Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Students and SLP staff urge board to reverse contract decision that would end SLPA services May 15
Loading...
Summary
Speech-language pathologists, SLPAs and parents told the Santa Clara Unified board that a recent decision to end ProCare-contracted SLPA and audiology services on May 15 would disrupt legally mandated services, create compensatory-minute backlogs and harm bilingual students; trustees asked staff to investigate and return with a report at the next meeting.
Dozens of speech-language pathologists, speech-language pathology assistants (SLPAs) and parents told the Santa Clara Unified School District Board of Trustees on May 6 that the district’s decision to end ProCare-contracted SLPA and audiology services on May 15 threatens students’ legally mandated services and would create a backlog of compensatory minutes.
Kristen Shervin, an SLPA contracted through ProCare, told the board: “After May 15, I will no longer have a job in this district. Without SLPAs, SLPs will not be able to meet the needs of all students. Services will be delayed. Compensatory minutes will accumulate.” Her comments echoed an earlier group letter read aloud by district SLP staff that asked the board to revisit item I-14 from the April 9 meeting and fund contracts through the end of the school year.
Theresa Corfield, the district’s lead speech-language pathologist, told trustees that the result of eliminating these positions would be a reduction in students’ access to services and potential noncompliance with individualized education programs. “This is not a staffing issue or a budget issue. It’s a student access and compliance issue,” Corfield said.
Commenters described how SLPAs provide critical day-to-day, often bilingual, therapy support that allows credentialed SLPs to complete assessments, attend meetings and manage caseloads. A written submission presented by SLP staff said SLPs average about 50 students on their caseloads and that removing SLPAs would make it “physically impossible for a single provider to fulfill all required services.”
Trustees asked staff for clarification. Trustee Fairchild said there appeared to be “some misinformation,” and Superintendent Damon Wright acknowledged a need to investigate the origin of the May 15 date and to bring a fuller explanation back to the board. Wright said the board had previously approved a partial allocation ($75,000 of a $150,000 ask) and that staff would “do a thorough investigation” and return with a report.
Board members and union representatives thanked staff for rescinding some earlier proposed cuts to registrar positions and asked that any SLPA-related decisions be accompanied by a clear plan for service continuity. Several speakers asked the board to authorize funding to keep the ProCare contract (or a direct-hire alternative) in place through the end of the school year so students finish with consistent providers.
The district did not announce a reversal at the May 6 meeting. Trustees requested that staff return at the next regular board meeting with a full report on the ProCare contract, the timeline that led to the May 15 date, and options for maintaining legally required services. The board did not take formal action on the contract at the meeting.
