Director outlines rising costs and in-district approach in special-education review

Allison, the district’s director of student services, told the Manchester-Essex Regional School Committee on Oct. 21 that special education accounts for roughly 26% of the district’s operating budget and that 231 students — about 19.6% of enrollment — are currently served under Individualized Education Programs.

The presentation explained the district’s full continuum of services, from general‑education inclusion supports to specialized in‑district programs (including RISE, ACE and an intensive reading/written‑language program known as EARL) and out‑of‑district placements. Allison said most students remain in inclusion settings, about 17% are in substantially separate programs, and roughly 5.5% are placed out of district.

Allison framed those program choices in budget terms: staffing is the largest line item, out‑of‑district tuition and transportation are highly variable, and a small number of residential placements drive a disproportionate share of out‑of‑district costs. She said the district currently has 21 students placed out of district — 17 in state day programs and four in residential settings — and noted that those four residential students account for about 43% of the out‑of‑district tuition budget.

The director described how the district has deliberately expanded in‑district specialized programming to meet needs locally and reduce cost volatility. She said tuition revenue from in‑district tuition students and peer‑pal preschool placements helps defray costs; for FY26 she cited $280,000 in tuition revenue from ACE and about $400,000 from 28 peer‑pal preschool placements. Allison also presented a cost-avoidance example that estimated roughly $2.5 million saved district‑wide by delivering specialized services in‑district rather than sending those students to private or collaborative out‑of‑district programs.

Committee members pressed for detail on several fronts. Members asked how often the team revisits placement decisions (Allison: annually) and whether the district has capacity limits when tuition or school‑choice students apply (Allison: tuitioned-in students are accepted only when the program and cohort are a good fit; school‑choice placements are governed by the state formula and the sending district’s obligations). Members also asked about pandemic effects on special‑education identification and services; Allison said she had seen increased behavioral and social‑emotional support needs in cohorts who experienced pandemic disruption and that staffing shortages have pushed up transportation and out‑of‑district costs.

Allison described funding sources and technical rules: the district uses a zero‑based budgeting process for special education, relies on circuit‑breaker reimbursement (the state’s high‑cost special‑education aid) that is subject to an annual claim threshold and percent reimbursement, and manages a revolving circuit‑breaker reserve to smooth year‑to‑year volatility. She cautioned that circuit‑breaker reimbursements arrive a year after the expense and that the state threshold and reimbursement rate change annually.

Looking ahead, Allison said the district expects continued preschool growth and will need to expand RISE (the program for students with complex needs) as cohorts age; she recommended monitoring the 18–22 population and the demand for preschool special‑education services. The presentation closed with an exhortation that strong in‑district programs both serve students’ social and academic needs locally and reduce long‑term fiscal exposure.

The committee will continue work on program planning and budget implications during FY27 preparation; Allison said she will bring more granular exit and post‑exit outcome data as staff track students who leave special education and later enroll in honors, AP or postsecondary pathways.