A special‑education teacher and several parents told the Board of Education on Aug. 12 that the district changed placements for 12‑year‑old students without the IEP team process required by federal and state rules, and they asked the board to order immediate corrective steps.

Dr. Heather Perdau, who identified herself as a special education teacher in the district and a law instructor at Empire University and the University at Albany, told the board: “Tonight, I speak as an educator and a scholar, but more importantly, I'm speaking as an advocate for students whose educational rights are being violated.” She said, she and parents had observed program restructuring that led to “broken services, staff attrition, and now direct violations of federal and state education law.”

Perdau cited Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 300.116; section 300.321 on IEP‑team membership; section 300.503 on prior written notice; and New York State Commissioner’s Regulation 200.6(h)(5), recounting her view that parents were not included before building or placement changes were made. “Parents were notified on August 8 without warning. That phone call itself constituted unauthorized change of placement,” she said. She asked the board to “immediately convene emergency CSE meetings for all students whose placements were changed without proper procedure,” to investigate staffing failures, and to produce a time‑bound corrective action plan.

Multiple parents described the impact on individual children. One parent identified herself as Kim Marinucci and said a 12‑year‑old student in a middle‑school special class had been told the child would be moved to the high school because of staffing shortages. “South County's lack of staff is not the concern of my student or our family,” she said. She asked the board to investigate and to restore an appropriate special‑education program.

Another parent who identified herself during public comment described her child as “a minimally verbal autistic student who has been thriving in his 6:1:2 classroom” and said that moving him less than four weeks before school would cause severe anxiety and safety concerns. She explicitly invoked the state stay‑put provision, saying, “The law provides . . . that a student's last agreed upon placement remains in effect during any disputes. I'm formally invoking that right today.”

Board members responded in the public session that they had heard the concerns and would consult with the superintendent and administrative staff. A board member said, “we are going to, be talking to doctor Perry and our admin staff as well,” and indicated follow up would occur, but no formal board vote or corrective‑action resolution was recorded during the meeting.

What happened next: the board moved on with its agenda; the speakers asked for emergency CSE meetings, a formal investigation of staffing and program failures, and a time‑bound corrective plan. The meeting record shows the board committed to confer with the superintendent and staff; the transcript does not record a formal motion, vote, or timeline for the board's follow up.

Why it matters: parents and a veteran special‑education teacher contend that placement and notice requirements under federal IDEA regulations and state commissioner's rules were not followed. Those procedures determine where students with disabilities receive services and whether parental participation occurred before changes.

The board and district staff will need to clarify whether required procedural steps (CSE meetings, prior written notice, and stay‑put protections) were observed for each student named, and whether compensatory services or other remedies are required.