See below for the candidate responses received to date. As of publication, responses have been submitted by At-Large candidates Brenda Diaz and Omar Lazo, and District 3 candidates Sally McCarthy and Cassandra Sung. We have not yet received responses from Grace Rivera-Oven (District 1) or Elma-Lorraine Diggs (District 5).

1. Central Office Autism Unit cuts

Do you support restoring these central office positions to preserve specialized central expertise for school teams, and how will you address this cut during the budget process?

Brenda Diaz (At-Large):

Yes. I support restoring the Autism Unit positions. As a teacher for 25 years, I've had students with IEPs in my classroom, and I know that a classroom teacher can't be an expert in everything. When a school team faces a complex need, it needs someone it can call who has seen that situation many times before. Cutting that team from 21 to 11 people leaves schools on their own.

I support performance-based, zero-based budgeting, which means every position has to show how it serves students. The Autism Unit passes that test easily: these specialists work directly with school teams on real students. In the budget process, I'll ask the superintendent to show exactly what was lost when these positions were cut, and I'll look for the money first in non-instructional spending, such as unused leases, consultants and promotional spending, before any cut that touches students with disabilities.

Omar Lazo (At-Large):

Yes. I support restoring sufficient central-office autism expertise, so school teams have access to specialists when students have complex instructional, behavioral, communication, or placement needs. This issue is also personal to me. A close friend of mine has two autistic children who are nonspeaking, and I watched their family go through extremely troubling experiences with their school system in Virginia. Their concerns ultimately resulted in legal action that they successfully pursued against the school system. Seeing what that family endured reinforced for me how important, specialized expertise, strong oversight, and meaningful family involvement are when schools are making decisions affecting vulnerable students. During the budget process, I would require MCPS to demonstrate what impact these staffing reductions have had on response times, caseloads, school support, staff training, IEP implementation, and student outcomes. If reducing centralized expertise has weakened services available to students and school teams, I would prioritize rebuilding that capacity. Decentralization cannot simply mean transferring responsibility to schools without transferring the expertise and resources necessary to succeed.

Sally McCarthy (District 3)

Yes, I support having a central office position to support Autism programs and staff. My framework for budget decision making emphasizes examining what is working and what is providing the most return for the most students and staff. This includes Autism programs since this is the fastest growing special population in MCPS (5100+ students, according to MCPS staff) and the Special Education program most likely to be affected by the upcoming Countywide Consolidation & Closure study.

Cassandra Sung (District 3)

Yes, I support restoring central expertise to the level the data shows is needed. Central office specialists support the staff working directly with students, and schools rely on that expertise for complex cases. I would ask MCPS to show what the Autism Unit’s caseload and school requests look like now, and I would fund central staffing to the level that data shows is needed. During the budget process, I would ask for the rationale behind the reported reduction from 21 to 11 positions and for the impact on school teams before supporting any further cuts.

If MCPS persists in decentralizing these supports to neighborhood schools rather than maintaining a centralized team of specialists, what specific oversight measures and reporting requirements will you mandate to ensure equal or better outcomes for autistic students? 

Brenda Diaz (At-Large):

If MCPS decentralizes, it must prove the change works, and the Board should require that proof in public. I would ask for:

• A baseline and regular reports. Before and after the change, report by school and by program: IEP services delivered on time, IEP goals met, time in the least restrictive appropriate setting, suspensions and removals of students with disabilities, and parent complaints and due process filings.
• Training data for every school, showing who was trained, in what, by whom and how many hours, and which schools still have no staff with autism-specific training.
• Response times. How long it takes a school team to get expert help when it asks for it.
• A review date. If outcomes for autistic students are worse after one year, the Board revisits the decision and restores central support.

These reports should be public and presented at a Board meeting, not buried in a memo.

Omar Lazo (At-Large):

If MCPS continues moving autism supports into individual schools, the Board must require clear evidence that students are receiving equal or better services. I would support regular reporting on specialist caseloads, vacancies, response times for school assistance, staff training and coaching, IEP implementation, placement changes, compensatory service needs, complaints, and student outcomes. We should also examine the data across schools to make sure the quality of services a student receives does not depend on their ZIP code or which principal happens to lead their school. Families should also have a clear pathway for escalating concerns when school-based supports are not working. I support local decision-making when it improves services, but decentralization should never become a way to reduce specialized expertise or accountability. The Board must establish measurable benchmarks, review the results regularly, and be willing to change course when the data or family experiences show that a model is not working.

Sally McCarthy (District 3)

The Board’s oversight responsibility and role is to scrutinize and ask questions about the budget and operational impacts. According to MCPS staff, there are “dedicated support networks and specialized resources…integrated within school infrastructures to ensure student success.” But what does this actually mean?

I would ask the Superintendent and MCPS staff for publicly presented data and information about the following:

1. What are budget realignments versus role realignments- to whom and where will these responsibilities land in order to create these “dedicated support networks”?
2. Are there administrative efficiencies and costs actually lost with this decentralization?
3. What are the outcomes metrics for the autism programs and students, and how are these impacted?

I also believe the Board (and the public) should receive monthly updates about Special Education programs and outcomes. The current legal fees report is insufficient and tells us very little about actual student and staff experiences other than where MCPS is failing. 

Cassandra Sung (District 3)

Time and resources must be allocated equitably across schools based on student need and school population, so every student gets the support their plan calls for. I would require regular public reporting on whether services are delivered as written in IEPs, how school teams are being trained, and how outcomes for autistic students compare across schools.