School Committee deep dive: AB Special Ed Parent Advisory Council questions

Town Elections are this coming Tuesday, April 28. For more general voting information, see Town’s Elections and Voting page. For information about School Committee candidates, read on, and see the links to voter information published at the top of the related article in this same issue of the Acton Exchange.

The Acton-Boxborough Special Education Parent Advisory Council (AB SEPAC) is charged under Massachusetts General Law with advising the District and the School Committee on the education and safety of students with disabilities. To help voters choose the best candidates with an eye towards educating all of our children, AB SEPAC asked each candidate three questions. The questions are:

1. What is one specific concern about special education in our district you are aware of and how would you address it if elected?
2. How do you think the School Committee can take an active role in establishing policies that promote inclusion of students with disabilities?
3. What do you think the special education priorities should be in the school district budget?

The answers for each candidate are presented here in reverse alphabetical order.

Natasha Sikorski-Onken

Question 1: One specific concern I have about special education in our district is the lack of consistent inclusion of special education programs and families in major planning and decision-making, as well as uneven experiences with IEP implementation across schools.

From following School Committee meetings, reading SEPAC resources and meeting minutes, and speaking with parents whose children receive special education services, I’ve seen how many families and educators felt left out of the AB Forward process. Some elementary special education programs did not seem to be meaningfully included in early planning. As plans became more concrete, the frustration and sense of disenfranchisement expressed by parents, teachers, and advocates made it clear that their expertise and perspectives had not been fully considered from the start.

I have also heard from parents that the experience of navigating IEPs and accessing services can vary significantly from school to school and teacher to teacher. This lack of predictability is stressful for families, can create inequities for students, and undermines trust in the system.

If elected, I would work to:

• Ensure that special education programs and SEPAC are involved early and consistently in district-wide planning, especially any organizational or programmatic changes.
• Promote clear, district-wide expectations for IEP implementation so that evaluations, services, and supports are timely, consistent, and transparent.
• Ask specific questions about how proposed changes will affect each special education program and ensure those answers are communicated openly to families.

My goal as a School Committee member would be for every family, in every AB school, to experience special education as inclusive, predictable, high-quality, and genuinely collaborative.

Question 2: One way the School Committee can actively promote inclusion is by making it a non‑negotiable part of every major decision, rather than a separate or secondary consideration. That means we should build inclusion into our policies, fund it through our budget, monitor it with data, and formalize strong partnerships with SEPAC and families. We should also consistently model inclusive language and expectations in our public discussions and decisions.

Practically, I believe the Committee should regularly ask, “How does this move us toward or away from SEPAC’s recommendations?” and look not only at whether policies align on paper, but whether practices in classrooms and programs reflect those commitments. Where there are gaps, we should expect clear plans to address them.

Finally, new policies and initiatives should, as a matter of procedure, include an explicit analysis of their impact on students with disabilities. That requirement will help ensure that inclusion is built into the design of every major change in ABRSD, rather than treated as an afterthought.

Question 3: Special education budgeting needs to be grounded in both equity and long‑term thinking. While these services can be expensive, failing to provide them is far more costly — for individual students, for families, and for the district as a whole.

My top priority would be staffing, ensuring the district has enough qualified special educators, related service providers, and support staff so that caseloads are manageable and students receive the services in their IEPs in a timely, high‑quality, and truly individualized way. Supports must be realistic in day‑to‑day practice, not just on paper.

I would also prioritize strong early intervention. Identifying and addressing needs as early as possible is both an equity issue and a smart investment, it helps more students access the general education curriculum, reduces the need for more intensive services later, and supports better long‑term outcomes.

In short, our budget should reflect a commitment to inclusive, well‑resourced, and predictable special education services across all schools and grade levels.

