The most discussions centered around the district pilot plan that would reallocate special education staffing, specifically impacting the role of Whitney Brocka, a key figure in the Unified Special Education program. Parents and students defended the current setup, emphasizing the program’s success and the critical support it provides to students with special needs. Marie Johnson, a concerned parent, articulated the risks associated with the staffing change, including potential loss of national recognition and funding, legal liabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the negative impact on student safety and mental health. Johnson urged the board to reconsider the pilot, stressing the need for a collaborative assessment of the special education program’s requirements.

Further testimonials came from Becky Golden and Jack Lee, both parents of students in the program, who echoed Johnson’s sentiments. They argued that the abrupt staffing changes would dismantle a well-established system that has become a lifeline for families navigating the complexities of special education. Golden noted the unique and irreplaceable role of the current staff, while Lee highlighted the lack of transparency in the decision-making process. Both parents called for a pause in the pilot program to explore alternatives that would preserve the Unified program’s success and integrity.

Students such as Gigi Gordon and Zoe Higgins also shared their personal experiences. They described the Unified program as a nurturing and inclusive environment where they felt accepted and supported. Their testimonials underscored the vital role of the teachers in fostering a sense of belonging and community.

Concerns were not limited to parents and students; several staff members from the Unified program also spoke out against the proposed changes. They emphasized the critical role of the facilitator at Southview in managing behavioral needs and highlighted disparities in support staff allocations among schools. The potential reduction in special education support prompted a broader discussion about the district’s priorities and the need for sustainable solutions rather than temporary staffing reallocations.

The board’s attention then turned to other matters, including the district’s strategic plan and budget for the coming years. A presentation was made on the legislative action committee’s activities, emphasizing ongoing efforts to address mental health policies and funding. The committee’s engagement with local legislators and its impact on legislative discussions were noted, with particular praise given to students who testified about mental health issues, which resonated with legislators.

The discussion of the operating referendum renewal followed. The board noted the critical role of the referendum in supplementing basic education aid and addressing funding shortfalls due to lagging state support. The board has the authority to renew the referendum without a special election, a move that aims to maintain financial continuity and avoid additional costs.

The board also reviewed preliminary budget figures for fiscal year 2026, projecting revenues and expenditures necessary to sustain district operations. The budget discussions included projections for enrollment, operating revenues, and expenditures, with a focus on maintaining financial stability and aligning with strategic goals.

In a broader context, the meeting celebrated positive aspects within the district, such as strong financial stewardship, student leadership opportunities, and successful initiatives like Project Soar. The board also acknowledged the contributions of students and staff in shaping the district’s strategic plan and fostering an inclusive and supportive educational environment.