Board debates restoring hundreds of EC positions and whether to bring back case managers

Dr. Phipps, a district presenter, outlined how state funding drops tied to ADM losses affect staffing allotments but said the district currently expects to absorb cuts through vacancies and freezes rather than involuntary layoffs. "We don't feel like that we're in a position right now where anybody would lose a job," she said, urging the board that a full person-by-person accounting would be available in early May.

The central question for most of the meeting was how best to restore services in Exceptional Children (EC). Board members pressed for restoring direct-service roles—EC teachers, bilingual assistants and case managers—while staff warned that simply returning positions to a system that has struggled with distribution and implementation may not deliver promised outcomes.

Why this matters: EC services relate directly to legal compliance and to timely evaluations and individualized education program (IEP) implementation. Board members noted long backlogs for summer evaluations and delayed services early in the school year; staff said that without targeted implementation supports and training, simply adding bodies risks low return on investment.

Board discussion and staff responses focused on three linked choices: (1) prioritize more EC teachers to reduce caseloads and restore instruction time; (2) restore case-manager or EC-support positions to relieve teachers of paperwork and compliance tasks; or (3) invest in process, training and redistribution to get better outcomes from existing staff. Multiple board members urged a phased approach: add teacher positions first, pilot support roles, then evaluate outcomes before a larger expansion.

On numbers and cost: staff shared a range of proposals and estimates. One planning document cited adding 20 –48 EC teachers; the board discussed a package near 48 EC teachers plus approximately 40 EC support/{case manager} FTEs. Staff estimated 40 EC support FTEs at a total loaded cost of roughly $3.36 million.

Implementation and next steps: board members asked staff to (a) bring a clear list of the proposed positions and the specific duties they would perform, (b) spell out funding sources (federal grants versus local dollars), and (c) propose a process to engage EC teachers and building leaders so staff selection and job design secure frontline buy-in. Several board members recommended a short-term plan that blends added staffing with dedicated work on processes and training so that recruits are deployed into an improved system rather than into unchanged practices.

The conversation closed with a tentative board preference to include an increase for EC staffing in the superintendent's recommendation while directing staff to provide a detailed plan tying positions to outcomes before formal adoption on the April 14 budget vote.