|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Tuesday’s Palo Alto school board meeting got heated as parents voiced their anger over plans to eliminate programs for students with moderate to severe disabilities at two elementary schools and consolidate services on other campuses.
Over a dozen speakers addressed the board on the topic, with the bulk of the comments coming from Ohlone Elementary School parents upset at the district’s plan.
As the board discussed the issue, audience members at times interrupted to object to what board members were saying, with parents interjecting “That’s not true” and “How do you know?” There were also tears and laughter from some in the crowd as the board and staff members spoke.
The controversy arose when administrators told parents last week that starting next school year, the moderate/severe special education program at Ohlone and Escondido elementary schools would move to Nixon and Barron Park elementary schools, respectively. The announcement came as a surprise to many parents.
All four schools currently only have one moderate/severe special education class, serving kids across all grade levels. The change will allow Nixon and Barron Park to each have two classes, one for students in second grade and below and the other for those in third through fifth grade. District leaders said the change has long been considered and is in the best interests of students.
Existing moderate/severe programs at Fairmeadow, El Carmelo and Walter Hays will remain. The district’s other district elementary schools already don’t have a moderate/severe program. All elementary schools will continue to have programs for students with mild to moderate disabilities.
Parents say that closing the moderate/severe classes at Ohlone and Escondido will create a difficult transition for students, disrupt families and deprive the rest of the school of the diversity that these disabled students bring to the campus. They also object to the lack of parental input on the decision.
Ohlone parent Marianne Marar questioned why the mental health impacts of the move on students, parents and siblings hadn’t been discussed, and asked whether the “glaring systemic inequities” of consolidating the moderate/severe programs was clear to the board.
“One thing I know is that the panic and fear you’ve added to the shoulders of the parents who will now have to bear the brunt of this move is exhausting, isolating and traumatic,” Marar said. “I urge you, this is an opportunity. Don’t just talk-the-talk on equity. It’s performative and unsettling. Our kids deserve more.”
Parents expressed particular anger over eliminating moderate/severe programs at two schools with choice programs, which require parents to apply for their children to attend. Escondido has a Spanish dual-immersion choice program. Ohlone is a choice school with a focus on an “open school” philosophy and has a working farm on campus.
The board’s review of the consolidation plan for special education was put on the meeting agenda as a staff report, not as an action item that the board could vote on. Board President Jennifer DiBrienza told the Weekly that the decision about how to structure the special education program was one for administrators to make, not the board. According to DiBrienza, the board is in charge of setting district policy, not making programmatic decisions, and further that the special education restructuring didn’t impact the budget.
Amanda Boyce, one of the district’s special education directors, told the Weekly after the meeting that district staff do not plan to make any changes to the consolidation plan.
“The need to enhance our Special Education classrooms and likewise strengthen teacher/student engagement — thus improving the learning of our moderate/severe students — must remain first,” Boyce said in an email.
While the board members made no decision at Tuesday’s meeting, they largely backed the decision to prioritize split-grade classes for students with moderate to severe disabilities, although some board members raised concerns about how the decision was made.
Shana Segal, who was elected to the board in November, questioned district staff on how families were included before the decision was made. Boyce said that the plans were shared at a Jan. 23 meeting of the Community Advisory Committee for Special Education in Palo Alto, though the names of the impacted schools weren’t announced. The CAC, a volunteer group that advocates for families of students in the special education program, was supportive of the idea, Boyce said.
While Segal said that she supported moving to split-grade classes and believed administrators were well-intentioned, she objected to the lack of parent involvement in the process.
“What seems to have been forgotten in some decision-making affecting Palo Alto schools, including this recent restructuring, is that the voices, experience and knowledge of parents who have children in Palo Alto schools need to be heard in a timely way in order that they have an opportunity to contribute effectively,” Segal said.
Board member Shounak Dharap asked why the district didn’t phase the decision into effect over time, so that current students could stay at their existing schools. Boyce responded that a phased approach would mean fewer and fewer students would be enrolled in Ohlone and Escondido’s moderate/severe program over time, losing their chance for collaboration with other students. Boyce previously told the Weekly that there are currently eight students in Ohlone’s moderate/severe special education program and nine at Escondido.
Todd Collins, who was participating in the board meeting via Zoom due to illness, spoke about his own past experience as a parent of a student in a moderate/severe classroom. While he said that he empathized with the experiences of parents experiencing disruption, he was in favor of the change.
“The idea of a K-5 classroom, both for the children and for the teacher, is mind-boggling to me,” Collins said. “That seems like a task that’s not likely to end well, and I certainly see the need to move to a situation where we have more focused classrooms to serve mod/severe kids more effectively.”
Jesse Ladomirak also favored the change, noting that while she empathizes with parents’ concerns, she believes the focus needs to be on what’s best for kids as a whole and that the switch to split-grade classes was “long overdue.”
“If we don’t move forward, or if we delay doing so, or if we modify it somehow, I’m really concerned that we’re intentionally depriving those vulnerable students of a change that we know is best for them — and I can’t do that,” Ladomirak said.
Her comments drew opposition from the audience, particularly when she said that if the situation were reversed and the district were moving Nixon instead, the board wouldn’t hear from “any Ohlone parents” and instead it would have been all Nixon parents who would have shown up.
DiBrienza stepped in to tell the audience to give Ladomirak the floor, noting that the portion of the meeting set aside of community comment had passed.
While the vast majority of public comments came from Ohlone parents opposed to the move, a couple spoke in favor. CAC Chair Rika Yamamoto told the board that while she acknowledges the impacts of the change, she asked the district to “continue to work collaboratively” with families on the restructuring.
