Parent tells board child’s IEP accommodations weren’t met and says toileting policy gaps left kindergartner soiled

A Franklin Township parent told the board on Nov. 5 that the district failed to meet her 6‑year‑old’s IEP accommodations, described what she called neglectful incidents at school and asked the board to adopt clearer policies and better family supports.

The parent, speaking during the public‑comment period, said the child — described as partially verbal and on a kindergarten IEP — arrived home after a school incident with dried feces from the lower back to the ankles and required a warm bath to be cleaned. She said the new school nurse left a voicemail telling the parents she was not certified to clean the child and asked them to pick him up. The parent said aides and IEP accommodations were not provided consistently this school year and that a bus aide had been removed over the summer without an IEP meeting.

Why it matters: The parent framed the incidents as a failure to provide legally required IEP supports and to communicate available resources to families. She asked the board to consider a written toileting assistance policy, better communication about available state services (such as CMO services and PerformCare), and a parent resource binder listing local supports and contact points so families can navigate special‑education services.

The parent described steps already taken: multiple IEP meetings since Sept. 5, ongoing communication involving the child‑study team, superintendent, nurse, social worker and psychologist, and use of in‑home CMO services providing therapy hours. She also said the child had lost progress and shown regressive behaviors, and that the family felt compelled to consider escalating concerns to the state if problems are not remedied.

Board response and next steps: Board members thanked the parent for speaking and asked her to email documentation and a summary to the superintendent and to the board liaison so trustees could review the written record. The chair instructed staff to accept the email and forward it to the full board. The board moved briefly into executive session later in the meeting; the parent’s request for policy changes and the allegations were not resolved in the public session.

What the meeting record shows: The commenter named several specific concerns — missing IEP accommodations, an absence or lack of communication about toileting procedures for children still developing toileting skills, changes to bus‑aide assignments without an IEP meeting, and a lack of clear resource sharing with special‑education families. The parent offered to provide a paper trail of emails and pledged to work with the district and with parent‑support groups (CPAC) to create resource materials.

What the board said in public: Trustees did not dispute the facts presented but said the board’s role is limited and advised following the chain of command (teacher → principal → superintendent → board) while also offering to receive the parent’s emailed documentation and forward it to appropriate staff for follow up. The board did not adopt any new policy or make a formal commitment on the record at the meeting.

Taken together, the comments raised procedural and welfare questions the board is now poised to review in writing and, if necessary, in follow‑up meetings or committees.