Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears plan to fund shared special‑education evaluators through Rum River co‑op
Summary
Members reviewed a Rum River cooperative proposal to buy software/hardware and fund two shared evaluators to administer updated Woodcock‑Johnson assessments across six districts; the plan would use train‑the‑trainer staffing and prorated cost sharing to avoid drawing on district operating funds.
The Ogilvie Public School District board discussed a Rum River Special Education cooperative proposal to fund two shared evaluator positions to administer the updated Woodcock‑Johnson assessments across its six member districts.
Board members said the current testing instrument has not been updated in many years and that training each district’s staff individually would require recertifying dozens of teachers. The co‑op proposal would purchase the necessary software and hardware, hire two trained evaluators who would operate as a train‑the‑trainer model, and make services available to member districts at a prorated cost based on the number of students evaluated.
A district representative explained that, under the proposal, the co‑op would absorb the licensing and equipment purchase so individual districts would not each have to buy the new platform and certify dozens of staff. "If the Rum River Co‑op buys the software license and hardware, they can start and it would be the train‑the‑trainer model," one board member summarized during discussion.
Members noted the plan could standardize assessments across member districts and reduce sub and staffing burdens that occur when a classroom teacher must leave for quiet, one‑on‑one evaluations. They also discussed cost concerns; board members said the co‑op had identified alternative funding sources that would not come from district general funds and that billing would be prorated so districts with more evaluations would pay proportionally more.
The board did not take a formal, binding vote to join or fund the co‑op at the meeting; discussion centered on whether the added cost represented good value and whether the proposed staffing level (two evaluators, with possible expansion) matched anticipated demand.
