Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears special-education report noting 214 students on Dec. 1 and audit findings
Summary
District staff reported a December 1 special-education count of 214 students, 11 additional eligibilities since that count and four referrals in process; staff described an audit flag for over-identification in one category and questions about excessive use of extended state assessments.
District staff presented the annual special-education overview and compliance updates, noting the district’s December 1 count of students receiving special-education services and several audit findings.
A staff member (S5) told the board, "This year was 2 14," referring to the district's December 1 special-education count. The presenter said 11 additional students have since been made eligible and four students are currently in the referral process; those four are not yet included in the official count. Staff said although the headcount is similar to prior years, the needs of students currently served are higher than in the past.
The report identified two audit issues: an over-identification flag in the "other health impairment" category that required a root-cause analysis, and a finding that too many students were administered the state's extended assessment. Staff said the district will complete an action plan and revise procedures to ensure appropriate assessment use and eligibility determination, and they are working through state-provided accessibility worksheets to align eligibility decisions.
Staff also described operational changes: a new 4–8 life-skills classroom at Central increases caseload pressure at that building; speech-and-language services are now delivered through a combination of virtual SLPs and local in-person SLPs under the local service plan, complicating scheduling. The special-education team has held more than 192 meetings recently to coordinate evaluations, IEP planning, and transitions.
Board members asked for clarifications about caseload formulas (speech-only vs life-skills), which meetings are required for evaluations and how the over-identification finding relates to the state's funding cap (mentioned as roughly 11%). Staff said they would present caseload-comparison formulas used elsewhere and continue work to balance service quality with compliance.
