Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Inclusion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District outlines $1.1M inclusion grant pilot and mixed early results
Summary
District staff described year‑one work funded by a roughly $1.1 million inclusionary‑practices grant, saying three pilot schools will receive focused coaching, professional development and co‑teaching expansion; board members pressed on metrics, sustainability and how grant funds will translate to districtwide practice.
The Richland School Board heard an update on a state grant aimed at expanding inclusionary practices in a three‑school pilot and improving access to general education for students with disabilities.
Zach Carpenter, who presented the grant progress, said the district’s work built on an earlier Accessible Education Collective award and that the new grant—described during the meeting as approximately $1.1 million—arrived late in the prior fall. "This grant came apart. We had no idea this grant was coming... they identified the three schools we're gonna work with, and we kinda just took off running," Carpenter said, summarizing the timeline and the decision to concentrate resources on a smaller number of schools rather than spread effort districtwide.
Carpenter told the board the first‑year activities included establishing building leadership teams, expanding Universal Design for Learning professional development, strengthening coaching and collaborative structures, and expanding co‑teaching in several buildings. He acknowledged data‑collection and definition issues—particularly around what the district counts as being "trained." The presentation noted differing year‑one results across the three pilot schools: Lewis & Clark and CMS showed LRE (least‑restrictive environment) gains and reading growth, while Enterprise and EMS had uneven or declining LRE figures in the snapshot presented.
Board members pressed on operational details and sustainability. One board member asked whether other schools could be added during the grant period; Carpenter said the grant is limited to the three selected schools but staff are considering ways to build capacity (for example, offering coaching funded by the grant to those sites and then partially absorbing the cost districtwide over time). Several members stressed the need to standardize how metrics—such as the district's definition of "trained" and how percentage inclusion is calculated—are applied across buildings so year‑to‑year comparisons are consistent.
Carpenter also underscored OSPI guidance: the grant funds are non‑sustainable, and the district needs to design systems that can be sustained after the grant ends. Board members asked staff to bring forward any policy or procedural barriers the board could act on to support successful implementation.
The superintendent and trustees acknowledged schools already doing strong inclusion work (Carpenter singled out Wiley Elementary as nearing 90 percent inclusion) and encouraged staff to keep the board advised on hurdles such as staffing, coaching capacity and budget implications as the pilot matures.
The board did not take formal action on the grant at the meeting; staff were asked to return with clarified metrics and, if appropriate, policy or procedural recommendations so the board can monitor progress and consider any needed adjustments.
