Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board workshop highlights special‑education strain: staff cite higher‑need students, higher caseloads and multi‑million staffing asks
Summary
District special‑education leaders told the board EC child counts have ticked down while students’ needs have become more intensive; teachers asked for lower caseloads and more training, and staff outlined a proposal that could add dozens of EC teachers, TAs and other support positions with significant budget implications.
Special‑education leaders told the board that although the district’s overall EC child count has decreased slightly this year, the students now entering schools have higher instructional, medical and behavioral needs — a pattern that is raising per‑student costs and stressing existing staffing.
Dr. Holland, who outlined the EC support structure, said the district’s most recent child count was 7,760 (down from about 8,058 in December 2024) but added that "there are more students with higher needs" who require more intensive supports. He described a layered support model — directors, process specialists, instructional and autism coaches, and EC facilitators — and noted vacancies in several positions (for example, 25 EC facilitator slots with 23 filled today).
A teacher focus group of 20 teachers recommended significantly lower caseloads as the single highest priority. Teachers said ideal caseloads would be 15–20 for supplemental/resource assignments, 8–12 for extended‑content classes and about 20 for inclusion teachers; staff reported current allotment ratios that have drifted higher (elementary originally 1:25, middle 1:35, high 1:38) and anecdotal current caseloads as high as the low‑40s in some secondary classrooms.
Dr. Holland presented preliminary staffing calculations: moving to a district target of roughly 1:20 for elementary and 1:25 for secondary could require an additional 40–50 EC teachers, and more aggressive reductions in caseloads could push that need toward 60+ teachers. Staff also estimated needing 20–30 additional teacher assistants (TAs/ECTAs) and recommended 10–30 additional related support positions depending on the final plan.
Staff warned that state EC funding is constrained and that the district faces a projected reduction of roughly $1.8–2.0 million in EC operating dollars this cycle; they outlined strategies (use of reserve, shifting state PRC categories, lapsed salary reallocation) but said maintaining compliance and defending against litigation require sufficient staffing. Dr. Holland noted litigation‑related spending this year is already in the six‑figure range for settlements and independent evaluations.
Board members conducted informal straw polls on how many additional EC teachers, case managers and related positions to include in the county ask; members’ individual targets varied widely, but staff summarized the group’s polling averages and directed staff to include a modeled request for additional EC teachers and TAs in the board’s budget package. The board also discussed whether to restore or increase EC case managers vs. expanding ECF positions at schools.
Next steps: staff will model several scenarios (varying counts and mixes of classroom teachers, case managers and TAs), show the budgetary impacts and link proposals to maintenance‑of‑effort calculations so the board can prioritize which positions to include in the formal county ask.
