Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, advocates press Roselle Park board over special services director nonrenewal
Summary
Multiple parents and advocates urged the Roselle Park Board of Education to reconsider the nonrenewal of the district's director of special services, citing staff turnover, communication breakdowns and alleged mishandling of student supports; the board heard written testimony and several in-person statements during the public-comment period.
Public commenters at the June 16 Roselle Park Board of Education meeting urged the board to reconsider its decision not to renew the director of special services, telling trustees that families and staff have described an "environment of intimidation and fear" in the department and that children have suffered as a result.
At the start of the public-comment period, Jennifer Jiscula told the board the issue "is bigger than one contract renewal," and said parents and staff have reported being "silenced, discouraged, and exhausted" when seeking services for vulnerable students. She urged the board to prioritize leadership and accountability.
Edward Gate, who gave his address as Hamilton Place, said he appreciated the director's work but questioned why the renewal term was limited to one year rather than a longer contract, and asked the board to give the administrator "more trust and power" to carry out planned work.
Jessica Nash, who identified herself from Bender Avenue, offered sharply worded criticism: she alleged her son was suspended "based on his disability," said the district spent a year pursuing legal fees for an inappropriate placement recommendation, and described certain self-contained classrooms as lacking appropriate inclusion or access to gym time. "Listen to the parents who are speaking to you tonight," Nash said.
Other speakers reiterated concerns about staff turnover in special education roles (occupational therapists, BCBAs, case managers and paraprofessionals), delayed accommodations for students with medical needs, and a climate that discourages candid parent advocacy. Katie McDermott, speaking as a private citizen with parent-law training, said silence by families "is not the same as approval" and asked the board to invest in anonymous feedback channels, parent-advocacy training, and outside review when trust has eroded.
Several speakers called on the board to provide clearer processes for parents to raise concerns without fear of retaliation and asked trustees to consider alternatives to immediate personnel action, including structured remediation, improved communication protocols and independent review of special-services operations.
The public record also included a written comment read aloud by Michelle Schmedlin from a parent who described difficulty obtaining diabetes-related supports for a child and reported a pattern of turnover in the special-services department.
The board closed the public portion without taking public action on the contract at the session; trustees handled the evening's agenda items in public votes later in the meeting. The public speakers asked that the board document next steps, including whether it will reopen discussion of the contract or request an external review of special-services practices.
