Toms River superintendent proposes study of countywide special-education hub; parents urge pause, clarity

TOMS RIVER, N.J. — Superintendent Mike Sida told the Toms River Regional School District board that the district is beginning a year-long planning process to explore a countywide specialized special-education building and a broader reallocation of services "to be good for kids, support our staff and benefit our taxpayers." He said the district's special-education population has grown to about 3,207 students, with self-contained programs increasing from about 30 to more than 107, and that related services and out-of-district placements have driven costs steeply higher.

"This is not about putting children in a building and not looking at a student's IEP," Sida said, adding that any placement changes would be handled by child-study teams and parents. He framed the initiative as conceptual and insisted no decisions have been made: community committees, town halls and an FAQ page will accompany the planning process.

Parents and special-education advocates filled the public-comment period, raising repeated concerns about transparency, staffing and the potential impact on students already placed out of district. "Inclusion benefits all students, not just those in special ed," said parent Lily Panella, who said her son's inclusion opportunities were removed without notice this fall. "Families and staff deserve clarity. We deserve to know what is being planned before decisions are made that could fundamentally alter our children's education."

Several commenters described service gaps inside the district: pediatric nurse and parent Christa Whitaker said the district lacks paraprofessionals and that some students were missing IEP services, and she questioned whether centralizing special-education placements would amount to "warehousing" students. Parent and former special-education teacher Jaclyn Wizakowski urged the board to demonstrate staffing, training and measurable program success locally before returning students from out-of-district placements.

Board members and the superintendent repeatedly emphasized that any future placements would remain decisions of IEP teams and parents. "There is no decision on what program, what child," Sida said, and he encouraged parent participation in committees that will vet goals, licensing and transportation requirements.

At least one concrete cost figure was discussed at the meeting when a parent asked about the price of bringing 116 out-of-district students back into district facilities. Sida replied, "About $13 million for 116 students," and said renovating a building would likely rely on grants rather than direct taxpayer funding; he added no grant applications had yet been submitted.

Advocates for change said the proposal could save money long term and reduce lengthy daily bus rides for medically fragile students, while critics said disruption to established, stable placements could harm students' progress. "When an IEP team, parents included, makes a placement decision, it is a thoughtful process," said parent Kristen Zalinski, whose son attends an out-of-district program. "Please let parents and case managers continue to decide what is in the best interest of each student, not allow a budget to dictate it."

The superintendent said next steps will include posting goals and an FAQ on the district website, soliciting volunteers for open committee meetings, and scheduling community meetings where minutes will be public. The board did not vote on any structural change at the meeting; officials said the initiative remains exploratory.

What happens next: the district plans to publish an FAQ and create committee meetings and town halls to gather parent and staff input; any actual program changes would require further planning, child-study-team placement decisions and, where required, potential grant applications or facility design work.