Yes, the March madness has literally affected our Legislators when they proposed Raised Bill 1142 “An Act Concerning Relief of State Mandates. Buried in this law is special education legislation that seems to be settling some old scores.
On Wednesday March 18, 2009, a “newly” proposed bill (Raised Bill 1142 “An Act Concerning Relief of State Mandates on School Districts”) was a last minute addition to the Connecticut State General Assembly, Education Committee’s docket. This Bill appears to be an assorted list of grievances from State municipalities, local Boards of Education, Boards of Selectmen, Councils, Superintendents, Special Education Directors and Mayors – all nicely wrapped up in a package titled “saving money.”
Connecticut – don’t be fooled! This is a smokescreen it will ultimately cost tax payers more money at a time when school officials need to be held accountable for their actions.
This Bill addresses the following issues related to Special Education and Regular Education:
Section: 1 To permanently delay the implementing the new in-school suspension legislation that was passed last
year. Section 10-233c
Section: 4 To change the burden of proof in a special education due process hearing to the party requesting the
hearing (most often the parents) vs. the school district where it currently lies based on CT state
regulations.
Section: 5 To terminate educational services for a student on their twenty-first birthday, rather than at the end
of the school year.
I testified in opposition to this bill at an Education Committee hearing on Monday March 23. While listening to other individuals testify (e.g. the Mayor of Bridgeport and a CABE (Connecticut Association of Boards of Education) representative, the real issues became clear. This Bill is all about President Obama’s stimulus funds that are specifically targeted for education and the recently passed in-school suspension law that was opposed by organizations like CABE. As Mayor Bill Finch testified, “it’s not fair that millions of dollars go to education and nothing to the municipalities.” The CABE representative stated that his organization is working toward the objective of never having the in-school suspension regulations implemented.
I used to work in Bridgeport many years ago and I truly sympathize with the Mayor’s fiscal budget crisis. The city has had its share of greedy politicians who ran it into the ground and, as a result, school buildings are crumbling from neglect and administrators have failed to provide an adequate education to its students.
This reality was confirmed in a Department of Education 2007 progress report that cited Bridgeport for having failing schools. I know this from my participation in the Connecticut State Advisory Council on Special Education, a group that I currently Chair. It’s no secret many Connecticut cities either barely meet (or don’t meet) basic educational standards set by NCLB (No Child Left Behind) and IDEA (Individual with Disabilities Educational Act).
Who else is supporting this bill? A partial list includes:
· New Haven Public Schools: Dr. Reginald Mayo, Superintendent
· Connecticut Conference of Municipalities
· Connecticut Council of Small Towns (COST)
· Town of Monroe, First Selectman Tom Buzi
· Town of Bristol
· Connecticut Council of Administrators of Special Education (ConnCASE)
· Senator Toni Boucher (R)– Twenty-Sixth Senate District – Member of the Education Committee
· The law firm of Berchem Moses & Devlin (who represent many towns and Boards of Education in due process hearings. They have sent out a notice to all school administrators & Special Education Directors asking them to write their Legislators in support of this bill.)
In reviewing all of the written/oral testimony to the Committee, not one parent or organization that works with children and adults with disabilities testified in support of these proposed sections. This includes state agencies such as Department of Developmental Services DDS; and the Commissioner of Education Mark McQuillan. So Connecticut- look closely at who is in supporting this Legislation.
Burden of Proof: The former Education Commissioner, Dr. Betty Sternberg stated in a Circular Letter on February 22, 2006 that she had no intention of revising state regulations because the Supreme Court Ruling of Schaffer v. Weast had no effect on states that already had Regulations on the books. To date, the Department of Education has not reversed its position on this issue. Dr. Sternberg stated:
“I am not seeking to revise the state regulation to conform to the ruling in the Schaffer case. As the IDEA leaves to the states the management of the hearing system and the law itself is silent on the burden of proof, the standard in Connecticut articulates a valid state policy that school districts are in a better position to defend the appropriateness of an IEP. Districts are in control of following the procedural requirements of the IDEA and of planning and offering an IEP which provides a child with an opportunity to derive meaningful educational benefit, the two criteria courts look at to determine whether an IEP is appropriate.”
It is not enough that the States own Department of Education has gone on record stating they feel the states Regs are sufficient on this issue. Current Department Data indicates that Districts are already prevailing in 90% of Due Process hearings. So why are there so many town Councils and local Boards of Education so opposed to this Regulation? I believe it’s related to another issues entirely, NCLB (No Child Left Behind) requires states to impose in-school suspension as another alternative to out of school suspension.
In-School Suspension Legislation: When this law was first passed in 2007, it received overwhelming support, including that of Governor Rell. The law was designed to do the following:
· Improve student discipline by reducing incentive for students to misbehave (“suspensions as vacations”);
· Afford school administrators appropriate discretion and autonomy;
· Improve academic performance and graduation rates; and
· Save Connecticut’s towns and cities money by reducing juvenile delinquency.
(Connecticut Voices for Children: public statement March 23, 2009)
Connecticut Voices, explains that: “Under the new law, school administrators may still out-of-school suspend students who are so disruptive to the learning process or pose such a threat to persons or property that they need to be removed from school. Moreover, school administrators retain the authority to determine when that threshold is met. The only thing the 2007 law prevents is the –out-of-school suspending of children for mere board policy violations or other infractions that administrators themselves do not think are so disruptive or dangerous as to warrant their removal.”
Many school districts and organizations opposing this legislation have used scare tactics to frighten parents and others who would like to see this law go into effect. They claim that this is an unfunded mandate but, in reality, this simply is not true.
“The law states merely that if a school chooses to suspend a student, that suspension must be “in-school” unless the administration determines that “the pupil being suspended poses such a danger to persons or property or such a disruption of the educational process that the pupil shall be excluded from school during the period of suspension.”
