Promises Unfulfilled: Accountability and Compensatory Education for Students Receiving Special Education Services
Glass pot filled with pennies and a leaf sprouting from the middle
A recent decision by the now-departed superintendent to cut $10 million from the Special Education (SPED) budget—without the consent of the school board or the Community Advisory Committee (CAC)—has had far-reaching consequences. This unilateral action left more than 200 critical positions vacant, depriving thousands of students of the specialized services they are legally entitled to receive.
The Fallout from Budget Cuts
According to a January 3rd article in the San Francisco Chronicle by Jill Tucker, SPED services recently offered compensatory education to 129 families whose children missed services. While this may sound like progress, it barely scratches the surface of the problem. Reports from families suggest that additional compensatory offers have been made for psychological services, but the district’s overall handling of this crisis remains opaque. There is still no established process for informing the public about the scope of missed services or the steps being taken to address the situation. Transparency and accountability are crucial as the district grapples with the fallout from this misguided decision.
Who Was Affected?
More than 2,000 students were impacted by these budget cuts, falling into three distinct categories:
No Services Provided: Students who received no services at all.
Inadequate Services: Students who received services, but not those specified in their Individualized Education Plans (IEPs).
Contractor-Provided Services: Students who received the correct services from a contracted or qualified substitute provider.
From my research, it appears the 129 students offered compensatory education fall into the first category—those who received no services from special education teachers. However, this leaves the majority of affected students in limbo, with little clarity on how their needs will be addressed.
Inadequate Support for Specialized Services
The second group—students who received services not aligned with their IEPs—raises critical questions about the quality of support provided. While there is consensus that services like occupational therapy and speech therapy should be delivered by licensed professionals, the same standards are not consistently applied to special education teachers and paraeducators. This double standard undermines the specialized instruction that students with IEPs require.
For example, consider a fourth-grade student with dyslexia who is entitled to 180 minutes of structured literacy intervention per week. This type of instruction is essential to helping the student participate in general education classes. Simply having an unqualified adult, such as a school principal, in the room does not fulfill the student’s IEP requirements. Similarly, paraeducators play a critical role in providing targeted support. Without them, students—such as a child with dyscalculia needing help with math—can fall even further behind.
The Overlooked Role of Paraeducators
The majority of the eliminated positions were paraeducators, leaving an estimated 3,000+ students without essential classroom support for an entire semester. Many students still lack access to these services. The district’s failure to prioritize paraeducator positions highlights a broader disregard for the unique needs of special education students.
Addressing the Third Group
Fortunately, some students did receive services from contracted or reassigned individuals with the proper credentials. However, the district has done little to publicize these efforts, missing an opportunity to demonstrate accountability and regain trust.
Steps Toward Transparency
To rebuild trust with families of students with IEPs, the district must commit to transparency. This includes publishing a comprehensive accounting of:
The total number of students who missed services.
The types and amounts of services missed.
The compensatory education offered, broken down by service type (e.g., resource specialists, paraeducators, speech therapists).
Parents can also take action by requesting service logs and verifying the qualifications of those who provided their child’s services. If there is no service log or if the provider’s qualifications do not match the requirements of the IEP, the district has not met its obligations.
A Call to Action
The consequences of the district’s budget cuts are profound and far-reaching, particularly for students whose education and development depend on specialized support. Accountability and transparency are not just necessary—they are overdue. By addressing these failures openly and comprehensively, the district can begin to repair the damage and ensure that every student receives the services they need to succeed.
William Patterson
william.patterson.tutoring@gmail.com
About the Author:
William Patterson is a former Resource Specialist with SFUSD, member of the Community Advisory Committee for Special Education, and founder of William Patterson Tutoring, specializing in dyslexia support.