Governor Dannel Malloy’s proposed budget appears to contain the exact same cuts suggested by Republican Governor John Rowland in his 2003 budget.  He intends to close the Board of Education Services for the Blind (BESB), moving the children’s services to the Department of Education and the adult rehabilitation services to the Department of Social Services.    

 In 2003, the attempt to close BESB became one of the ugliest political fights in our state.  Former Governor Rowland’s comment that “It is cheaper to pay these people to stay at home then to pay them to work.” was one of the most outrageous statements that I’ve ever heard from an elected official.  He was referring to the closure of the BESB independent business enterprises that employed over 100 blind and deaf blind BESB clients to sew duffel bags and shirts under a military contract. Today, many of these people are being paid to sit at home because there are no work opportunities for individuals with their skill set.  

 That comment made me get off my duff to join many voices that protested to save BESB.  Supporters, including many ranking Democrats, came out in huge numbers.  People were in the streets demanding that BESB be saved and the Hartford Courant ran numerous stories about how cruel Governor Roland was for attacking the blind community.  The battle lines were clearly drawn between the Democratic Legislature and the Governor. 

Ultimately, while BESB children’s services and rehabilitation services were saved and remained open, the business enterprise ceased operations. Of course, we all know what happened to Governor Rowland. 

Fast forward eight years later to the day Governor Malloy presented his budget on February 16, 2011.  The proposed closure of BESB was not a surprise based on my call to Senator Edith Prague (D) the previous day. I called her office hoping to hear that she was planning to support BESB with the same spirit and vigor that she displayed in 2003. 

I have been impressed with Senator Prague’s tireless advocacy on behalf of people with disabilities and have a great deal of respect for her.  Her career has been impressive and I am truly thankful for all the work she has done over the years.  Therefore, I was taken aback by her noncommittal stance on BESB’s potential closing and didn’t expect her non-answer about wanting to wait until the budget was published before taking a position. I then became very fearful about BESB’s fate because there clearly isn’t going to be support for it like there was in 2003.  Still, I hope that I’ll be proven wrong. 

For the past week, I have been waiting and watching in the hope that someone from the Legislature or the press would step forward to support saving BESB.  After all, what Governor Malloy is proposing is exactly the same as Governor Rowland proposed in 2003.  People were outraged then – why should it be any different today? 

Not a statement has been uttered, not even a murmur or a whisper – there is nothing but silence.  What is happening here?  Why is no one speaking up to support BESB?  After all the years of Democratic Party advocacy on behalf of BESB, are they now going to be responsible for its demise?  Have they become “blind” to the blind and deaf / blind community?  Why now?  Is it because a Democratic Governor says that BESB must be closed?  Those of us who have supported candidates sympathetic to the disability community deserve to hear something more than silence!! 

The facts are that BESB does not solely rely on Connecticut tax dollars for its funding and my understanding is that BESB only gets approximately 20% of its budget from the state. In comparison to other agencies, that’s not a whole lot of money. The majority of BESB’s operating funds comes from Federal funds plus proceeds from state vending machines. For the last eight years, this agency has worked very hard to guarantee every dollar received is accounted for and spent wisely.   

I’ve attended many SRC meetings and I can state without a doubt that Brian Sigman and his staff have done an outstanding job.  I have never met a more conscientious staff who goes the “extra mile” to do what is right on behalf of the blind and deaf blind community.  The staff is well trained with an expertise on all issues of blindness that I have not seen in any other state agency or private/nonprofit organization.  They are truly in a class of their own.

No other state agency or school district can provide these extremely specialized direct services as effectively as BESB.  Governor Malloy’s proposal to divide BESB between the Department of Education and the Department of Social Services is a complete organizational mismatch – e.g. like the proverbial “square peg in a round hole”. These departments are monitoring agencies that only pass along funding to towns / approved vendors – they do not offer direct services to anyone. 

I’ve recently seen several bills that propose to move ear-marked education funds into municipal general budgets.  The Mayor of Bridgeport has pleaded with Education Committee Legislators in public testimony to allow the use of ear-marked education funds for general operating expenses. Unfortunately, the ugly reality is that Education funds are currently the most sought after pools of money by mayors and other municipal leaders. Several town administrators have declared all out war with their Boards of Education over this money. 

What realistic hope is there that any funding ear-marked for the blind will ever actually be used for that purpose? Most likely, it will siphoned off.  Then what?  Who will help my daughter who is entitled to specialized services because she is blind? 

