NPS faces challenges of funding and staffing Special Education

Assistant Superintendent of Student Services Casey Ngo-Miller presented to the School Committee on March 11 about the Special Education services provided by NPS and some of the challenges in budgeting and funding these services. A repeated theme was how state and federal mandates have increased the NPS allocation to Special Education student services over the past several decades without commensurate revenue support from the state or federal governments. As Dr. Nolin said:

“Historically, at the beginning of my career, these services were provided by other institutions, not schools. Modern medicine has meant that students who would have been institutionalized into medical programs and hospitals aren’t there; that is a triumph for families, but the costs come to schools [and municipal budgets] for changing colostomy bags, for supporting students with severe epilepsy, etc. These get more complicated every year; for example, interstate nursing regulations have changed, and our nurses can no longer travel on interstate field trips with our students. We have to contract out for LPNs in other states. The costs surprise everyone, but the mandates should also shock you! These are things that we are expected to do now that were coming from different sectors of public service budgets or private budgets in other times.” 

As Dr. Nolin has said at several School Committee Meetings, these services are enshrined in legal documents called IEPs, and this is an area of the budget that cannot be easily reduced without exposing the district to legal liability and reducing support for our most vulnerable students.

District context 

Ms. Ngo-Miller outlined the scope of student services work in Newton. Out of the current 11,461 students in the Newton Public Schools district, 2,479 (22%) are identified as having disabilities. This includes all students receiving Special Education services from Pre-K through age 22. Of these, 24% are in programs that are substantially separate from general education classrooms and 76% receive services primarily through inclusion models in their neighborhood or districted secondary schools. Dr. Nolin added that some of the students receiving services through neighborhood schools are students who generally attend private schools but access specific services – such as speech services – that their private schools are not able to provide during school hours at their local school. 

Levels of need 

Ms. Ngo-Miller explained that the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) categorizes students in Special Education programs by level of need according to how many hours they spend away from the general education classroom. The “High” category consists of students who are in substantially separate programs and spend no hours in a general education classroom. In response to questions from Mayor Laredo, Dr. Nolin clarified that this designation does not refer directly to the spending associated with individual students, as students who have low or moderate needs as designated by pullout services might or might not be allocated a one-to-one aide. 

Range of services provided

Ms. Ngo-Miller described the range of Student Services provided as including: Special Education identification/evaluation, ongoing Special Education services, Mental Health and Counseling, Crisis Response, Coordination with teaching and learning, Compliance with state and federal mandates, and family partnerships. One area that was expanded upon was the workload of evaluations. Each referral requires a workload of 5-15 hours. In addition to the public school students being evaluated, Ms. Ngo-Miller explained that NPS is legally mandated to conduct private school evaluations. From July 1, 2025 to March 11, 2026, 66 parent-initiated referrals from parents of private school students resulted in 330-990 hours of labor that the Office of Student Services does on behalf of private school students. Later Ms. Ngo-Miller noted that Ward and Underwood Schools are under-resourced in psychologists because of the private school evaluations that come out of the Ward neighborhood.

Destination School District

Ms. Ngo-Miller described how Newton is a destination district for Special Education services, especially autism. As she said, “Every week we will get at least one phone call …asking us [for example] ‘I’m from California and I’m looking to buy a house or rent in Newton. Can you tell me about your Special Education services? What Ward should I move into depending on the neighborhood school and citywide programs?’ Additionally, our proximity to some of the world’s best hospitals has folks moving into Newton …they have students who are part of medical trials or are receiving medical treatment outside of school hours.” She went on to add that other than Brookline, this is very different from any other district in Massachusetts. 

Who does the work of Special Education?

As documented in the FY26 Budget Book, Newton currently has 301 Special Education Teachers and Speech Language Pathologists, 123 employees who are in Psychology, Guidance, Social Worker or Medical categories, and 526 Aides. This compares to 262 Elementary School Teachers, 202 Middle School Teachers, and 265 High School Teachers. 

The Student Service position responsibilities listed in the Budget Presentation slides 4 & 5 were described as follows:

