Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bozeman special education director outlines shift to RTI model and implications of state settlement extending services to age 20
Summary
Director Chad Berg told the Bozeman School District board that a recent settlement requires districts to provide certain special‑education services through a student’s 20th birthday and described a planned shift from a discrepancy model to a Response to Intervention (RTI) model for K–8 identification, with implementation and staffing work ongoing.
Chad Berg, the district’s director of special education and student programs, told the board on April 13 that Montana’s recent settlement with Disability Rights Montana means the district must plan for expanded obligations for some students beyond the traditional cutoff.
“Because we provide a free and appropriate public education through our system of adult ed, we are a state similar to every other state in the nation that needs to provide a free and appropriate public education up until a child's 20 birthday,” Berg said, summarizing the effect of the August court order and the work staff are doing to align district policy and practice.
Berg said the district is choosing to move from the long‑used discrepancy model for identifying students with specific learning disabilities toward an RTI (Response to Intervention) model at the elementary level, with high school phased in later. He described a multi‑stakeholder work group of roughly 40 people—teachers, intervention and special education staff, school psychologists and counselors—that developed district decision points, progress‑monitoring protocols and a consistent cut score “that was not linked to a child's cognitive ability.”
Berg emphasized implementation work ahead: clarifying what counts as a high‑quality, research‑based intervention, how many data points will show sufficient progress, and how site MTSS teams will move students from intervention to referral. “If we are making this shift, we will do it well, and we will do it with integrity,” Berg said.
He also outlined operational steps tied to the settlement’s effect on age of eligibility. Berg said districts must consider changes to staffing and program offerings for students ages 19–22 and noted the district has posted a part‑time special education teacher position attached to adult education to help provide less time‑dependent proficiency pathways, online or dual‑credit options, or HiSET completion where appropriate.
Program data in Berg’s presentation showed an October/September IEP count of 793 students; he described earlier peaks of larger identification following the rollout of common‑core standards and a post‑COVID wave of reevaluations and exits. Berg said the district’s MTSS/PLC structures provide an ‘‘enabling context’’ for implementation but cautioned that day‑to‑day work at site teams will determine success.
District trustees asked clarifying questions about the referenced House Bill 233 and the timeline for policy changes; Berg and staff said the district anticipates legislative and policy changes and will return with recommendations. Trustee Gary Lucine and others thanked Berg for the work and the clarity of the update.
The board did not take formal action on policy at the meeting; Berg said next steps include detailed implementation planning, staff training, and a future policy recommendation to align district rules with the settlement and state guidance.