My daughter, who had a stroke before she was born, is missing 50%+ of her brain and, as a result, is cortically visually blind.  She has some vision but not enough to enable normal function and communication.  Images are severely distorted and there are large holes in her field of vision.  When she is sick or overwhelmed, she stops using her eyes and relies on her hearing to figure out what is going on around her.  I would have never known this important fact if it wasn’t for a BESB consultant who specialized in cortical visual impairments.  This is critical information when teaching a child like my daughter. 

There is no one in our school district trained in this highly specialized field that can provide the same quality of services that BESB does.  Currently, my daughter’s future relies solely on services from BESB and from the Department of Developmental Services. I know from experience that we cannot rely on our local school district for these specialized services.

If the Department of Education acquires the children’s services division and the current Commissioner of Education follows the 2003 recommendation from his predecessor, those funds will simply pass through the cost per pupil formula.  I can state with certainty that every child being served by BESB will be screwed out of direct services – they simply will not exist for most districts. 

No district will hire a “consultant for the blind” if they have only 1 or 2 blind children as it would not be cost effective. As this is already the reality for many students who require other specialized related services, it certainly won’t be any different for children who are blind and/or deaf blind.

How many parents have heard the statement “there’s no funding or personnel to work with their child”? Yes, a statement like this is inflammatory and illegal but it’s the truth.  Districts are struggling just like the rest of us.  Today’s reality is that if a district enacts a hiring freeze or receives no replies to a job posting, children are not going to get services. 

Is the CT Legislature going to be this reckless with our most vulnerable population because of a misguided desire to be in lockstep with the Governor on this issue? The closing of BESB will cause irreparable damage, not only to blind children but also to the adult population. An increasing number of “baby-boomers” will soon need the services that BESB provides but where will they find them? They will become buried in a bureaucratic nightmare and eventually we will all pay for this foolish and reckless decision in other ways. 

What other ways you may ask?  As I post this blog, it’s already happening in the caseloads within the Department of Children and Family Services. DCF has one of the biggest budgets in the state and it’s no surprise that many of the children in their care have some type of disability. As an example, 90% of the boys incarcerated at the Juvenile Training Center have an identified disability and are receiving some kind of special educational services – 90% of that population!!

Most of these boys have either a learning disability or some kind of mental heath disability.  The main reason / cause of their incarceration is the failure of their supposed “support system” (including local school districts and any family support agencies).  Because there are fewer and fewer resources in place to support these children in crisis, the courts must resort to putting a band-aid on the problem by incarcerating them. Adding the girls population, “group homes” and other nonprofit organizations housing DCF children both in state and out of state to the mix creates one very expensive problem.    

What’s left for parents to do when there are no available resources?  Many are unfortunately resorting to abandonment, murder or murder/suicide. There are reports that parents are already abandoning their children with disabilities at hospitals around the state. The number of parents who have attempted to murder themselves or their children is also growing.  Last year, a desperate mother in Mansfield, CT  stabbed her severely disabled bedridden son because she felt there were no other alternatives. She reached a point of believing that only her son’s death would end years of continuing hardship, pain and suffering for both of them.    

In Indiana, state social services workers have recommended that parents of adult children with a disability abandon them at homeless shelters because the state can no longer offer support.  If you’re wondering if this will also become a trend here – it’s already happening here!! 

I fully understand and agree with the need for fiscal responsibility. The budget does need to be balanced but not on the backs of persons with a disability.  I think it’s unconscionable for Governor Malloy to propose the elimination of an agency that provides direct support to a vulnerable population – the blind and deaf blind community. It’s even more disheartening to see Democratic legislators stand by and say NOTHING!   This population has been sacrificing and suffering more than ever – don’t take away the only agency that they can rely on for practical and meaningful support.

Governor Malloy and the CT Legislature – please step up to the plate to protect Connecticut’s blind and deaf blind citizens. How can you honestly justify shutting BESB down when the state only contributes 20% of its budget??  Do the right thing – keep BESB open !!

In 2004 the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was revised to include a new section called RTI or Response to Intervention.  The purpose of RTI is to give well planned and thought out additional help to students who are having trouble learning in certain subject areas who ordinarily would have been referred to special education and related services.  

The purpose of this new regulation was to resolve the problem of a small population of students who learned differently, (but did not have a true learning disability) and were referred for special education services.  

What is RTI? 

