Parents press board on early‑education cuts and allege special‑education misconduct at public comment
Loading...
Summary
Public commenters urged the board to investigate alleged fraud and Title IX handling in local districts and urged restoration or funding for a toddler early‑education program for students with developmental differences at Frost Early Education Center.
At the matters brought by citizens segment, speakers raised two distinct civic concerns: allegations of improper special‑education evaluations and billing, and plea to preserve a toddler program that serves children with developmental differences.
A commenter who identified himself as Des accused San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools and Etiwanda School District of "money mismanagement and fraud" tied to his son's special‑education evaluation and IEP process and asked the auditor to investigate. The speaker said he had pursued appeals and public records requests and alleged Medi‑Cal billing and missing records; he urged the board to remove what he called a "defamatory record" so his child could return to in‑person instruction.
Another commenter, Antoinette, invoked Sexual Assault Awareness Month and questioned whether Title IX processes and complaint responses had been handled properly in prior cases. Antoinette referenced a public lawsuit and urged the board to demand fair, prompt, unbiased investigations when schools receive notice of harassment.
Michelle Chung described her experience as a parent of a toddler in the Frost Early Education Center (Rancho Cucamonga) toddler program and said the class — which integrates children with cochlear implants, Down syndrome, autism and other developmental delays — will not continue this summer. Chung told the board the program provides critical peer interaction and specialist support that in‑home services cannot match and asked the board to consider allocating funds or exploring alternatives to preserve access for that population.
Board President Dr. Rogers and staff thanked the speakers and asked staff to follow up; Miss Pierre (student services) and other staff offered clarifying questions and expressed appreciation for the comments. Member Louv later suggested staff bring follow‑up information about how the board and staff handle such public concerns and what processes exist for responding to appeals and program adjustments.
What happens next: Board members requested staff follow up with the parents and to clarify the distinction between public records act requests and routine board oversight inquiries; Member Louv also asked for a future item outlining how the board receives and routes constituent concerns and the process for follow‑up.
