Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent at Whitehall Copley board meeting says special-education students were singled out
Summary
At the Aug. 25 Whitehall Copley School District board meeting, parent Lori Ann Feynell used public comment to say special-education students were targeted in prior board discussion about vaping and raised concerns about attendance communication and program uniform costs.
Lori Ann Feynell, a Whitehall Copley parent, told the district school board during public comment on Aug. 25 that special-education students were “targeted” by a question asked at a previous meeting about vaping incidents.
Feynell said the board member’s earlier reference to a figure of 18 students “being in possession of Vapo THC” unfairly singled out special-education students and amounted to stereotyping. She asked why similar questions were not directed at groups including cheerleaders, the wrestling team and other athletes.
Feynell also raised two operational concerns from the first day of school she said affected her son: inconsistent attendance reporting for students who attend Lehigh Career & Technical Institute (LCTI) in the morning and a miscommunication about required apparel for an LCTI heavy-equipment program that she said could cost her about $200 to replace.
Feynell said the district had told her teachers that LCTI students should report to homeroom, while an administrator’s message had advised reporting to the cafeteria, leading to confusion and an absence report. She said the apparel issue—what pants are required in the heavy-equipment program—was acknowledged in an email from staff but left her facing out-of-pocket costs.
She described repeated incidents that she said leave special-education students “forgotten” and urged the board to change the district’s approach, including asking sports teams to help “change the image” of life-skills students who collect trash, after general-education students allegedly mocked them.
A board member responded during the same public-comment period saying the earlier question about vaping had been asked to determine whether disciplinary differences should apply between general-education and special-education students—“if we were gonna give a break to the general population, then maybe I’d reconsider letting the policy go,” the speaker said—presenting the inquiry as intended to identify whether different treatment was warranted. That speaker was not identified by name on the public record.
No formal board action was taken during public comment on these matters. The board proceeded with its agenda, which included multiple consent and committee votes later in the meeting.
The concerns raised in public comment were: the privacy and public disclosure of student counts referenced in prior meetings; inconsistent attendance procedures for students attending LCTI; and financial impacts from unclear program uniform requirements. The parent asked the board to address stigma directed at life-skills students and to improve communication and accuracy in recordkeeping.