According to OSEP (United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services), it’s a multi-tiered instructional framework, which is a school wide approach that addresses the needs of all students, including struggling learners and students with special education.  With this multi-tiered framework, schools should be able to identify students at-risk for poor learning and monitor student progress.  In addition, this tiered framework should provide “evidence-based” interventions that should be specific to that students learning style. Confused? So is everyone else, including parents who can’t understand why their child is struggling in school.  

OSEP wrote broad guidelines and told states to figure out the details.  In turn the states created additional guidelines and told the local districts to figure out the micro details and implement.  No two programs are alike anywhere… RTI looks different in every state and district.   

RTI is known by many names: 

In Connecticut the Department of Education renamed RTI to SRBI (Scientific Researched Based Intervention) and made it part of the general education division instead of putting it with the Bureau of Special Education.  This is an unusual step as other states have left their RTI programs within their special education departments.  This has created a great deal of confusion for those who must implement this program.  Many complain there are not clear enough guidelines on when to refer a student for an evaluation.  Clear well communicated guidelines about special education laws and policies within RTI are more of an afterthought in Connecticut’s guidelines.      

The problems implementing RTI: 

There is mass confusion on what to do with those students who really do need special education services.  Many are told they cannot refer a student until they complete a 4 tier RTI program. In addition, even if a student does complete all the tiers there is no guarantee they will be evaluated.  They maybe sent back to the beginning because they are trying a “new and improved” program, therefore a student could potentially be on the RTI merry-go-round for their entire school career. 

Another problem being reported is some local districts are exiting students from special education because they have not first completed RTI/SRBI.  This is absurd and parents should challenge this decision.  If a student has already been evaluated for a learning disability, being exited from special education because they did not go through RTI/SRBI is not a valid (or for that matter legal) reason.  A student should only be exited from special education if they can perform at grade level without any special instruction or related services.    

Many in charge of training have their facts wrong: 

Many who train administrators and teachers in RTI/SRBI have given misleading information.  The most common question asked is when is it time to refer a student to special education?  The message being heard around the country is that a student must complete all tiers of RTI/SRBI before being referred to special education.  This is false! According to IDEA, a student can be referred for an evaluation at any time regardless if they have completed one or all tiers of RIT.  A parent also has the right to request an evaluation at any time.

OSEP steps up and sets the record straight: 

In a memo to state special education directors dated January 21, 2011 from the United States Department of Education: Offices of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSEP) they state:

            ”It has come to the attention of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) that, in some instances, local educational agencies (LEAs) may be using Response to Intervention (RTI) stragegies to dealy or deny a timely initial evaluation for children suspected of having a disability.  States and LEAs have an obligation to ensure that evaluations of children suspected of having a disability are not delayed or denied because of implementation of RTI strategy.”

Steps parents can take if their child has been denied services: 

If you are a parent and feel your child needs to be evaluated for a learning disability and were denied because they did not go through all the tiers of RTI/SRBI.  You first need to make a formal request (preferably in writing, but not required legally) to your child’s principal and districts special education director for an eligibility evaluation for special education and related services pursuant to IDEA law.  The request can be a simple statement “I want my child to be evaluated for special education and related services according to IDEA.” 

According to IDEA Regulations 34 CFR Subsection 300.301(b) allows a parent to request an initial evaluation at any time to determine if a child is a child with a disability.  

In addition, if a local district does not suspect that the child has a disability, and denies the request for an initial evaluation, that district must provide written notice to parents explaining why the public agency (i.e. the school) refuses to conduct an initial evaluation and the information that was used as the basis for that decision.  See CFR Subsection 300.503(a)(b) of  IDEA.  

If a parent still disagree with the districts response (or lack there of) parents can do two things according to IDEA.  They can challenge their districts decision through their states department of education division of special education by doing the following:  

1. Filing a “State Complaint” pursuant to IDEA 34 CFR subsection 300.153
2. Filing for a “Due Process Hearing” under IDEA 34 CFR subsection 300.507

 No student should be both denied, delayed or exited from special education and related services in the name of RTI (CT-SRBI).  If you have questions about your child’s rights under IDEA, contact your state department of education – department of special education for advice. 

For a full copy of the memo from the United States Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSEP) go to www.ctdisabilitiesconnections.org.

 Don’t be dependent on someone’s interpretation of your health history – this is a recipe for disaster. Inaccurate information is the leading cause for medical mistakes. It is up to you to know your personal medical history so you can prevent simple mistakes.

