Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents ask Sycamore board to prioritize inclusion training after district review of costly outplacements
Summary
Community members presented a petition and urged targeted, research‑based training to support students with disabilities; district staff outlined options, costs, and recommended a group-assessment approach instead of full mandatory rollout.
A group of parents asked the Sycamore Community City school board to make inclusion and communication training for staff a higher priority during a June 30 meeting.
Cindy Burke told trustees she and other residents want the district to prioritize staff training that equips educators to support and include students with disabilities and to plan measurable steps for inclusion. She said inclusion works when educators have meaningful training, and urged the board to adopt research-based approaches and include self-advocate input.
Jenny Gabby, who said she gathered signatures from more than 55 Sycamore residents, said the request is not a demand to mandate one particular course for all teachers. Instead, she asked for an open discussion about options and a robust training plan that benefits students and staff, noting that some placements outside the district cost the district over $1,000,000 on the current agenda.
Administration presented background on required state training and described a specialized eight-week "communication for education" course piloted in 2022 with ten staff members. District staff said the full, instructor-led version would take 32–40 hours per participant at about $725 per person (district estimate) — or roughly $433,550 to train 598 staff members if the district paid instructor-led fees for everyone — and suggested a targeted approach instead: selective team training, group-level assessment in the fall, and using course topics for targeted professional development days.
The administration recommended piloting or offering modules to specific teams rather than requiring district-wide participation because of the time and cost involved and said it would engage parents and staff in a group-assessment process to identify the most useful training components.
What’s next: The board accepted the update; staff proposed a fall group-assessment and follow-up planning process to recommend targeted professional development and any future purchase decisions.
