Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears that special‑education placements and weak reimbursements are a major budget pressure
Summary
District staff told the budget committee that special‑education services for about 399 students are a major cost driver and that high‑cost disability placements produced large unfunded expenses last year.
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District leaders told the budget committee that special‑education costs are a major driver of the proposed 2026–27 budget and that state reimbursement falls short of the district’s actual expenses for high‑cost placements.
Superintendent Lee Loving and CFO Rhonda Allen said the district provides special‑education services to roughly 399 students K–12, with about 18% receiving intensive, self‑contained services. Allen said the district employs 15 special‑education teachers, two speech pathologists, a school psychologist, two district nurses, two behavior specialists and about 30 program assistants, and partners with the Willamette ESD for additional autism and speech services.
On reimbursement, Allen told the committee that high‑cost placements are a substantial unfunded obligation. "We spent last year about $1,500,000 and received a reimbursement back of under $100,000 for the $1.5 million we spent," Allen said, citing the district’s internal numbers. Committee members noted that federal IDEA maintenance‑of‑effort rules require the district to maintain state and local spend levels for special education and asked staff how the district manages that requirement alongside constrained reimbursements.
Allen described how some high‑cost placements (examples cited by staff) can exceed $130,000 per student and explained the district’s reliance on a combination of general‑fund spending, IDEA/IDEA‑related funds and Willamette ESD resolution dollars to meet obligations. Staff characterized this as a structural mismatch between costs incurred for high‑need students and partial state reimbursements and urged continued advocacy and planning to secure sufficient funding.