 CT Disability Connections, LLC (www.CTdisabilitiesconnections.org) now offers a solution – we have created a private online medical diary which stores all your healthcare information.  There is no software to download and is accessible to you 24 – 7.  It’s your history, you preserve it – you decide who sees it for as little as $10.00 per month for a single user.

 No “Big Brother” will be checking or accessing your records – unless you give them permission.  Beware that if you currently use an insurance medical record service they are monitoring your files.  Eventually this leads to them controlling your care – instead of you and your doctor.

 Go to www.ctdisabilitiesconnections.org and sign up CT Disability Connections Medical Diary for as little as $10.00 per month for a single user.

 The Healthcare Mess

 Whether you are for or against national healthcare I think there is something that everyone can agree on is the current healthcare system is not working and something needs to be done. In January Dateline NBC did a show title “Critical Condition” which showed the pain and suffering families must endure to get healthcare coverage for their loved ones.  The families featured were working middleclass people who discovered to late that their insurance benefits were not enough to either treat or save themselves or their family member.    

 The stories were heartbreaking and I suspect there are hundreds if not thousands of families who have a similar horror story to tell.  I know I do – so why do so many people think there is nothing wrong with our healthcare system? I guess they have never had a healthcare crisis before and put their coverage to the test.  It’s a rude awakening to be told there is a treatment, but your insurance company does not cover it. For those who say there is nothing wrong with our current system all I can say is you are naïve.  There is an old Cheyenne proverb that says “Do not judge your neighbor until you walk two moons in his moccasins.”

 “…denials are good…the problem is healthcare is not black and white and insurance company’s need to recognize that …” says one healthcare expert.  I agree in part with this comment, medicine is part art and part science and it’s a balance between the two.  Science plays a critical role in eliminating most of the guesswork, but science sometimes fails us and we have to depend on the wisdom and experience of our doctors – that’s where the art comes in. 

For many their healthcare coverage is of little use in a crisis.  What’s appropriate for one patient is a death sentence for another.  Premiums are costing families thousands of dollars; therefore for that kind of money our policies should be flexible enough to meet the needs of each customer member. Instead we are faced with rigid rules and policies, gate keepers who are trained to say no and layers of bureaucracy in the form of third party administrators while top insurance executives are paid huge salaries and bonuses. 

 To give you an example, in 2009 my husband and I paid out over $17,000 for healthcare for our family. That includes premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.  That number would have tripled if our daughter didn’t qualify for some federal support. Every year we can expect our healthcare premiums to increase 15% to 20% in turn  we get less coverage and more out-of pocket expenses. We can’t absorb much more without risking our daughter’s health and potentially her life. Something has to give soon.

 Go to www.ctdisabilitiesconnections.org to sign up for the CT Disability Connections Online Medical Diary today and take control of your life. 

If it’s been awhile since you visited our website I recommend you check it out.  We have added some new items which we are excited about.  We now offer an Online Medical Diary.  This is a subscription service for as little as $10.00 per month for a single user.  There is nothing to download or software to learn.  All you need to do is register and click “enter” and you are ready to begin inputting your information.  Your personal medical diary is available to you 24-7 wherever you are with an internet connection.  

The other new feature we added on our Education page is a series of animated tutorials on the Connecticut Individual Education Plan (CT – IEP).  These are self guided tutorials for parents who need additional help understanding Connecticut’s IEP.  If you have questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.  

In the fall of 2009, we have partnered with PediaFlex Therapy Center in Glastonbury, CT hosting a parent’s support group every other month.  February 2^nd is the next scheduled meeting and a staff person from Connecticut Parent Advocacy Center (CPAC) will be the guest speaker.  Please check out our flyer on our website under our Community Calendar for more information. We hope to see you there.

CNN Editorial:

Outlaw child abuse in schools

http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/08/miller.mcmorrisrodgers.childabuse.legislation/index.html

To view Representatives Miller and McMorris Rodgers press conference click on  the link below

http://edlabor.house.gov/video/12-09-09Press-Conf.wmv

 Sounds simple – right? However, we know that this is not the case for some of us. Most parents would rather have a root canal than sit in one of these meetings fighting for basic and reasonable services for our children. I’m sure the feeling is mutual on the other side of the table. For those educators and parents who work well together, give yourselves a pat on the back for a job well done. We need more of you out there.