(Connecticut Voices for Children: public statement March 23, 2009)
Connecticut Voices further details recent data on Suspension Practices in Connecticut Schools which should be cause for concern.
- On any given day in the 2006-2007 school year, approximately 1,400 children were excluded from Connecticut schools as a result of having been suspended fro a disciplinary offense.
- The percent of students suspended in the 2006-2007 school year varied dramatically among districts, ranging from 1% to 22%, with a state average of 7%.
- In 2006-2007, nearly two-thirds of suspensions were for “school policy violations” (predominantly insubordination/disrespect, obscene language and/or behavior and attendance violations), while the remainder were for “serious disciplinary offenses” (such as fighting/battery and physical/verbal confrontations)
- Schools in districts with lower socio-economic indicators suspend substantially higher percentages of students than schools in districts with higher socio-economic indicators.
- Black and Hispanic students were suspended at far greater rates than Asian and white students. In the 2006-2007 school year, the suspension rates among black and Hispanic students were at least triple those of the white students: 18% and 13% respectively. By contrast, the suspension rates among Asian and white students were 2% and 4%.
- Special education students are suspended substantially more frequently than their peers. In the 2006-2007 school years, 15% of special education students were suspended compared to only 6% of regular education students.
- Students with low academic performance are suspended more frequently than their peers.
- Students in all grades, including kindergarten, are suspended though the greatest numbers of suspensions tend to happen in the ninth grade. More than one in five (22%) ninth grade students were suspended in 2006-2007.
- Connecticut’s overall suspension rates and minority suspension rates have remained constant for the last two years. However, the percentage of special education students suspended/expelled for a cumulative total of more than 10 days has jumped dramatically in the last four years.
- Connecticut rates 2nd highest in the nation in the percentage of special education student suspended or expelled for a total of more than ten days and within the top ten in the nation in terms of the disproportionate representation of minority students suspended. This is according to data from the 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 school years respectively.
Age Twenty-One: Educational services for a student would be terminated on their twenty-first birthday rather than at the end of the school year. Interestingly, the CABE Representative offered gave no reason other than financial for their opposition to this section. However, during the lengthy questioning by several Education Committee members who were clearly repulsed by several of his comments, he finally admitted that he had no objection if a student remained in the educational program until the end of the school year.
Again, from the tenor of this organization’s comments, this has nothing to do with funding. If it did, he would have not relented to changing his position on allowing twenty-one year old special education students finish the their school year and graduate with their class.
As a parent of a child with a disability, I ask all parents in Connecticut to please oppose Raised Bill 1142 and to let your voices be heard loud and clear! These issues have nothing to do with funding. Our current economic problems are just being used as a convenient excuse for local school boards and school administrators to avoid accountability, which is what this is really about.
Time is of the essence on this issue – please let the Education Committee know you are opposed to Raised Bill 1142:
Education Committee
Room 3100, Legislative Office Building
Hartford, CT 06106
Phone: 860-240-0420
Chairmen: Senator Thomas P. Gaffey (D) (Gaffey@senatedems.ct.gov ) (860) 240-0425
Representative Andrew M. Fleischmann (D)
(Andrew.Fleischmann@cga.ct.go ) (860) 240-0429
Sen. Toni Boucher (R) Toni.Boucher@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-0465
Sen. Sam S.F. Caligiuri (R) Sam.Caligiuri@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8826
Sen. John W. Fonfara (D) Fonfara@senatedems.ct.gov (860) 240-0043
Sen. Andrew J. McDonald (D) McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov (860) 240-0528
Sen. Andrea Stillman (D) Stillman@senatedems.ct.gov (860) 240-0589
Rep. Jason W. Bartlett (D) Jason.Bartlett@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8356
Rep. Matthew Conway (D) Matthew.Conway@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8507
Rep. Michelle Cook (D) Michelle.Cook@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8585
Rep. Paul Davis (D) Paul.Davis@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8581
Rep. Henry Genga (D) Henry.Genga@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8534
Rep. Marilyn Giuliano (R) Marilyn.Giuliano@housegop.ct.gov (860) 240-8700
Rep. Auden Grogins (D) Auden.Grogins@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8585
Rep. Gail Hamm (D) Gail.Hamm@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8549
Rep. Deborah W. Heinrich (D) Deborah.Heinrich@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-0272
Rep. Maryanne Hornish (D) Maryanne.Hornish@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8585
Rep. Tony Hwang (R) Tony.Hwang@housegop.ct.gov (860) 240-8700
Rep. Karen Jarmoc (D) Karen.Jarmoc@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8585
Rep. Susan Johnson (D) Susan.Johnson@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8387
Rep. Themis Klarides (R) Themis.Karides@housegop.ct.gov (860) 240-8700
Rep. David Labriola (R) David.Labriola@houssegop.ct.gov (860) 240-8700
Rep. Timothy LeGeyt (R) Timothy.LeGeyt@housegop.ct.gov (860) 240-8700
Rep. Matthew Lesser (D) Matthew.Lesser@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-0182
Rep. Joan Lewis (D) Joan.Lewis@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8585
Rep. Christopher Lyddy (D) Christopher.Lyddy@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8585
Rep. Douglas McCrory (D) Douglas.McCrory@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8515
Rep. Steven Mikutel (D) Steven.Mikutel@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-0082
Rep. Patricia Miller (D) Patricia.Miller@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8752
Rep. Sandy Nafis (D) Sandy.Nafis@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8585
Rep. Tom Reynolds (D) tom.reynolds@cga.ct.gov (860) 240-8585
Rep. Terrie Wood (R) Terrie.Wood@housegop.ct.gov (860) 240-8700