Boyce told the board that the district would offer support for affected families, including allowing parents to request a transfer for their student to attend any of the five schools that are expected to have a moderate/severe special education program next year. Transportation is also available to take children to and from school. She told the Weekly that she is also open to meeting with any of the impacted families to discuss plans for their children.
The one thing I wish the Board had done was to ask the presenters for more detail about their general statement that Ohlone doesn’t have the space to consolidate services at Ohlone. Did the district specifically ask the Ohlone principal about whether space might exist for this specific purpose? Did they ascertain whether and to what extent Ohlone teachers might be willing to shift classrooms as needed in order to consolidate services at Ohlone? My guess is that they did neither of these things. This seems like important information that the Board should have in evaluating this decision.
As for Ms. Ladorimak, having watched her in action for awhile now, I believe she in particular attracts antipathy because of her tendency to lead with absolute certainty – which sometimes sounds quite condescending. She seems to have less of an understanding of the educational sphere than the other board members, and she seems to compensate for this by making rather sweeping, imperious statements that convey she believes the Board always knows best. (That’s a pretty offensive thing to convey to parents and teachers.) Because of this tendency, when she tries to express empathy, it’s pretty inauthentic. A little humility and some genuine curiosity would serve her well. I’m sure it’s incredibly hard to be a Board member. It’s such an important role – really want to see Board members succeed, hence these comments.
@panative
Well stated. I just don’t know why parents and teachers were cut out of the discussion. It’s possible, that even in dissenting, both could have offered sage ideas. Plus inclusion in the discussion brings a stronger consensus. I don’t think inclusion in this case would have cost valuable time. It would have been time well spent, and a way to build capital with the community at large.
What is the point of a school board it they are not involved in the process. As a mental health professional in the community once again the voices of parents and teachers are not respected or heard. The wall between them and the board is becoming more opaque than clear. Sadly this is a process that is becoming the norm. I agree that a class for 5 grades in the same class is too much for any teacher but leaving the families who are most impacted out of the process with no explanation of if their teachers, aides and previous therapists will still serve them in the new setting is intolerable.
At last night’s board meeting, Shana Segal spoke clearly in favor of having parental input and expressed concern and disappointment this was overlooked. She made reference to the PAUSD Promise Under Special Education, where one of the goals is improving Parent Engagement by ‘building effective partnerships that foster communication between families and the district’. Key strategies include: increasing parent engagement, with an expectation of ‘listening to learn’ throughout the staff. When will the district make good on these empty promises? The future of our more vulnerable is at stake.
@PAUSD Parent
It is encouraging that Ms. Segal is stepping up for parents. I hope she makes inroads into fostering better parent outreach and input. Remember, The Promise is just another facet of Mr. Autsin’s propaganda campaign. He prefers to lead by screen and backroom deals rather than by example or in person. His fait accompli announcement about the special ed changes was made via a vague newsletter blurb, and in his world that comports with “The Promise”. His site administrators have been instructed to use the same tactics. During my final year at Greene the principal ran only one staff meeting: his first one. After that it was all subordinates and guest speakers. Important operating information normally shared at staff meetings often came buried in his newsletters rife with self-praise and laments about the achievement gap. Apparently, Don, or possibly some paid consultant, feels this type of disengagement and sheltering of leadership is an effective way to run a site or a district. I believe they refer to it as “risk management” at 25 Churchill. Hopefully Ms. Segal can help change that dynamic.
@PAUSD Parent- I agree with you, but I’m one fence further. You’ll drive yourself crazy if you think of those phrases you hear again and again as empty or unkept promises. If you look at them as the new power-language, the world starts to make a lot more sense.
So, there is apparently no financial motivation here, so why this sudden change that takes away the opportunity of PAUSD choice programs from moderate/very disabled students? This is just wrong. The parents weren’t complaining about the situation, why force these kids to leave these programs? These choice programs make a huge difference in children’s lives and development. I can’t even imagine how it’s legal to make these programs unavailable based on students’ disabilities, including that the district isn’t even saving money.
I really wish this district would stop with the one-size-fits-all imperiousness. It’s like there’s a longstanding ethos here among administrators that “win-win” should be avoided at all costs.
If the district wants to consolidate the programs, they should talk to parents at the neighborhood schools about whether they want to consolidate those. If neighborhood school programs prefer the consolidation, and students at the choice programs think the consolidated neighborhood school program is in their best interests, they can choose to move. But if not, they should be allowed to remain at their current choice program.
“The idea of a K-5 classroom, both for the children and for the teacher, is mind-boggling to me,”
It’s only mind-boggling because, for the convenience of the system, our educational system segregates students into age-matched cohorts, so that they don’t even grow up comfortable interacting with other students a year or two younger or older (or just in a different grade as the case may be, since we have so many red-shirted kids). Were the families in the choice program complaining about this? Doesn’t seem so.
Again, I cannot imagine that it could be legal to take away the opportunity of a district choice school just from disabled students. I agree that they should have considered allowing more disabled students into the choice programs, if the principle says it could work.
According to the article, DiBrienza says, “the decision about how to structure the special education program was one for administrators to make, not the board… the board is in charge of setting district policy, not making programmatic decisions, and further that the special education restructuring didn’t impact the budget.”
She always seems to try to sidestep the issue when things get tough. The board isn’t in charge of making program decisions? Really? Has she ever seen the org chart of PAUSD? Since it doesn’t impact the budget, that makes everything ok? If the board is not in charge of making these decisions then why is the board voting on it?
On the other hand, Ladomirak say, “If we don’t move forward, or if we delay doing so, or if we modify it somehow, I’m really concerned that we’re intentionally depriving those vulnerable students of a change that we know is best for them — and I can’t do that,”
Does she really think that she knows what is best for all of these kids?