 In the last ten years, my husband and I have attended our share of PPT meetings. Some havebeen productive, cooperative and outright fun. Other meetings have been contentious to the point the tension was so high the only participants speaking were the Director of Special Education and my husband. Did we always walk away from the meeting with everything we asked for? No. However, we did successfully negotiate what was most important on our list and left the rest on the table for another day.

 This is where I give all the credit to my husband. He is a gifted negotiator and we put these skills to work to obtain the best possible services for our daughter. He once explained it to me like this. Our daughter’s school career could be at least 15 years – do we want to take the first shot in the first year in the first quarter? Or, is it best to pace ourselves, provide as much as we can outside of school and save our energy for the big issues? What items can we reasonably negotiate by ourselves without hiring an Advocate or an Attorney?

 So we began the process of documenting the facts, questioning, and evaluating our daughter’s educational program during the year – constantly checking and questioning the school to make sure that Katie was on track. If a situation developed we could pull back review our facts, ask additional questions (if applicable) and then determine our response in a controlled manner rather than just reacting to everything that came at us.

 Before going into a PPT, the most important thing to remember is knowing what you want, then articulate to the school what action(s) you want them to take and have concrete facts to back up your request.  For example, one year on the first day of school I met our daughter’s “new” paraprofessional. As I’m getting to know this sweet woman, I find out she is 80 plus years old and has been suffering from severe osteoporoses. In addition, she has a “no lift” order from her doctor.

  I’m thinking to myself, okay this means she won’t be able to lift our daughter out of her wheelchair to change her diapers, physical therapy is out and she won’t be able to participate in circle time on the floor. If she does have to lift Katie for any reason and something happens, I’m envisioning both of them on the floor and enough broken bones between the two of them to keep two orthopedic doctors  busy for awhile. We have a big problem. 

 We quickly notified the school principal that for safety reasons (hers and our daughters) my husband and I cannot allow this woman to work with our daughter.  An emergency PPT proceeded – it was a bitter pill for them to swallow recognizing the mistake hiring this woman. They agreed to our request to hire our homecare nursing agency at whatever the current the contract rate was. 

 Our process of evaluating the situation:

What did we want?

 A guarantee our daughter was safe at school and the person filling the position of paraprofessional was qualified. (Note: Safety issues are huge red flags and every school administrator is afraid of being sued because they failed to keep your child and their peers’ safe at school. You will be surprised how fast a mountain moves to resolve “safety” issues.)

What action did we want the school to take?

 Hire our homecare nurse. Prior to the PPT, I had called the homecare agency confirming it was possible for the school to contract with them. I found out that schools routinely contract with homecare agecies and this was not a big deal. 

 What were the facts to support our request?

The school’s newly hired paraprofessional has a preexisting medical condition that prevents her from carry out her duties as a paraprofessional.  Therefore she was not qualified to be our daughter’s paraprofessional.

 What are the consequences to my child (and/or family) if I wait a week, several months or more to address (or not) this problem?

 Katie gets hurt and/or other health problems develop from not being repositioned often.  She’s segregated from her typical peers by not being allowed to sit among them during group activities. Consequences to our family would be my husband has to take additional time off from work for doctor’s appointments and possible hospitalization for injuries sustain in a fall. There is a financial strain because of expenses incurred trying to resolve the health problem/injuries and added emotional stress on the family.

 Our decision: Act immediately – remove Katie from the care of this paraprofessional and request an emergency PPTfor safety reasons. We cannot trust the school to hire appropriate staff – to resolve the situation quickly they hire our homecare nurse.  

 To facilitate and simplify this process, we have created 5 things that will help every parent keep factual records so when a situation occurs resolving it will be  factual and persuasive.

1. Create a home Special Education Journal

 Phone Log

Meeting Log

Event or Situation Log (This is a log that will benefit those parents/guardians whose child has frequent episodes of behavioral outbursts at school. This will give you a way to document school staff need training in positive behavioral management techniques.)

2. Learn how to read your child’s IEP 

Understand what the goals and objectives are. If you don’t understand, ask the school team to explain what they wrote.

Confirm your child is receiving all their modifications/accommodations and support services listed in their IEP. If not, find out why and document what you learned in your home journal. Then go back and address the situation. Call another PPT if you cannot get the problem address outside the PPT. 

Evaluate if your child is making progress during the term. If not, can you figure out why? For example, has your child has been sick for long periods of time; spent more time out of the classroom in the nurse’s office, principal’s office or hallway, having too many behavioral problems that need to be addressed by a behavioral specialist or is the school not doing their job?

