Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves applications to join consortium funding for River Hills and Lead Center special-education services
Summary
The board approved superintendent recommendations to submit School Budget Review Committee applications to cover administrative costs for two special-education consortium programs (River Hills and the Lead Center). District staff said placements have declined as local services expanded, and that slots at consortium schools remain limited.
The Waterloo Community School District board voted Nov. 11 to approve applications to the School Budget Review Committee (SBRC) to pay special-education administrative costs tied to two consortium placements: River Hills and the Lead Center.
Megan Allen, the district irector of special education, told the board River Hills currently serves 18 Waterloo students who had previously required placement outside district services after the district exhausted in-house individualized education program (IEP) options. Allen described River Hills as the district —ontinuum placement for students whose needs cannot be met locally and explained the district —ontributes a prorated share of operating costs based on enrollment.
Allen said district expansion of extended-core and life-skills programming has reduced placements at River Hills over several years; the transcript showed a declining trend in students placed there from the 2018-19 school year to the current count. The board was told this SBRC application would allow the district to participate in the consortium and pay its prorated administrative share; the meeting record did not show that the SBRC application itself provides new operating funds to the district.
On the Lead Center application, district staff said the Lead Center focuses on behavioral services and currently has five Waterloo students enrolled. Speakers noted slots at the Lead Center are competitive and often shorter-term placements, and that the district has increased local behavioral programming in part because of limited availability at consortium sites.
Both superintendent recommendations were approved by voice vote; the transcript did not record a roll-call tally or clear dollar amounts for the SBRC applications in the portion of the transcript provided. Board members asked clarifying questions about length of stay, reintegration and the district —xpanded programming aimed at preventing out-of-district placements.
The approvals allow district staff to file SBRC applications so the district can pay billed administrative costs associated with these consortium placements; the approvals did not, in themselves, commit additional district general-fund spending beyond recorded participation.
