Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and paraeducators urge Cherry Creek board to reverse special‑education para cuts
Summary
Dozens of public commenters told the board that proposed cuts to paraprofessional positions will harm students with IEPs and increase turnover, while some speakers questioned the audit process and transparency around budget decisions.
A string of public comments at the Cherry Creek School District board meeting on April 13 centered on proposed reductions to paraprofessional and special‑education support positions, with paraeducators, parents and teachers saying the cuts will damage classroom access and safety.
Jenny Campbell, a special education teacher who introduced herself at the microphone, urged trustees to reconsider the reductions, saying, "Our moderate needs paras are not optional supports. They are essential." Several speakers made near‑identical appeals: paras provide in‑class supports, de‑escalation, and continuity that parents and teachers said cannot be replicated quickly by licensed staff.
Bridget Nelson, vice president of the para association, representing nearly 1,000 paraeducators, painted a picture of low pay and high turnover that she said undermines student stability. "Many paraeducators work full‑time, yet rely on SNAP, Medicaid, and other public assistance just to meet basic needs," Nelson said.
Parents and staff described concrete concerns about IEP implementation. Reed Porter, a parent of a child with Down syndrome, said his son's IEP requires one‑on‑one literacy support and warned that staffing changes risk legal non‑compliance: "We've been told that no student on an IEP will be impacted by these cuts. But my son... his IEP specifically states that he'll receive one‑on‑one support during reading... That's not a suggestion. That's a legal commitment."
Speakers also referenced district statements and recent media reporting and pressed for more transparency. Amanda Thayer and others questioned how the district’s internal audit committee was formed, whether it is independent, and whether any conflicts of interest exist in auditor selection.
Union leadership and many parents urged the board to explore alternatives to frontline cuts, pointing to potential savings in outside contracts, technology spending, or the district’s agreements with external partners. Carly Holiday, president of CCEA, said some cuts are necessary but called for more collaborative decision‑making with staff.
The public comment period did not produce an immediate reversal. The board subsequently moved and passed the consent agenda later in the meeting; no formal board vote on restoring para positions was recorded that night.
