Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
South Range Local board reviews Education Service Center contract, weighs in-house options
Summary
Board members examined a detailed ESC spreadsheet showing that increased utilization of special-education services — not large per-unit price rises — is the primary driver of higher costs; the board directed staff to explore alternative ESC providers and to report on possible in-house changes that could yield modest savings without disrupting services.
At its meeting, the South Range Local School Board reviewed a spreadsheet from the Education Service Center (ESC) outlining services purchased for special-education preschool and related supports, and discussed whether the district should continue contracting or bring more services in-house. The presenter told the board the packet had redacted student identifiers but made costs and days of service visible and showed utilization had grown sharply since 2020.
The presenter said the district's increased ESC spending is driven primarily by utilization, not by a significant increase in unit prices: "it's not that the costs have increased significantly. It's that we are utilizing way more services," the presenter said, noting preschool disability rates rose only about $3 per unit while days of service rose from roughly 400 days in 2020 to multiple thousands in recent years. The presenter cautioned that some lines are billed as packaged membership fees and cannot be trimmed in small increments.
Board members pressed on specific lines. The presenter highlighted preschool, occupational therapy (OT), speech-language pathology (SLP) and school psychology as key drivers. For school psychology, the board was told the district previously paid about $120,000 for an in-house psychologist; contracting that work through the ESC costs about $79,000 for roughly 150 days, which the presenter described as a cost saving when benefits and irregular day counts are considered. For behavior services, the ESC proposal reduced BCBA days from 45 to 30, a change the presenter estimated could save roughly $15,000 if no new needs arise.
Several members raised trade-offs between cost and continuity. One member asked whether hiring a full-time psychologist or counselor would be feasible; the presenter and other members noted that hiring in-house would add salary and benefits obligations, potentially increasing long-term district costs and liabilities even if it increased on-site continuity. The presenter also emphasized that the ESC handles compliance tasks, EMIS reporting and supervision related to preschool that would fall to the district if services were brought in-house.
Board members asked whether South Range can negotiate rates or purchase ESC services from other regional providers. The presenter said the ESC model bills certain services by average daily membership and that the district currently receives the same flat rate as other nearby districts, but offered to survey neighboring ESCs (Columbiana/Columbia and others were cited) and report back with a comparison of services and costs.
On potential savings, the presenter summarized internal adjustments already under review (shifting some SLP/OT work to district staff, trimming BCBA days, and evaluating career-counselor and social-work packaging) and said those changes could yield an estimated $34,000 to $40,000 in savings under current assumptions, while noting that any new identified student needs could eliminate those savings. The presenter repeatedly cautioned these figures were contingent: "it's all potential because I could get a call tomorrow, a student moves in and they have speech needs," the presenter said.
The discussion stressed legal and programmatic limits: board members were warned that interrupting or abruptly switching services could violate IEP requirements and federal nondiscrimination law, and that the ESC currently assumes important supervisory and liability responsibilities for preschool programs. The board asked staff to research alternatives and to provide a comparative report on other ESC providers and what a scaled in-house model would cost, with the presenter saying they could return in a few months with that analysis.
The board did not adopt or reject the ESC contract in this excerpt; instead, members agreed to continue evaluating internal adjustments and to seek a comparative cost study of neighboring ESC providers. The meeting proceeded to the next agenda item.
