Parents and advocates press PGCPS on immersion funding, special‑education compliance and protections for nonverbal students

Multiple public commenters used the board's public‑comment period to press elected members for concrete action on programs and student safety.

Language immersion funding: Dr. Alexandra Tukava, a parent of a student in Paint Branch Elementary’s Chinese immersion program, thanked the board for recent decisions to preserve immersion offerings and said community advocacy produced results. She told the board that a petition gathered 1,845 signatures in support of immersion and urged the district to build a sustainable funding model so the community does not face the same cuts in future budget cycles.

Special‑education compliance: Terresa Smith warned that the district’s strategic plan does not explicitly name SPED compliance as a priority. She cited Department of Education and MSDE complaint data, saying that in the first half of the fiscal year the district received 53 state complaints and that an internal analysis showed a high substantiation rate; she asked the board to add a formal strategic priority for special‑education compliance and to identify KPIs to ensure families do not experience continued delays or procedural failures.

Student safety and assistive technology: Parent Brandon Spriggs described an incident involving his nonverbal daughter, telling the board, "My daughter was struck on the backside by a staff member." Spriggs urged the board to consider narrowly tailored safety tools—such as GPS tracking devices restricted to students with IEPs or 504 plans, monitored classrooms, or self‑contained settings—to protect students who cannot self‑report incidents. He framed such tools as safety rather than surveillance and asked the board to establish clear guidelines and protections for any use limited to eligible students.

Student voice and program clarity: Students including Noah Mahus and other commenters urged clearer, student‑centered explanations of what proposed operational efficiencies would mean in practice, warning that descriptions of efficiency and sustainability need to be translated into tangible benefits and protections for programs that serve students countywide.

Why it matters: commenters tied program preservation and safety to budget choices and policy decisions. The board heard calls both to protect specialty programs through sustainable funding and to adopt explicit compliance and safety strategies for vulnerable students. Administration representatives said special education remains a district priority and that a separate special‑education strategic plan and monitoring processes are in place and being updated.

What the board asked for: board members requested supplemental information about the district’s special‑education strategic plan, a plan to communicate implementation progress, and continued engagement with parent groups and advisory councils as feasibility analyses for strategic realignment are prepared.