Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Title 6b topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Henrico County Public Schools details Title 6B plan; federal grants cover about 17% of special-education funding
Summary
Henrico County Public Schools told the school board that federal Title 6B grants make up roughly 17% of special-education funding and will primarily pay salaries for 89 special-education teachers and dozens of support staff; presenters also described CCEIS spending, a small grant decrease, an MOU to fund a jail teacher and a board request for equipment-cost data.
Henrico County Public Schools presented its annual plan for Title 6B federal special-education grants to the school board, saying the federal funds represent only a portion of the district’s total special-education budget and will be used mainly for personnel and contract services.
"Special education services for students with disabilities are funded through three different funding streams," Dr. Katie Smith told the board, adding that "approximately 53% of the money used to pay for special education services comes from local tax dollars, with state revenue accounting for approximately 30%, and only 17% of total funds ... come from federal grant grants, which is the specific funding source addressed in this presentation." Dr. Smith and Dr. Leslie Hughes presented the plan and its required elements.
Why it matters: the presentation maps how Title 6B — which the district divides into 611 (school-age) and 619 (early childhood) allocations — supplements local and state dollars. Because the state had not yet provided allocations for 2026–27, the plan the district will submit to the Virginia Department of Education reflects level funding from 2025–26 and notes a roughly $8,800 decrease from the prior award.
How the money will be used: presenters said the majority of Title 6B funds will cover salaries and benefits for positions the grant supports, including 89 special-education teachers, 47 instructional assistants, two speech-language pathologists, three special-education specialists, six coordinators and 26 elementary department chair stipends. A portion of the grant is reserved for contract services such as sign-language interpreters, nursing services and approved independent educational evaluations when internal staff cannot meet needs. The 619 allocation supports early-childhood special-education staffing and materials; presenters said four of 44 early-childhood special-education teachers receive grant funding.
On interventions and training, Dr. Smith described the required Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CCEIS) set-aside, which the district plans to use to hire board-certified behavior analysts and registered behavior technicians, to buy tier-two and tier-three behavior and social-skills curricula and to fund professional learning and train‑the‑trainer models aimed at reducing disciplinary disproportionality.
Maintenance of effort and other notes: the presentation included a maintenance-of-effort explanation; the district reported combined local and state spending of $20,381.51 as part of the MOE discussion. Presenters also said Henrico renewed an MOU in July 2025 with the county sheriff to provide funding for one special-education teacher at the local jail.
Board questions and requested follow‑up: after the presentation, Mrs. Atkins, a school board member, praised the special-education team and asked where equipment costs and related contracted-service costs are charged and whether it might be more cost‑effective to buy some equipment rather than contract for services. "I see you deeply," Mrs. Atkins said, praising staff, and then requested detailed numbers and utilization trends for equipment and contracted services. Dr. Smith replied that the district uses contract partners when internal positions cannot be filled — for example, contracting an ASL interpreter if a student has an existing interpreter listed in an IEP — and agreed to provide the requested data on costs and utilization.
No formal vote or motion on the Title 6B plan was recorded during the presentation; presenters invited follow-up questions and said they would supply the board with the requested breakdowns and utilization figures.
