staff (BCBA and consultant roles). Presenters said that where IU teachers wished to stay with the IU, those teachers could choose to remain (right of first refusal applies to teachers) but that paraprofessionals do not have the same right. Public commenters who had led similar transitions said their districts retained teachers and paras and were able to hire additional supports after several years.
The board voted that night on agenda items related to the proposal (items 3a—) as part of the consent process; administration was directed to provide more detailed budget and staffing projections for the district to consider in subsequent meetings before significant implementation decisions were finalized.
The discussion underscored competing priorities: potential cost containment and improved local control versus uncertainties about costs, staff recruitment, and how the IU would respond administratively if multiple districts move classes back.