 If the school insists that your child has made progress during the school term, and you disagree, ask for work samples, test scores or evaluations that confirm the progress. Don’t be afraid to ask what is their definition of “making progress”. That answer might be different from what you think. 

Note: www.CTdisabilitiesconnections.org will soon be posting a “new” tutorial on the Connecticut IEP page by page. So be on the look out!

3. Get a basic understanding of the Special Education laws; both Federal (IDEA and NCLB) and your state Special Education laws. Some state laws go beyond the Federal laws and hold schools to a higher standard – that’s a good thing! You don’t have to be an expert on this – just the basics are good enough.

4. After the PPT, go home and immediately document in your home journal the facts of what happened. Were all of your concerns answered/addressed? If not, assess your next steps.  Ask yourself these questions:

What is it that I want from the school?

What action(s) do you want the school to take?

What documented facts to you have to support your request?

What are the consequences to my child (and/or family) if I wait a week, several months or more to address (or not) this problem?

5. Control your emotions! Never threaten school officials with a lawsuit and/or take them to due process. Not only does this make it appear that you are out of control but it has minimal impact on the officials since this threat is made often. Save your breath!  I have been guilty of making these comments in the heat of battle. However, my husband reminded me that you never let them know they “got ya.” Instead, you keep your cool, are professional and fight fire with fire.

 How do you handle a contentious situation? By ending the meeting immediately before you and/or others get out of control. When you’ve cooled off, follow up with a letter and/or memo outlining the issues that resulted in the impasse to the person with the authority to change your child’s IEP. Try to see things from the school’s perspective if you can (I know this can be hard). What is the biggest thing they are afraid of? (Child safety is a big fear for administrators).

Understanding the schools perspective (you don’t have to like it or agree with it) but will give you some tools to suggest a reasonable solution to the problem that will be a win/win for both sides. The tenor of the letter should be one of cooperation and reason – not words of hate and anger (even though that may be how you feel). Remember this is all admissible in court so you want to give the appearance that you are in control – trying to cooperate and it’s the school that is being unreasonable. Send additional copies to everyone who attended the PPT/IEP meeting and also send a copy to the senior authority person at that meeting supervisor. For example, if the person of authority was the Director Special Education and their boss is the Superintendent then send a copy of your letter to them as well. (For more information on navigating the Connecticut School System go to www.CTDisabilitiesConnections.org click on Education then click on “Connecticut Education System”).

  If you were mistaken and/or misunderstood the facts, request a response that will correct/clarify your mistake. It’s critical that this be done in writing. District personnel are not dumb – they will figure out quickly that you are converting opinions into written facts and creating a legal trail that will be admissible in court. That’s how you get their attention!

 A few years ago, we had to ask the Special Education Director to no longer communicate with me by phone but only in writing. Every time she spoke, she was rude and disrespectful, she violated IDEA and state Special Education laws and it always ended being my word against hers. It was no secret what our issues were.

 The problem was resolved quickly – however, not by the Special Education Director but by the Superintendent (her boss) and by the school principal. They, as well as the entire PPT/IEP team and Chair of the Town Board of Education, were copied on all of our written communications, which were polite, professional, factual, and direct. The documented legal trail we had created was an attorney’s dream come true – and the Superintendent knew it.  

 In Connecticut, an important statistic to know is that 90% of Due Process rulings favor school districts. Parents are spending tens of thousands of dollars defending their child’s right to a free and appropriate education or FABE and are not winning. So why are the rulings so out of balance? My theory, based on my own research, is that parents might be “jumping the gun” prematurely and don’t develop enough strong evidence to win their cases. Whatever the reason, parents need to document the facts, preferably by using the districts own letters and memos that are in direct contradiction of what’s been written in the IEP and IDEA and state Special Education Laws. We need more success stories of parents prevailing against schools.

 Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. However; I do have a legal assistant degree and worked in corporate law for ten years (five of which involved the litigation arena). If you feel that expert legal advice is essential, please be sure to engage an experienced special education attorney in your area.

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.

1. 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.

1. 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%.

1. 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)

1. Schools in districts with lower socio-economic indicators suspend substantially higher percentages of students than schools in districts with higher socio-economic indicators.

1. 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%.

1. 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.