• Special Education Teachers: (286) Serve as Teacher of Record in sub-separate classrooms or co-taught classrooms to provide specially designed instruction
• Speech Language Pathologists: (39) Provide pull out services for speech and language-related disorders
• Aide Specialists: (254)
  • Behavior Technicians (BTs) – one-to-one aides who work primarily with autistic students on Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) 
  • Medical Aides/Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) – work primarily with medically fragile students
  • Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Interventionists – have the same level of training as behavior therapists and spend 80% of their time on Tier II or Tier III interventions responding to crises or doing preventive work in the general education settings
• Special Education Aides: (231) Teaching assistants in general education classrooms
• Guidance Counselors: (37) Primarily provide career, college, and course selection advising to secondary students; a few are Licensed Independent Clinical Social Workers (LICSWs) who can provide therapeutic services
• Non-guidance Counselors: (21) Clinical counselors assigned to city-wide programs for autism, emotional, and behavioral challenges, for example in the Harbor Middle School, Central High School programs (see below for program descriptions)
• Psychologists: (28) Psychologists are specifically trained in Special Education Law, have training in academic and social-emotional Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), and can perform Special Education evaluations. They typically lay out the plan that other staff follow in the classroom with students.
• Social Workers: (26) Social workers are trained to work with outside agencies and partners, for example the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF), and also provide behavioral training for families, etc.
• Other Staff: (50)
  • Assistant Principals for Student Services at the Middle Schools
  • Coordinators of SLP, OT/PT, SW/SEL, OOD Placements
  • Guidance & SpEd Department Heads and Assistant Department Head 
  • Student Services Secretaries 
  • School tutors, for homebound, expelled, or suspended students 
  • Safety Care Trainers – train staff in the regulated method of physical management of students who are a danger to themselves or others
  • Student Teachers – de minimus stipends
  • Extended School Year staffing – $1. 2 million for 500 students during summer, 4-5-6 week programs 

In addition to directly employed staff, the district also contracts out certain Special Education services that were described by Ms. Ngo-Miller:

• Landmark School for language-based learning disabilities: A 15-year relationship with 2 dedicated consultants who validate NPS language-based programs and give families confidence that they will work, that they do not need to be in out-of-district placements at Landmark or Carroll instead. 
• Aide Substitutes: Unit C Staff has the highest number of staff absences; agencies provide substitutes for medical aides, bus monitors, etc. In a survey of principals, the biggest concern was Unit C absences.
• Bilingual evaluations: Needed for accurate profiles that differentiate between normal second language development and a specific learning disability
• Interpretation and translation for IEP meetings; 
• Caseload/workload evaluation: NPS has hired consultants to look with staff at whether the caseload and workload are being handled efficiently and at a high level of service. This analysis is expected to be done by next winter; every NPS staff member is doing a time study in winter, and approximately 60% of staff has responded to the survey.

Dr. Nolin expanded on the caseload/workload evaluation, saying that for the past 20 years, NPS has had more Special Education programs than the average district, including more aides and BTs than other districts. The evaluation is being done to “run at this discussion” [rather than run away from it]. The people completing the evaluation have done 4,000 case studies, including extensively in Massachusetts, with their most recent client being Lexington. NPS is looking to benchmark what are high/med/low caseload scenarios and to compare them with the NPS staffing. 

Dr. Nolin asked Ms. Ngo-Miller to speak to the perception that there are “random folks floating around that have no assignment.” Ms. Ngo-Miller responded by describing a few of the reasons that adults might seem to have no specific assignment.

First, she described the provision in Massachusetts law that allows a parent who has signed an IEP to “stay put” on any of all, some, or one of the services in a student’s IEP. For example, she said, “if you have a 1-1 in 4th grade, the Special Education team at the school can recommend that the student has made progress and no longer needs a 1-1, but a parent can assert their 1-1 rights all the way through the end of high school. We see that happening with [14] students. Sometimes with 1-1s, but also with high school students continuing with OT. …[If] 6th grade goals are “stayed put,” they are not making new goals each year because the district disputes that they were not met, but the parent asserts the right to keep those goals — and staff time — in place.” 

Later in the meeting it was clarified that this is a Federal mandate from the IDEA Act, and there are administrative judicial procedures by which parents can continue to assert stay-put, which NPS could take to hearing with appeals, but this incurs legal costs and puts staff on the stand.

Dr. Nolin added, “This is the only tool that parents have when they think their kids are in trouble. In other districts, there might be more of an orientation to ‘I really want my kid to go back to General Education with Tier II supports’”…[it is a] trust issue: are we really providing the best Tier I education?” 

Second, Ms. Ngo-Miller mentioned that because of the high absence rate of Unit C aides, “Planning coverage just to open our doors is a daily activity that involves principals, secretaries, [classroom] teachers, and Special Education teachers; multiple absences make us scramble to pull folks; 1-1 aides calling out need someone else to cover.”

Later in the meeting, Ms. Ngo-Miller also mentioned that students on waitlists for out-of-district placements sometimes have adult-student ratios of 2:1 or 3:1 because they are identified as elopers (students who will run away from school) or as a safety risk to themselves or other students/staff. Dr. Nolin added, “If a student also has a different disability that requires a 1:1 aide, that is separate from the program aide count. Specialized autism programs often see this. Students who are at risk for harming self and others, bolting, needing restraint; we are proud of the depth of services NPS is able to provide, but that comes with a layering of services so that people are not harmed. [NPS is having] discussions around how that disrupts other classrooms,  trying to minimize disruptions so students near these programs can learn in safety and peace.” 

