Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee examines SELPA/SULPA options as district weighs running its own special‑education services
Summary
Staff told the finance subcommittee that unclear regional SELPA funding and recent formula changes have prompted the district to reassess whether to pursue its own SELPA/SULPA for clarity and fiscal predictability, including negotiations over DHH and early‑start service contracts with the county.
Committee members spent substantial time on March 2 discussing special education services, county agreements and whether the district should pursue a separate SELPA/SULPA to gain fiscal clarity.
Staff reported multiple Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) and Community Advisory Committee meetings and said a recurring public concern is the availability of neutral alternative dispute resolution services. The Superintendent said the district is meeting with Sonoma County SELPA/SULPA representatives to determine what services the county would provide and at what cost, and that those costs will inform decisions about 2026‑27 contracts.
The district is evaluating two broad approaches for deaf/hard of hearing (DHH) services and early start infant programs: (1) a fee‑for‑service model that charges other districts on an individual basis, and (2) a regional model similar to the current arrangement. Staff said county cost proposals for some services are expected soon and that the district intends to continue running DHH programs for 2026‑27 while determining the best agreement structure.
Committee members said the regional SULPA formula had recently changed to reduce funding for higher‑needs disabilities, which complicates projections. One member stressed that being one vote among many in a regional SULPA makes it harder for the district to predict allocations; staff said prior fiscal studies that recommended against a district SULPA were based on the old formula and the change altered the fiscal calculus.
Why it matters: special education funding, service delivery and governance affect program continuity for students with disabilities and are a major component in budget and staffing decisions. Members asked staff to continue work on county proposals, clarify contractual costs and return with options that show fiscal and programmatic implications.
The subcommittee did not take formal action; staff will return with cost proposals and additional analysis.
