Mt. Pleasant Special Education Report Criticized By Parents
Ordinarily, adoption of a proposed budget would be the most talked about item on a school board agenda.
But at last week’s Mount Pleasant Board of Education meeting, the unanimous adoption of the $52.5 million budget for 2013-14 took a back seat to a controversial report prepared by a district consultant.
The audit of the district’s special education programs conducted by veteran educator Eugene Wolotsky sparked heated comments among some parents who attended the meeting worried that their children will be deprived of critical services they need to succeed.
Among Wolotsky’s most controversial recommendations is to eliminate most programs that are modified for special education students at the middle school and high school as well as the collaborative special education program at Columbus Elementary School.
With the latter recommendation, special education students would spend more time in regular classes but more assistance would be provided in resource room settings.
“The majority of the students should be able to function in more inclusive environments,” Wolotsky stated in his report.
However, several parents sharply criticized the recommendations. Pamela Clark said her son had struggled since kindergarten until this year, when he was placed in a collaborative fourth-grade class at Columbus Elementary School. If the collaborative classes are eliminated next year “we’re going to go backwards,” she said.
“We finally found a good place for him,” Clark said.
Parent Jeanie Milo said if the district put the recommendations into effect she doubted whether special education students would be able to keep up with the pace of mainstream classes.
The recommendations for the middle school and high school would also likely fail to adequately prepare special education students for college, said another parent, Tina Sprito.
Superintendent of Schools Dr. Susan Guiney said a major reason the district requested the audit was because of tougher state mandates requiring high school graduates be “career and college ready.”
Wolotsky, who began his work last fall and submitted his report in March, said he met with special education teachers, administrators, students, alumni and parents. In his report, Wolotsky wrote that Mount Pleasant has sought “to ensure that students with special learning needs are provided with the appropriate level of academic and other supports in the least restrictive environment to meet the state’s requirements for ‘college and career readiness’ and attain a high school diploma.”
Some of Wolotsky’s other recommendations include informing general education teachers that they must follow special education mandates; provide professional development for teachers that will equip them with the tools needed to teach students with specific disabilities; and enhance communication between the special education department and the public.
Guiney said district officials have made no decisions regarding Wolotsky’s report. Decisions on programs will continue to be made by the Committee on Special Education, she said.
“Special education services are not being reduced (next year),” Guiney said.
The $600,000 special education spending reduction in the 2013-14 budget is unrelated to the report’s recommendations, she said. Fewer special education students will be sent to out-of-district programs next year accounting for most of the reduction. The decline in spending also takes into account the elimination of two speech language teachers, Guiney said.
In response to parent criticisms regarding the report, Guiney said the individual needs of special education students would continue to be met through requirements set forth by the Committee on Special Education.
“We are going to look at the individual needs,” Guiney said.
Board of Education President James Grieco said there would be plenty of discussion of the report by trustees.
“Nothing is in granite, nothing has been decided,” he said. “Every child will get what they deserve.”
