Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Speech pathologists tell SFUSD board calendar change threatens IEP compliance
Summary
Speech-language pathologists, represented by union leaders, told the board that a new extended calendar and elimination of option-hour flexibility will make it harder to meet IEP timelines and urged the district to negotiate; the union asked the board to press administration to restore prior practice.
Speech-language pathologists and union representatives told the San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education on Aug. 22 they believe a unilateral change to their work calendar and to the use of option hours will compromise timely special-education services and violate past practice.
Christine Putnam, a district speech therapist, told the board the department was moved to an ‘‘extended’’ calendar and that option hours previously distributed across the year had been taken away. She said the change reduces time available for assessments and direct therapy—and makes it harder for therapists to meet Individualized Education Program (IEP) timelines. Putnam said the change was made without good-faith negotiation and asked the board to urge administration to return to the prior calendar or negotiate a workable alternative.
Several colleagues backed her account. Marsha Moye, a speech-language therapist with 20 years’ experience, told the board administrators’ counteroffers had been “unrealistic” and said the calendar change will affect the department’s ability to provide timely services. Veteran speech pathologist Bob Wattles added that the work requires students to be present and that extended-year scheduling reduces face-to-face service time.
United Educators of San Francisco representative Dennis Kelly urged clarity on whether a grievance had been filed; staff said there had been meet-and-confer sessions but no formal grievance at that time. Board members requested a written report on the status of meet-and-confer discussions and asked staff to meet with union representatives and affected employees promptly to try to resolve immediate service concerns.
The board did not take an immediate vote on the matter but several members asked staff to follow up with the union and provide a written update to the board.
Speakers quoted in this article appeared in public comment during the meeting and their remarks were recorded in the board minutes.
