The School Department should have a clear picture of how many students are enrolled in Warwick schools this week.

That number is expected to be about 9,000, interim superintendent William Holland said Tuesday. But the figure is closer to 10,000 when it comes to calculating class sizes. That’s because about 1,700 students count for 1.5 or two students.

Those 1,700 students have IEPs, or individual education plans. These are special needs students – for example, those who have dyslexia, are autistic, or may have a physical disability such as partial deafness or blindness. Behavioral disorders also are addressed in IEPs.

The system that has been used in Warwick since the 1980s to determine class size is termed “weighting.” The reasoning is that special needs students require additional attention and therefore should be counted as more than one student when determining class size, which is not to exceed 28 students by contract.

Administrators say the system is cumbersome, in many instances fails to address a student’s needs, and should be eliminated from the contract. Administrators see no risk to special needs students and say they can be successfully educated – even given greater opportunities – without weighting.

That’s not the way some teachers feel.

Weighting has become the visible issue to teacher contract talks, which broke off in September and are now in mediation.

Fearing special needs students could be left behind if weighting were removed from the contract, a Pilgrim teacher and father of a special needs student launched an online petition this week to save the policy. Peter SanGiovanni said Tuesday that in a matter of a couple of days, more than 720 people had signed the petition.

SanGiovanni said in a telephone interview he was compelled to do something after the Sept. 8 School Committee meeting, at which chair Jennifer Ahearn cut off public comment and adjourned the meeting. SanGiovanni said he was prepared to address the committee on weighting but wasn’t given that opportunity.

Speaking of eliminating weighting, SanGiovanni writes: “This policy will cram students who require special services according to their IEPs in large classes which could potentially violate the law and negatively impact all students. Much of this comes with encouragement from the new district special education director, who has recently claimed that special needs children have no need for more support and that Warwick is the only school district that has ‘weighting.’”

Holland said Tuesday that weighting, along with other contract language, is all part of negotiations.

“It has nothing to do with not wanting to maintain small class sizes…we never said we wanted to increase class sizes,” he said.

Holland reasons, “IEPs and state regulations determine the size of classes to begin with.”

“I want to calm parents down. We’re not talking about decreased services and bigger classes,” he added.

Jennifer Connolly, the department’s director of special services, has problems with weighting. She said the system virtually treats all the students the same.

“The problem with weighting is that it sounds good, but it’s redundant,” she said. “It doesn’t guarantee any level of service…smaller classes don’t mean added support.”

As an example, she said a student with a behavior disorder has different needs than one who is dyslexic, yet they may be weighted the same in establishing the size of a classroom. And she finds weighting can serve as a “barrier” to a less restrictive classroom setting that could benefit a student’s learning.

Also, she points out that parents sign off on their child’s IEP, and if they are not content with the service provided there is a means of addressing their concerns that includes due process with the Rhode Island Department of Education.

Under the contract, the system is also guided by ratios. Any class with a minimum of eight students with 50 percent of that class with IEPs is required to have an additional teacher. What will happen in an effort to avoid hiring an additional teacher is for administrators to create bigger classes so as to avoid crossing that 50 percent threshold. For example, a class with seven IEPs and seven non-IEP students could be increased to seven and eight students to avoid the additional teacher provision.

In addition, observes Holland, about 20 percent of Warwick’s enrollment has IEPs as compared to a national average he put at 10 percent. This requires additional teachers, pushing costs up.

But, why does Warwick have so many special needs students?

“I can’t say it is happening here,” answers Connolly, “but research shows other weighting systems end up with more [IEPs] because of financial incentives.”

Connolly estimates weighting has added 1,000 students to the district.

“That’s five elementary schools,” she said.

Further, she claims, “The data isn’t showing it’s an effective system…test scores are not supporting that it’s an effective educational system.”

Cranston schools that does not weight IEP students has an enrollment of 10,726 students of which 1,557 have IEPs or about 15 percent according to Michele Simpson, executive director of pupil personnel services. She said classes with IEPs vary in size based on the individual student needs and the IEP.

Winman Principal Joanne Pelletier is frustrated by weighting, which she says can work against students when classes are bumped up to avoid stepping outside of the bounds of the ratio or adding a teacher to a class when that resource might be better used elsewhere.

Gorton Principal Jeff Taylor said weighting had its place in protecting students when introduced, but it is now out of tune with the times and student needs. He feels it can impair the learning process for both groups of students.

“The role and goal is to ensure student growth across the board,” he said.

SanGiovanni said the purpose of his petition is to create awareness of two issues.

“First, the school department will be under-serving the student population that is the most vulnerable,” he writes. And second, he said, “is that the school committee knows that this is a huge sticking point, and if they succeed it could give them a blank check to blow up class sizes with special needs students who do not have the support required in the room. On a personal note, as a parent of a special needs child in the system, I find it disgraceful that the current school committee will use our special needs population as a bargaining chip in negotiations.”