Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the IEP Enrollment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents tell board East Palo Alto Academy is denying applicants with IEPs; trustees say staff will investigate
Summary
Several parents and community members told the board that East Palo Alto Academy has been rejecting applicants who have IEPs, saying the district is using admissions practices to avoid special‑education disproportionality; the board promised to refer the allegations to staff for follow‑up.
Multiple public commenters raised allegations that families applying to East Palo Alto Academy (EPA) were being denied admission for students who hold Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Marilyn Travis told the board she and community members had heard from more than 10 families who received district letters saying EPA lacked the resources to provide required IEP supports.
Travis said the district’s intent to avoid a third consecutive year of “significant disproportionality” in special‑education placements might explain the practice, but she urged the board to seek a solution that preserves equitable access rather than exclude students. "We are being denied enrollment at our school because they have IEPs...it appears to be over 10 families," she said in public comment.
Other parents described receiving letters notifying them that a chosen school could not provide the supports listed in an IEP and recounted the emotional impact on their children. Jocelyn Alvarado described her daughter as “devastated” after being denied admission to the neighborhood high school she had hoped to attend.
A parent leader, Rosio Baka, framed the remarks as a civil‑rights and equity concern: she urged the district to guarantee that no student will be excluded because of an IEP and called for the district to identify resources and supports instead of turning families away.
Board response and next steps: the board chair reminded speakers that public comment items are referred to staff for investigation when appropriate. Trustees did not make immediate operational decisions during the meeting; several trustees and the superintendent acknowledged the concern and asked staff to investigate the allegations and report back with findings and recommended remedies where warranted.
Context and clarifying detail: one commenter cautioned that threats of fines or penalties were overstated in community discussion; Marilyn Travis clarified that the potential fiscal consequence discussed was the need to reserve 15% of the district’s special‑education IDEA allocation rather than a fine. The board did not provide an administrative rebuttal during public comment; the matter was logged for staff follow‑up.
