Why Boston Needs a Special Education Audit: The Math Isn’t Adding Up

Edith Bazile speaks to the School Committee at a recent meeting

By Edith Bazile, Chair, Boston Public Schools Special Education Parent Advisory Council (SpEdPAC)

If you’re struggling to pay your grocery bills but relying on UberEats most nights, you’re not just spending more, you’re depending on a system that isn’t building capacity to meet your long-term needs. The result is overspending with less to show for it.

That is where Boston Public Schools is right now with special education: reducing in-district capacity while increasing reliance on external vendors. Spending is going up, but outcomes are not improving. Families report more barriers, greater inconsistency across schools, and less clarity about how decisions are being made.

The math is not adding up.

That is why SpEdPAC is calling for an independent audit of special education funding.

What families are experiencing

Families across the district report a consistent set of challenges: not knowing whether a school can meet their child’s needs, confusion about services such as extended school year support, and students with similar needs having very different experiences depending on which school they attend.

There is no consistent way for families to determine whether a school has the staff, programs, and supports to fully implement a student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP), the legally required plan outlining the services a student with disabilities must receive. That lack of clarity is creating real inequities for students.

What is driving this

As families report these challenges, the district is increasing spending on outside services, including contracted providers and out-of-district placements.

Outsourcing is necessary to ensure access to the full continuum of services, especially when in-district options are not available. But it cannot become the default strategy.

The district must build and scale high-quality in-district programs. Instead, too many programs are falling short, driving greater reliance on external placements. This approach does not build capacity. It reinforces dependence on external systems and drives up costs, including those tied to special education disputes and litigation when families seek appropriate services and placements.

What this looks like in schools

This issue shows up in concrete ways. Services, such as speech therapy or occupational therapy, are often provided by contracted service providers, but in strong inclusion programs, specialists are integrated into the whole school community. They meet regularly with teachers to plan instruction, problem-solve challenges and adjust supports. They participate in team meetings, communicate with families, and help ensure that strategies are carried across the school day.

When services are delivered by contracted providers, the providers may come in, conduct a session, and leave, making it difficult to achieve the level of coordination needed. Their expertise is not consistently integrated into the planning process, making it harder to fully implement a student’s IEP.

Inclusion is not just about where a student sits. It is about how a team works together consistently and collaboratively to support that student throughout the day.

Why program decisions matter

Recent decisions to eliminate or reduce programs have made this issue more urgent. Programs like the Henderson Inclusion 9–12 have been recognized as successful models of inclusion. For many students, these programs are the only way to receive a rigorous education while learning alongside peers without disabilities.

When programs like Henderson are reduced, students with complex needs are more likely to be sent to out-of-district schools, separated from their communities. That is not expanding inclusion, it is limiting it.

The same concern applies to the closure of schools such as CASH, Lee Academy, and Another Course to College (ACC), which served large numbers of students with disabilities. These decisions were made without meaningful engagement with families and are disrupting stable learning environments for students who need consistency the most.

Inclusion — what needs to happen

If outcomes are going to improve, the district must build a strong in-district system. That requires investing in people; hiring and retaining skilled teachers, specialists, and support staff; ensuring access to reading specialists; and providing educators with ongoing training and job embedded coaching to deliver high-quality instruction.

The district must build an evidence-based system that delivers consistent results. Inclusion requires trained staff, strong instruction, and coordinated support. Without it, outcomes will vary.

Building on what works

BPS does not need to start from scratch. There are programs in the district that are working. The Henderson 9–12 inclusion model is one example that has received national recognition.

The recent decision to close this program moves BPS in the wrong direction. It is not too late to course correct. Families want to see successful models strengthened and expanded so that more students can benefit.

Families have also put forward solutions, including consolidating programs into CASH, which has the capacity to accommodate students from multiple sites and be developed into a hub of excellence for students with disabilities, with the infrastructure to also support multilingual learners effectively.

Proposals like this reflect a broader desire from families to be part of problem-solving around program design and system capacity. There is a clear opportunity for BPS to strengthen how it engages families in decisions that directly affect students’ programs and services.

Why an audit is necessary

An independent audit is the next step in answering the most important question: Is the district using resources in a way that is actually improving outcomes for students?

The audit would provide clarity on how funding decisions connect to staffing, programs, services, and placements, and whether those decisions are building a system that can consistently meet student needs. Families have a right to know how their tax dollars are being used.

The bottom line

This is not about how much money Boston is spending on special education. It is about whether that spending is building a system that works. Right now, families are telling SpEdPAC that the system is not consistent, not transparent, and not delivering the outcomes students deserve. Until Boston Public Schools aligns resources with a clear strategy to build strong in-district programs, that will not change. That is why SpEdPAC is calling for an independent audit.

—

Like Boston Parents Schoolyard News on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Follow us on Bluesky.