The board considered a new partnership with Indian River State College (IRSC) to revamp the Paraprofessional to Teacher program. The Bloomboard program, which cost the district approximately $255,000, had only a 12 out of 15 completion rate. By collaborating with IRSC, the district would offer a free bachelor’s degree to eligible Exceptional Student Education (ESE) paraprofessionals, reducing district costs. The new program plans to reimburse costs upon completion rather than requiring upfront payment, allowing the district’s investment to fund up to 34 paraprofessionals compared to the previous model.

Board members engaged in discussions about the financial implications and benefits of the IRSC partnership. They explored ways to structure the financial investment to mitigate risks, particularly considering the challenges faced with the Bloomboard model. Members expressed interest in bonuses for students who complete their degrees and commit to working within the district, with a proposed $1,000 incentive to reinforce the district’s investment in its employees’ education and future.

Shifting to the healthcare agenda, the board debated transitioning from a fully insured health insurance model to a self-insured model for employees. This potential change introduces risks, as it could result in costs exceeding the allocated $6,500 per employee, necessitating the use of reserves for additional expenses. The board discussed the financial accountability associated with self-insurance, noting that March claims had a 122% loss ratio, raising concerns about the sufficiency of reserves to absorb high claim years.

Board members deliberated on the feasibility of maintaining a healthy reserve level under the self-insured model, emphasizing the need for a healthier workforce to make self-insurance viable. Strategies to mitigate costs were explored, including promoting wellness initiatives, managing chronic conditions, and implementing on-site health centers. The board discussed the potential for surcharges for tobacco users and incentives for wellness participation.

The meeting also addressed the possibility of implementing on-site or near-site clinics to control healthcare costs. Two models were considered: constructing a dedicated facility for medical services or partnering with an existing provider. While these clinics are more effective in self-insured arrangements, the board recognized the need for detailed data and forecasts about potential cost savings and utilization rates should a clinic be established.