Parents and advocates urge Highlands County schools to fix special-education assessments and services

Several parents and disability advocates urged the Highlands County School Board on Feb. 11 to act after describing what they called years of inconsistent special-education evaluations and services.

Joey Poyer, an ESE advocate who said he has worked statewide, told the board a state complaint (referenced in the meeting as B2520205-126) filed Dec. 17, 2024 alleges the district violated federal and state rules for students with disabilities, including provisions in "Title 34, Part B (IDEA)," and cited problems with prior written notice, due‑process procedures and timeliness. "The parent does deserve a right to a fair hearing," Poyer said. He asked the board to hold a workshop on Exceptional Student Education after the district hires a new director.

The issue of disputed evaluations recurred in multiple public comments. Victoria Leal, who said she is advocating for her 11‑year‑old son, told the board the district funded a neuropsychological evaluation that returned an IQ of 98 and a 98‑page report with evidence‑based recommendations, but that the school later conducted a separate psychoeducational test it said produced an IQ of 66. "This action not only disregards the neuropsychological evaluation, but also undermines the process and purpose of the assessment that you approved of and paid for," Leal said, adding she believes the district later relied on the lower score to determine her son’s placement.

Special‑education advocate Linda Montalbano described a pattern she calls the misuse of "access point" classes (classes for students assessed as having intellectual disabilities). Montalbano said one student her group represents had a recent independent neuropsychological evaluation showing a verbal or perceptual IQ in the normal range while the district relied on a single follow‑up cognitive test that reported a much lower score and kept the child in an access‑point classroom. "If you have a child with the district, test out as having an IQ below 70, you need to demand an independent evaluation," Montalbano said.

Families described long waits and travel burdens for appropriate placements. Shannon Roots and Bradley Roots said they drove for years for schooling that met their grandson’s needs and urged the district to expand local services. "We drove to Lake Wales to take my grandson to school. We've put a hundred thousand miles on our car in three years," Bradley Roots said.

Speakers pressed the district to use evidence‑based reading programs named in the neuropsychological recommendations. Leal asked the board to implement interventions cited in her son's report, including Orton‑Gillingham‑style instruction and assistive tools, saying the lack of those supports was preventing progress: "These scores clearly show that the current educational approach is not working. Ignoring the neuropsychological evaluations, findings, and recommendations perpetuates this failure."

Board members and staff did not take any formal action during the meeting on the complaints. The board acknowledged the comments and said it would follow up through staff; speakers asked specifically for a public workshop on ESE oversight and for the district to review its evaluation, placement and referral practices. No vote or directive was recorded on the request for a workshop during the Feb. 11 meeting.

Families and advocates said they also want clearer processes for parents who pursue due‑process hearings and easier access to information cited in state administrative proceedings. At the meeting advocates requested that the district supply clearer guidance about evaluation timelines, when independent evaluations will be funded, and how 504 plans and IEP services relate to tutoring paid privately by parents.

The concerns came amid other district business including routine policy updates and contract approvals. Board members thanked speakers for coming forward and said staff would follow up with the specific questions raised.