Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Special Education topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

District says OWL in‑house program limits tuition exposure as BOCES rates rise

Webster Board of Education · March 24, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Webster staff presented special-education spending and the OWL in‑house program, saying higher BOCES tuitions could raise costs by about $6.4 million next year but that the district’s OWL program reduces net incremental district spending compared with outside placements.

Webster staff reviewed special-education budgets and the district’s OWL program during the workshop, arguing the in‑house program both serves students and moderates costs compared with sending those students to outside BOCES placements.

Mr. Freeman told the board that BOCES tuition increases could raise Webster’s bill by roughly $6.4 million next year. He and colleagues then compared two scenarios: (1) students remaining in district-run OWL programs with associated staffing and operating costs, and (2) shifting those students to average BOCES tuitions. Using average per‑student tuition estimates, staff said sending the relevant students to BOCES would have cost the district about $5.6 million more than keeping them in-house; netting OWL program expenses against that figure, staff estimated Webster would be roughly $3 million better off retaining students in OWL than sending them to outside placements.

District presenters emphasized student outcomes as well as costs: the OWL program uses district staff and professional development and, the presenters said, facilitates transitions back to general education where appropriate. Board members asked about program caps and placement criteria; staff said decisions are individualized and guided by student safety and staffing capacity.

No formal motions or policy changes were made; the board noted the fiscal and programmatic tradeoffs as the budget process advances.