Diego Represa

Mr. Represa provided the SEPAC with the following response:

I have to be upfront and admit that special education is an area where I need to learn more. The way special education is handled in Acton, and in the US in general, is very different from the structures and processes followed in Spain where I grew up. I’ve seen the headlines about the increase in the number of kids requiring special education support, the rising cost of providing those needed services, etc. But I’m definitely missing the human aspect of it, the real struggles of the kids, their families, and the educators. So, I will not waste any one’s time with generic answers without a clear proposal on this specific area. As I always say to my kids, recognizing your limitations gives you the opportunity to improve. That is why I met with a member of the SEPAC the other day, and I’m meeting with other members of the Special Education community in the coming days, to learn more about this important topic; and if any one else in town would be open to share some time with me on this important aspect, I’d be very grateful.

Jacob Fay

Question 1: One concern I’ve been focused on is turnover in special education leadership. While I’m glad the district has made a permanent hire, I want to ensure we build stronger administrative support so this doesn’t recur. That means three things. First, making special education leadership stability an explicit, measurable goal in Superintendent evaluations — and in the hiring criteria for any future Superintendent — so there is formal accountability for retaining a Director and reducing turnover across special education positions. Second, requiring a formal institutional knowledge protocol so that future transitions cause less disruption; too much critical knowledge about students, families, and services walks out the door when a leader leaves. Third, exploring whether the Committee can treat special education administrative capacity as protected infrastructure in the budget — as some districts do for mental health staffing — both to guard against cuts and to signal to talented administrators that this district is a stable place to build a career.

Question 2: Consistency across our nine schools is where I’d focus. A family at one elementary school should have the same quality of inclusive education as a family at another — and right now, based on SEPAC’s reports, I’m not confident that’s true. To address this, I’d pursue four things. First, requiring school-level LRE data to be reported publicly, so we can see where inclusion is strong and where it isn’t, rather than having district-level averages obscure building-level gaps. Second, working with the Superintendent to ensure inclusion metrics are explicit components of both principal and Superintendent evaluations — we can’t directly evaluate principals, but we can make clear to the Superintendent that this is a priority we’ll hold them to. Third, establishing a formal, regular channel for SEPAC to surface school-specific concerns to the Committee; I want to better understand what currently exists and strengthen it. Fourth, investing in professional development in inclusive practices — like Universal Design for Learning — district-wide and consistently across all our schools.

Question 3: Investing in special education should be a top-tier budget priority, and I’d make that case on both educational and fiscal grounds. Pedagogically, high-quality inclusive practices like Universal Design for Learning benefit every student in the district, not just those with IEPs. Fiscally, one of our largest and fastest-growing cost drivers is out-of-district placements, which have risen sharply in recent years. Every student whose needs we can meet within Acton-Boxborough is both a better outcome for that family and real savings for the district. That means prioritizing: staffing and professional development that expands our in-district capacity, continued development of our standalone specialized programs, and rebuilding our special education reserve — which was significantly drawn down — so we aren’t making reactive mid-year budget decisions. Investment in special education isn’t a drain on the budget; done well, it may be one of the smartest ways to manage it.

Daniel Carroll

Mr. Carroll did not provide a response to the AB SEPAC’s questions.

Tori Campbell (incumbent)

Question 1: Relationships are central to learning, and we must meet the needs of every student and every educator to lay a strong foundation upon which to build those relationships. Partnering with families is an essential element of doing this effectively — and we all know of examples where we could do better in this regard. The greatest growth I have experienced as an education professional has been learning the power of outreach early, and often, to share those moments of student success. When families know that you see their children as capable and successful, they become strong partners in working through the moments when things feel more challenging. I have also heard this repeatedly reflected in community feedback to the School Committee this year, particularly for our most vulnerable learners. It’s clear: relationships matter.

It is vital that the School Committee’s decisions about policy and budget enable the structures that encourage building and strengthening existing relationships. I acknowledge that our difficult, but necessary decisions in the elementary school restructuring this year are disrupting today’s relationships, which has real impacts for students, families and educators. And, I believe we are creating a lasting structure and an immediate focus on relationships that lays the groundwork for stronger opportunities in the future. Building strong relationships and welcoming, inclusive communities are a priority in AB Forward Strategic Plan — not just the elementary school reorganization, but the plan itself. I intend to advocate for the important role of strong relationships over our next five years.