Dr. Nolin said that the only position that is not legally mandated by federal or state Special Education Laws are the social workers, but those are mandated by the last NTA contract negotiation, which mandated Social workers at all schools in grades K-8.

The values of keeping students in-district

Several Committee members repeatedly emphasized the inherent social value of facilitating students’ ability to maintain their education in their home community. Given that value, they also sought to understand the financial impacts of keeping students in-district. 

Staff indicated there are currently 127 students in Out-of-District (OOD) placements, with an additional 16 awaiting OOD placements. These students are spread among approximately 60 schools that provide different sets of services. An NPS analysis of comparable programs showed that the average tuition for OOD placement was $127,800 per year, while the average NPS In-District programming for similar services was $70,100. This was before transportation costs for OODs were considered. In response to a question from School Committee Member Jonathan Greene, Ms. Ngo-Miller said that if all of the waiting-list students were to receive placements, that would be $900,000 more in spending for which NPS has not budgeted. Dr. Nolin remarked, “My hair turns gray when you ask us to take on risk for substitutes, because we are already taking on a lot of risk for potential OODs.”

Dr. Nolin noted that in theory, the State is in a position to reimburse districts for OOD tuition, but the mechanism of that combined with other decisions the State has made has contributed to these reimbursements consistently not covering the full cost of OODs. For example, in the “Covid Year,” the State allowed OODs to increase tuition by 14% but did not provide district funding to cover it, and that by itself represented an increase of $2 million. Additionally, while OOD schools are in theory subject to a set percentage increase in their tuition each year, they are also allowed to “restructure” their services at any time and change their tuition rates when they do so, and they are doing this frequently.

Dr. Nolin also noted that while the State says it will reimburse OOD transportation costs at 75%, that rarely happens, and last year it was at 61%. Liam Hurley clarified that:

• Transportation was added only recently as part of the Student Opportunity Act (SOA). 
• The State Legislature funds the “circuit breaker” account at a certain amount; and its first goal is to reimburse districts with 75% of certain educational accounts above $60,000 per student. 
• From remaining amounts, there is a subsequent process for transportation, and the difference for Newton would be about $330,000.
• The legislature is increasing its contributions, but not at the same rate as inflation.
• They first fill the instructional budget and then transportation.

Dr. Nolin illustrated the challenges of creating in-house programs to prevent OODs as follows: “[There is a] tension of proposing these and then not having funding. …We added REACH [dyslexia and additional communication needs] program in house. There is a second cohort ready for it but we can’t implement it because it needs up-front investment before the savings are realized.”  Using the numbers stated earlier in the evening, that savings was ballparked at $57,700 per student per year.  Ms. Ngo-Miller explained that REACH opened for eight students this year, and next year it is projected to have 12, including SLP services. However, REACH is a sub-separate program, with a state-mandated student-teacher ratio of 1:8. NPS could add 4 more children if an aide were added.  Dr. Nolin added, “Because of our limitations on increasing the budget, we can’t commit to that. But then OOD schools raise tuition and we are here with an increased budget for that anyway…”  In a similar vein, School Committee Member Ben Schlesinger is preparing a report on the financial impact of fully implementing MTSS services, which are also widely accepted as educationally beneficial.

Additional state-level notes

Dr. Nolin mentioned that Newton is next on DESE’s list for a comprehensive review of all activities. This will start this spring, continue in fall, and be presented to the School Committee and DESE by next spring. 

Dr. Nolin also noted some of the state mandates that might be unclear to residents:

• Safety Care Training: Professional development that is required by state law for a certain number of staff in the district. There are regulations around exclusionary timeouts, and physical restraint is the last resort after all other deescalation techniques.
• Since 2015, districts are no longer allowed to suspend or expel students without the obligation to continue to educate them. The tutoring budget also accounts for tutors who are required under these circumstances, sometimes with students who also get Special Education services.

Dr. Nolin concluded her remarks for the evening by talking about what superintendents across Massachusetts are advocating for from the State Legislature and DESE:

• Maintaining or increasing the FY26 $150-per-pupil Chapter 70 minimum aid (up from $60 in FY24 and $104 in FY25)
• Lowering the “circuit breaker” threshold minimum (this is the minimum out-of-district tuition a private school can charge NPS to enroll a Newton-residing student in order for the tuition to qualify for “circuit breaker” state reimbursement to NPS)
• Changing the “circuit breaker” Special Education reimbursement rate from 75% to 90% of costs above this minimum threshold 
• Changing the 4.5% inflation cap on OOD tuitions to match the current rate of inflation
• 100% reimbursement for transportation

See NewTV’s video of the presentation and discussion.