Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent says Klinger Middle School removed son from lunch for five days without notification; superintendent pledges follow-up
Summary
During public comment at the Jan. 28 Centennial School District meeting, parent Jennifer Tian said her son, who has an intellectual disability and an individualized education program (IEP), was removed from lunch for five days without being notified; the superintendent said staff would follow up.
Jennifer Tian, a parent with an eighth‑grade child at Klinger Middle School, used the meeting's public‑comment period Tuesday to say her son — who has an intellectual disability and an IEP — was kept out of the general lunch setting for five days without the school notifying her.
Tian said the IEP requires her son to have lunch with typically developing peers and that, from her reading, a school official may not change an IEP outside of the IEP process. She said her son returned from the bus crying and could not explain the situation. Tian said she was especially concerned because her son requires supports and cannot reliably report events to his parent.
Nut graf: The remark prompted immediate follow-up from district staff and trustees. The superintendent told Tian he had connected her with district staff (named as Gina in the meeting) and that staff would follow up to investigate and try to address the parent's concerns.
What happened in the meeting: Tian said the principal removed the student from lunch for five days and that she had not been notified; the parent said school staff had exchanged emails but that the principal did not inform her directly. Trustee and staff members present told Tian staff would follow up, and the superintendent said he would connect her with the appropriate office. The transcript records the superintendent saying he would connect Tian with Gina and that staff would follow up.
What the board did and did not do: no formal action was taken by the board during the meeting; staff committed to follow up with the parent to review the student's IEP placement, notification practices and any next steps. The parent's claim that removal violated law was presented as her understanding (“from what I've read by law”), and the board did not make a legal finding at the meeting.
Follow-up: the superintendent and a district staff member said they would contact the parent to investigate and try to address notification and placement concerns.