Here are some ways the priority areas in the Strategic Plan and the associated elementary reorganization support relationship-building:

• Intentional, inclusive school communities is a priority area, and anyone with a student who stands out in some way knows how important it is to feel accepted by peers and adults alike. As a parent of such a student, I remember feeling anxious about how well-known my kid was at school … until I realized that fellow students recognized my child as an outstanding athlete (and one who plays to the crowd) after attending Unified Basketball games. Every student should have the opportunity to shine, to be seen as capable and successful, and as contributing to their greater school community. It makes stretching in other ways more achievable when students know they belong.
• Collaboration time is explicitly named as essential for staff to do their best work. In my own school, educators and support staff have a weekly meeting during which we identify students needing more support and develop a team approach to help. Not only does this enable a coordinated approach, but it allows us to identify where we can leverage strong adult-student relationships to create opportunities for student growth. I am excited to see collaboration time named as an area of emphasis as we move into a year in which so much is changing in our school structures.
• Professional development focused on student needs is also explicitly named. I am particularly excited about opportunities for classroom teachers at elementary campuses hosting special education programming to learn more about students with associated learning profiles. I am also excited for subject-matter expert teachers partnering with special educators at the junior high and high school to experience professional development focused on the specific needs of the students they teach as well.
• Structures that enable flexibility rather than creating obstacles to getting the right group of students together with the right educator. I know the shift to the new elementary model is disruptive, but in the long term, co-locating programs (such as Connections and Pathways) offers opportunities for consistent relationships over time as students’ needs change. I also appreciate how, at the Acton-based campuses, having six sections of students in the same grade, on coordinated schedules, and under the same principals will allow more effective re-grouping during flex blocks and other intervention time. I’ll be keeping an eye on how this works at Blanchard. I worry about how budget cuts are reducing flexibility at RJ Grey with split-grade teams. And, I see how the high school is working through re-leveling to bring more students together — with the supports they each need — to learn. This is an evolving process and I look forward to hearing more about how it is progressing.
• Focus on educator-family communication and collaboration is not explicitly named in the strategic plan, but it is a fundamental focus of the administration’s elementary reorganization implementation plan. By integrating family input and educator knowledge of their current students to create next year’s class lists by June, we are laying the groundwork for sustaining existing connections and creating new ones over the summer. And, by building family check-ins into regular cycles of evaluating student academic and social-emotional progress, we are making communication and collaboration a habit. This helps build the adult relationships that ease family-educator collaboration outside of these routines. It’s possible that what we see today as supporting transition actually strengthens our practice as we move into some new form of “normal.”

My approach will be to monitor how we achieve these goals by ensuring we have measurable outcomes integrated into District and School Improvement Plans that are reported back to the School Committee throughout the year. I continue to value SEPAC’s partnership in providing family perspectives — both through the results of focused surveys and reports provided to the district and the School Committee every year, and through the strong relationships between SEPAC leaders and School Committee members.

Question 2: Promoting inclusion of students with disabilities starts at the top, with our Vision of a Graduate that applies to every student, and the language of our Strategic Plan (see slides 8-10). Our district mission now reads “Our mission is to provide high-quality, inclusive educational opportunities that inspire a community of learners.” “Welcoming, inclusive school communities” is a priority area. We aim to “maximize learning for each student, responding to their unique learning and development needs.” An important outcome is “Ensure that every student experiences developmentally appropriate, rigorous, engaging, and inclusive instruction that helps them reach their fullest potential.”

These are not just words — they are the foundation upon which our district and school leaders create their annual improvement plans, which means that the School Committee can monitor progress and ask for course corrections when necessary, and we can hold leaders accountable for measuring and achieving these goals. As these goals filter from school improvement plans to individual educator goal-setting, principals can do the same with their teams. I will also expect to see our policies and budget priorities aligned with these foundational documents. A good example of what that looks like can be found in the Superintendent’s Budget Monday presentation (“where the budget meets education”) on February 9th. While student placements rest with the IEP team and the administration, as a School Committee member, I will emphasize these values and how they apply to every student.

