Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Parents, advocates urge Corona‑Norco Unified board to audit special‑education eligibility and timelines
Loading...
Summary
During public comment, multiple parents and advocates told the Corona‑Norco Unified School District board of inconsistent eligibility decisions, delayed evaluations, and overuse of outside counsel in IEP meetings; they asked for a district‑wide audit, standardized evaluator guidelines, and a compliance report within 30 days.
Several parents and advocates pressed the Corona‑Norco Unified School District board during public comment to launch an immediate, district‑wide review of special‑education eligibility decisions and pending assessments, saying inconsistent interpretation of eligibility rules and lengthy delays are denying students legally required services.
Slavka Stanoyevich, who identified herself as a parent of three special‑education students in the district, told the board that "in the same family, two children with nearly identical disability profiles . . . received opposite eligibility decisions" and asked the board to "conduct a district‑wide audit of eligibility decisions, issue written standardized guidelines for evaluators, and provide a public compliance report within 30 days." She cited the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and California Education Code provisions governing timely evaluations.
Dr. Melinda Bossenmeier, who said she has 27 years in public education, recounted her granddaughter's experience and said the district withheld supports until the family filed a complaint with the California Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Education. "This is wrong. It is cruel," she said, describing placements that kept a student in low academic classes despite outside testing that identified giftedness.
Other speakers echoed concerns about delayed psychoeducational, occupational therapy and speech evaluations, inconsistent documentation, and the administrative use of outside legal counsel. One advocate asked the board to curb what they described as excessive attorney attendance at IEP meetings and to require board votes before initiating litigation, arguing that costly outside counsel is diverting taxpayer dollars from direct student services.
Speakers asked for concrete remedies: a review of pending assessment requests to ensure IDEA timelines are met; a public compliance update within 30 days; and a corrective action plan to address staffing, documentation, and oversight failures. Several commenters warned that families are prepared to pursue formal compliance remedies if the board does not act.
The board did not take formal action on the requests during the meeting. The chair closed public comment and the agenda moved on to a presentation on visual and performing arts programs. The district’s administration did not offer on‑record rebuttals to the specific allegations during the public‑comment period; several speakers asked the board to direct staff to follow up in writing or at a subsequent meeting.
What happens next: Speakers asked the board for a written compliance update and a corrective action plan; the transcript records no formal vote or staff directive on those specific demands during this session.
