Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, staff warn proposed FY26 staffing model would harm students with disabilities
Summary
Multiple parents, caregivers and staff told the board the draft FY26 budget’s staffing model — including proposed ratios and the loss of some exceptional education positions — would endanger students, jeopardize IEP compliance and increase litigation risk.
Dana Thomas, a parent of a child who receives intensive direct support, told the Hamilton County Board of Education that the latest FY26 budget “still fails to meet the needs of our most vulnerable children.”
Thomas said the proposed staffing model — described in public comments as “one teacher, one assistant for up to 12 in elementary and up to 15 in middle and high school” — is “not realistic” and can be unsafe when students require simultaneous adult support for crises or supervision. She said the district had told families that it was “giving us back 6 teachers and assistants,” but that “that’s not enough.”
Multiple speakers expanded the concern. Kathy Corley said cuts to exceptional education represented “less than a quarter of a percent of the total budget” but produced an outsized impact on disabled students and their families. Corley and other parents said published staffing ratios were already being exceeded at some schools and that planned cuts left classrooms unable to implement individualized education programs (IEPs).
Laura Olds said some multi‑handicapped classrooms would cover ages 11 to 22 and seven grade levels under the new model, and she raised safety and lifting concerns for students who require two‑person transfers. Olds also cited federal law when she warned of legal risk: “Under the IDEA, placement decisions must be made by the IEP team” and “must be based on the student's individualized needs, not on districtwide staffing decisions or budget concerns,” she said.
Speakers described operational consequences if positions were cut: increased supervision risk, fewer staff to implement therapies or individualized instruction, and likely growth in administrative complaints or litigation. Corley said the district “has historically spent too much funding on special‑ed litigation,” arguing that inadequate staffing would increase future costs.
No board vote on the budget occurred during the public comments portion. Several speakers urged the board to restore exceptional education teachers and assistants and to find alternative central‑office savings rather than cutting student‑facing roles.