Asking questions also matters when we talk about inclusion. An area to watch is the policy for Competency Determination, the requirements for which are currently evolving at the state level. I raised concerns last year about the shift from passing the MCAS in three subjects to passing four regular high school classes to be eligible for a diploma for students with disabilities. I was pleased to see the district’s responsiveness to the quick change for last year’s graduating class, as well as increased support for inclusion in classes required to earn Competency Determination. This year, I raised concerns about what an elementary STEP program might mean for young students with IEPs and their opportunities to earn a diploma many years later. I appreciated how the discussion of this program evolved and the expectation that, regardless of placement in younger years, we keep options open for students to earn a diploma in high school.

Question 3:

1. Always — because it is legally and morally the right thing to do — meeting the needs of students with IEPs. Also, funding the staff necessary to ensure every student who needs specialized support gets what they need. This includes not just accessing the curriculum, but also challenging every student at the right level to ensure their growth. Beyond mandated support, I acknowledge this can be a trade-off with protecting general education positions and balancing class sizes. If budget pressures continue as they have over the past five years, at some point this becomes a broader conversation with our community — locally and at the state level — about funding our schools.
   
   
2. Sustaining (and possibly growing?) our in-house named programs. We’ve heard repeatedly this year how important community-based relationships are to our kids, and I believe it is a defining characteristic of our district that we value and invest in providing opportunities for students to receive the support they need in our public schools, attending school with their neighbors. I recognize how hard it is to sustain these programs. My own child experienced a year without a lead teacher, and while the team came together to support students, that was a very challenging year for everyone. Our budget needs to provide fair compensation to support adequate staffing for these programs.
   
   
3. Funding materials and training to help educators support students with diverse needs, thus fostering greater inclusion. It can be daunting to think about the range of learners in a single class when you know your lesson materials need to be modified to be effective. Using research-backed curricula that supports many different ways to learn helps, as does professional development and collaboration time with peers and experts. In responding to budget shortfalls over the past five years, our district has reduced spending on curriculum and digital subscriptions compared to peer districts, as well as cut back on curriculum coordinator positions. I’ll be keeping an eye on this to ensure that we are maintaining what it takes to support a high-quality education for every student.

Dennis Burianek

Question 1:I am the parent of two children who have required special education services in their time in AB schools. One of our key drivers to moving to Acton was to be a part of the Minuteman Early Intervention catchment area and the AB schools as they have a reputation for providing appropriate services. My biggest concern is that with the budget pressures over the past five years that reputation and the services we offer to these students will diminish. In addition, with the realignment of the elementary schools, we must pay specific attention to the transition for special needs students and make sure they aren’t lost in the proverbial shuffle. For the first issue, the School Committee and district administration should conduct a study and determine if there are any areas where we send students Out of District that can stay in-district if we hire the right level of services. This has the potential to save costs and provide access to education to students in their home town.

Question 2: I recognize that student outcomes are maximized when families, students, and educators work together to understand each individual student’s talents and needs. I have had children go through every level in the AB school systems from preK-12 and had children who needed and received special services through IEPs and 504s. One of the provisions our IEP required, especially in elementary schools, was in-service instruction for the classroom teacher on how to interact and understand the classroom needs and signals for deaf and hard of hearing children. I knew we had landed in the right place when the teachers recognized that the techniques they were being taught would benefit all of the students, and not just those with special needs.

Setting district policy is one of the three key roles for our School Committee. By continuing to support the policies that support students with disabilities, the School Committee promotes the inclusion of those students with the whole school population. There are some tactical requirements, such as including all students in pictures, bulletins, and school directories, that can make families and students with disabilities feel included. School activities, such as field trips and field days, should be inclusive so that all can feel a part of the experience

Question 3: It is no secret that the costs of the district and special services have been increasing in recent years. I believe that in order to maintain and deserve our reputation as a top-tier district it is essential that we continue providing top-tier services to all students, regardless of their needs. The restructuring that is happening as a result of AB Forward is a step to help consolidate costs and align special needs services in a more equitable and efficient level at the elementary level. By doing this, I am hoping the district can prioritize the rehire of the staff and services that have been reduced in past budget exercises.