Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Out Of District Placements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board committee approves $7.15M for 47 out‑of‑district special‑education placements; members request peer comparison and legal review
Summary
Committee approved authorization for 47 out‑of‑district special‑education placements totaling $7,148,265; Amy Beltati said 41 are continuing placements and six are new. Committee members asked staff for comparative data with peer districts and asked legal counsel to review provider litigation concerns raised in recent press.
The Stamford Board of Education fiscal committee voted to approve out‑of‑district tuition and placements for 47 special‑education students at a total cost of $7,148,265.
Ryan Feeley, a district staff member who presented the resolution, described the item as a standard out‑of‑district placement resolution and said the bulk of such placements typically are processed between August and October, contributing to larger dollar totals in these months. "The majority of our placement resolutions will come to the board between August and October, which is why the dollar amounts in these months are somewhat high," Feeley said.
Committee member Mrs. Hepburn asked whether groupings could allow more students to be served in district or whether these are the most profoundly disabled students. Amy Beltati, a district staff member, responded that placements are program‑driven — medical, behavioral or social‑emotional needs, or determined through settlement agreements — and that "41 of them are students who are continuing and 6 are new placements." Beltati added the district’s goal is to return students to in‑district programs when appropriate.
Later in the meeting, committee member Mr. Hyman asked staff to provide comparative numbers showing how Stamford’s percentage of out‑of‑district placements compares with surrounding and similar districts and raised concerns about recent press reporting on litigation involving providers in other districts. Chair Josh Estes asked to take detailed compliance or litigation discussions offline; staff agreed to provide comparative data in the board packet and to consult legal counsel to brief the board publicly and, if necessary, in executive session.
The committee approved the resolution 4–0–0. Staff listed follow‑up tasks to provide peer comparisons and any legal guidance to the board.
