Brookline parents, teachers urge committee to exempt staff children from materials-fee denials for special-education services

Lindsay Anderson, a librarian at Hayes, told the Brookline School Committee that her 5‑year‑old son — currently enrolled at Runkle as a materials‑fee student — recently moved from a 504 plan to an IEP and now requires a 1:1 aide. Anderson said she was told that if the child still requires that support next year, he may be denied continued enrollment at Runkle under the district’s materials‑fee agreement and that the policy, as enforced now, creates a “ticking clock” for children whose needs change over time. "Disabilities do not align with budget cycles," Anderson said, urging the committee to allow her son to return and to avoid removing students who require additional supports.

Gwen Kerr, a Brookline resident and fourth‑grade teacher currently on parental leave, followed Anderson and framed the issue as one of equity. Kerr read the district’s equity commitment and asked why a family’s route into the district should change a child’s access to special education. She said changes in a child’s needs are unpredictable and that the district should not bar admitted children from supports because their families pay materials fees. Kerr asked the committee and Superintendent Wong to work with the Brookline Educators Union to amend the materials‑fee agreement so admitted students retain access to necessary special education programs.

Committee members and staff acknowledged the concerns. The public commenters said only a small number of children appear affected but argued that the financial savings would be negligible compared with the moral and educational harms of removing students from programs they and their teachers rely on. The committee did not take immediate action at this meeting; members asked staff to provide clarifying documentation on materials‑fee enforcement and on how decisions are made when a student’s eligibility or services change mid‑enrollment.

The committee’s discussion underscored a tension between a longstanding materials‑fee policy that permits denying services involving additional personnel or specialized technology and community expectations about consistent access to IEP services. Several committee members asked staff to return with more precise counts of affected students, a timeline for decision points, and options for grandfathering currently enrolled children so decisions are transparent and limited in scope.

Next steps: staff were asked to compile and circulate a written timeline and legal/policy explanation of the materials‑fee agreement, the process by which requests to deny services are made, and whether an immediate amendment or a longer policy‑change process is warranted. The committee did not vote on policy changes at this meeting.