Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent urges Central York SD to revise discipline approach for students with disabilities
Summary
A parent told the board the district is failing students with disabilities, citing repeated suspensions of her child and a district self-assessment that she said found no corrective action was needed; she urged preventive supports, staff training and better parent collaboration.
At the June 16 meeting, a parent told the Central York School District board that the district is failing to provide a free and appropriate education to students with disabilities and urged the board to take corrective action.
Amanda Rothman Jumper, identifying herself as a parent of a Stony Brook Elementary School student with ADHD and autism who requires behavioral support, described multiple suspensions and early dismissals of her child this year and said the district’s response has been reactive rather than preventive. She referenced the district education plan for 2024–2027 and told the board, “the district suspension rate for students with disabilities exceeding 10 was significantly higher than the state average.”
Jumper told the board her family’s experience included delays in implementing the student’s individualized education program and that school staff ultimately told the family the student’s behaviors made it “not allowed back at school,” a decision she called traumatic for her child. She urged the board to revisit the district’s self-assessment and to take “real corrective action, beginning with preventive support, meaningful staff training, and true parent collaboration.”
Board members accepted a written copy of her remarks; the board president told her, “You can bring it to me,” when she offered to submit documentation. The board did not take an immediate action during the meeting on the issues she raised; Jumper said she would provide a written report to the board for follow-up.
Jumper also referenced a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the course of arguing a policy can have a discriminatory effect even if intent is not shown. The board meeting record does not show follow-up action at the meeting; staff and the board indicated the president or superintendent would follow up individually if the matter required further review.
