Parents and Crest students urge Mercer Island School Board to preserve CREST staffing and special-education supports

Students, parents and advocates told the Mercer Island School District Board of Directors on June 9 that proposed staffing and course reductions at CREST (Crest Learning Center) would remove supports for students with individualized education programs (IEPs) and Section 504 plans and push some families to leave the district.

Speakers described CREST as a smaller-class, high‑support alternative-learning site that uses extra adults and smaller classes to meet students’ needs. They said the program’s structure — paraeducators in every class and two teachers in the CREST block — reduces sensory and behavioral disruptions and helps students with documented needs succeed.

The speakers asked the board to retain current staffing and course offerings at CREST. They also urged clearer public reporting on open-enrollment admissions and asked the district to explain why resident students sometimes face difficulty obtaining IEP services while some nonresident or employee children reportedly receive placements more easily.

Why it matters: CREST serves a high share of students with special-education needs, speakers said, and changes to staffing or course offerings could remove supports that some families say are not available at the main campus. Parents and advocates warned that loss of services can cause families to seek private options or enroll their children outside the district, which affects staffing, enrollment funding and program sustainability.

What speakers said and asked - A representative who identified herself as a CutRite volunteer speaking for Crest students described CREST block classes with paraeducators and two teachers and said that structure helps students who “struggle with sensory concerns.” She said roughly 56% of students who take classes at CREST have IEPs or 504 plans and said student surveys indicate high reported support at Crest. - A CREST student described math classes at CREST as “a breath of fresh air” after negative prior experiences and said CREST’s class structure helped her re-engage with learning. - Megan Hammel, who identified herself as a parent, volunteer and advocate (she said she represented G2EL at the PTA Council and served on a district advisory group), told the board she is “deeply concerned about the lack of transparency and equity” in allocation of special-education resources at the middle and high school levels. She said the district has exceeded its special-education budget by “over $3,000,000” and asserted the district is accepting “over 10 out‑of‑district students from Hamlin Robinson,” including an administrator’s child, and asked for public reporting on open enrollment and a moratorium on new out‑of‑district enrollments until the board can review impacts. - Robert O’Callaghan, a parent, said many Island families send children to schools outside the district and tied that trend to perceived gaps in elementary instruction and support.

District response and context District leaders said they would account for special-education needs in the budget and noted increases in contracted services for specialized supports (behavioral intervention, occupational/physical therapy and speech-language services). The district said some high‑cost placements are required for resident students when in‑district services are not appropriate and that safety‑net funding and state reimbursements apply in some cases.

Board-level next steps and requests from speakers Public speakers asked for seven specific actions, including: public reporting on open-enrollment counts and revenue, funding transparency, an equity audit, safety and disciplinary reporting, a moratorium on certain out‑of‑district special-ed enrollments, stronger board oversight measures, and a community forum. Board members requested follow-up briefings and said staff would provide additional budget and enrollment detail at upcoming meetings.

Discussion vs. decision This agenda segment consisted of public comment and board discussion; no board action was taken during the public-comment remarks. Several trustees asked staff for follow-up information and suggested a future study session focused on special-education cost drivers and open-enrollment policy.

Ending Board members said they would add requests for clarifying data to future budget and monitoring materials and flagged confidentiality limits in any student-level discussion; the district indicated it would provide additional detail on program capacity, enrollment and projected special-education costs at subsequent meetings.