Parents, advocates urge review of special‑education placements and staffing at Nina Otero
Loading...
Summary
Multiple parents and a community member told the Santa Fe Public Schools board that students with IEPs at Nina Otero Community School face staffing shortages, safety concerns and reassignment without proper parent notification; speakers asked the board to review Exceptional Student Services leadership and survey families and staff.
Multiple parents and a community member told the Santa Fe Public Schools Board of Education on Oct. 23 that students in an upper‑division life‑skills classroom at Nina Otero Community School have faced repeated staffing gaps, safety incidents and proposed placements that they say were made without required Individualized Education Program (IEP) procedures.
Lisa Christofferson, speaking as a private citizen, said Nina Otero serves one of the district—s highest percentages of students with IEPs but has "minimal" PSS support — four hours one day a week — and recent reassignments of students from other schools have strained resources and raised safety concerns. Christofferson urged "an immediate review of the ESS department leadership" and asked the district to survey parents and special‑education staff with responses routed outside the Exceptional Student Services department to avoid retaliation.
Parents and guardians echoed those concerns during the public forum. A parent who identified herself as Dimple Matthew said her son had become reluctant to attend school after classroom incidents, reported delays in communication about staff absences, and cited reports that a student in the classroom had "been hitting other kids with things" and damaging classroom property. She said she had to wait two weeks to learn that the classroom—s primary teacher was on medical leave.
Grandmother Deborah Trujillo described raising a nonverbal granddaughter who relies on routines and said the class of seven or eight students had formed friendships and "built a friendship" that would be harmed by reassignment. Trujillo said she had tried to contact district officials, including the named administrator in Exceptional Student Services, and received insufficient communication.
Speakers requested that any proposed student moves be processed through the IEP team and that families receive the procedural notifications the law requires. Christofferson referenced federal and state special‑education safeguards in urging immediate review; she cited "34 CFR section 300.115" and a state special‑education administrative chapter when urging parental notification and procedural safeguards.
The public comments did not include a formal motion or a board vote. Superintendent Griffin and other staff were present during public comment and are expected to follow up with district staff and school leaders; the board did not take formal action during the meeting on these requests.
The speakers asked the board to prioritize transparency, re‑examine leadership in Exceptional Student Services, and meet directly with affected families. Board members did not make a public determination on next steps during the session.
