Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent tells Newton County board her daughter’s special-education needs were unmet; board staff to follow up
Summary
At public participation a parent accused Newton County Schools of repeated failures to support her daughter with significant special needs and said she will ensure the student graduates in 2027; board staff said someone would follow up and noted the district’s public-participation complaint rules.
At the Newton County Board of Education meeting on Tuesday, parent Christie Taylor told the board her 16-year-old daughter, identified in the comment as having significant special needs, has experienced systemic problems with Individualized Education Program (IEP) implementation and school safety dating back to elementary school.
Taylor detailed alleged incidents including a medical emergency in elementary school that required hospitalization, ongoing errors in scheduling and grading, and an incident she described as a threat to her daughter’s medical feeding equipment in middle school. Taylor said those failures prompted hospital homebound instruction and that school staff repeatedly made promises that were not kept. She told the board she will “put it in writing” that her daughter will graduate in 2027 and said she has spent a decade pursuing remedies.
Board staff followed the board’s public-participation rules: meeting procedures presented at the start of the session state that complaints against employees will not be heard during public participation unless the complaint was submitted in writing to the superintendent at least seven days before the meeting; unresolved personal complaints must be submitted in writing for review in executive session. During the meeting a staff member noted Taylor’s contact information was legible and that someone would follow up with her.
The board took no formal action on Taylor’s comments during the public session. Taylor’s remarks were presented as personal allegations and requests for follow-up rather than as a motion or complaint filed under the district’s procedures.
