Report encourages district to allow schools to have more control over special education program.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
It was a night of loud voices and tears at Thursday’s Board of Education meeting as parents of special education students reacted to the recently released review of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s special education program.
The study, conducted by Lou Barber and Associates, praised the district for its services for the nearly 1,600 special education students in the district. But it also pointed to some problems, including the abundance of confidentiality agreements between special education parents and the district, a practice the report states should only be done on a limited basis. It also encouraged the district to allow the schools to have more control over the special education program, rather than the district’s central office.
“I read this report and I went home and wept,” said parent Tricia Crane. “Because finally, all of what we have been trying to bring to you has been validated.”
A large number of parents at the meeting spoke about a school district where the special education students are treated poorly by their peers and sometimes the staff, with the same treatment being given to the parents. Many blamed the district for having no leadership.
“You’re not doing anything to help our special Ed kids move in and be a part of society,” said parent Meredith Hyde. “Shame one you.”
After the speakers concluded, one man stood up and shouted, “Are you starting to get the message now, OK?”
District Superintendent Dianne Talarico said she was encouraged by the report stating the district received mostly answers in “the affirmative” for the 17 questions the report asked regarding the district’s program. But, she acknowledged, there were problems, and said she would have a more formal response at the April 17 meeting. However, she said there is likely not enough time for her to have an in-depth response, including plans for creating new policies by that date.
Several board members promised the parents the report would not be shelved, and attention would be paid to it. The most passionate comments came from Board President Oscar de la Torre, who said the district had “somehow lost its empathy” for special education students.
“I understand that we need a healing process,” he said. “And I think that healing process can only begin when this school board and the leaders of this district begin to exert leadership.”
De la Torre added, “It’s time for action. It’s time to make some things happen, and end the culture of fear, the culture of conflict between our parent community and our school district that has existed.”
The board president also alleged that although the board had called a moratorium on confidentiality agreements last year while the special education program review was being conducted, the practice has not actually ceased.
The district has defended confidentiality agreements in the past as a method to keep costs down. The idea is that it prevents parents from learning about what education programs other parents’ children are receiving, and then demanding it for their children, when their children might not need them.
The Lou Barber report acknowledges that settlement agreements are done in other districts, but in far less quantity. It says most districts do it up to 15 times per year, while the SMMUSD has had 140 during the past three years.
“The number of settlement agreements is of great concern and appears to have become a common practice for the district, rather than only being used on rare occasions,” the report states. “The district must limit their use of settlement agreements by empowering school sites to resolve issues.”
De la Torre was the only board member to speak about this during the meeting. He noted that special education costs have actually increased during the past six years.
“It’s like the individual who said we’re going to incarcerate ourselves out of the gang problem,” he said. “That has failed as well.”
The district had been forced by the Santa Monica City Council last year to hire a consultant to do the review because of the confidentiality agreement practice. Several council members said the practice created a culture of fear, and they refused to increase the city’s annual contribution to the district unless the review was done, as well as having a moratorium.
The Santa Monica council on Tuesday night was expected to discuss the report and whether the district had met the conditions for its contribution increase. At least one Santa Monica city leader was not pleased with most of the board last Thursday. Councilmember Robert Holbrook could be heard saying to people around him in the audience several times, “I can’t believe they’re not discussing the confidentiality agreements.”