1. Students with low academic performance are suspended more frequently than their peers.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. Connecticut rates 2^nd 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

However, I really came unglued by an “entertainment” reporter’s interview of the EMT who transported the Travolta family to the hospital. She asked if Jett had froth and foam coming from his mouth and nose as if to portray the impression that people having a seizure typically appear “possessed”.  

Is this really surprising in view of the media’s fixation on sensationalism and the ratings driven need to be first with what “people” want to know?  The “news entertainment” media often go to extremes to tell a story and it appears to have no qualms about stretching the facts for “the effect.” In this case, however, this reporter went too far.

Miss “Entertainment” Reporter needs to be informed that most people who have a seizure don’t look like they’re in the midst of an “Exorcist” like demonic possession. Had she bothered to conduct a quick Internet search on the subject of seizures (e.g. on the Epilepsy Foundation or WebMD websites), she would have obtained an accurate source of background information for her interview. It would have been time well spent on her part and prevented her from coming across as an “air-head” on the subject matter.  

I understand that “spinning” a story can do wonders for ratings. However, associating a seizure with body jerking foam frothing creates an unflattering and unfair stereotype of individuals with a seizure disorder. This incorrect perception unnecessarily adds to the general public’s fear of people with seizures that results from their lack of knowledge.  So, please stop describing someone having a seizure with those kinds of images and instead rely upon the facts – as “unsensational” as they may be. 

My daughter was diagnosed with epilepsy at six months of age as a result of structural damage to her brain. She had a stroke prior to her birth and 80% of her right brain encapsulated into liquid cerebral fluid. By her first birthday, she was having over 200 infantile and myoclonic seizures a day.

At first, the seizure activity was no more than subtle head movements to the left and back and forth eye movement and we hardly noticed it.  The good news was that, despite all the erratic electrical activity in her brain, she could still eat by mouth, had some use of her hands and responded to people she knew.    

As the years progressed, I have had my share of people overreacting when learning that my daughter has an uncontrolled seizure disorder. School official’s demands have ranged from wanting direct access to Katie’s neurologist (which I do not advise) to suggesting that I follow her school bus in my car carrying medication to administer in the event she had the “big one”.

There are over 3 million Americans who suffer from Epilepsy and seizures. Approximately 200,000 new cases of seizures and epilepsy occur each year and 10% of the American population will experience a seizure in their lifetime (Epilepsy Foundation – Epilepsy and Seizure Statistics). Treatment decisions will depend on the type of seizure diagnosed as well as the possible causes. My daughter has a structurally damaged brain so that was easy to figure out but, in other situations, it might be genetic. 70% of cases have no known cause and are labeled as “Idiopathic epilepsy” – Latin for “of unknown cause.”

If there is a family history of seizures, including “febrile” (fever-caused) or childhood seizures, they could go into remission as the child ages. It’s also possible that the reverse could happen with a child developing seizures when they enter puberty. According to the Epilepsy Foundation’s website, more research is needed to determine the root causes of some of these forms of epilepsy.

Everyone should be aware of a condition known as “Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy” or “SUDEP.” It’s defined as a sudden, unexpected, non-traumatic, non-drowning death in an individual with epilepsy, witnessed or un-witnessed, in which postmortem examination does not reveal an anatomical or toxicological cause for the death. (“Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy – eMedicine article May 17, 2006). The fact that doctors can’t predict if this can occur in a person with epilepsy is a concern.

In 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration and Burroughs-Wellcome attempted to develop criteria for SUDEP. Per the eMedicne article, the following criteria are now used in “most” SUDEP studies (meaning that they’re reduced to a lot of guessing):

·        The patient has epilepsy, which is defined as recurrent unprovoked seizures;

·        The patient died unexpectedly while in reasonable state of health;

·        The death occurred suddenly (i.e. within minutes);

·        The death occurred during normal and benign circumstances;

·        An obvious medical cause of death could not be determined at autopsy;

·        The death was not the direct result of a seizure or status epileptics (a state of persistent seizure).

The typical age range has been in patients who are in their third or fifth decade (i.e. age 20-40 years), with a higher incidence at the younger end of the range. The article further indicated that SUDEP is very rare in children.

Is this a possible explanation for the death of Jett Travolta? We will probably never know unless John Travolta and Kelly Preston release that information. I have no direct knowledge of the details surrounding Jett’s death other than what was reported by the media. However, my uneducated guess is that his death was the result of the head trauma he sustained when he fell vs. the result of a seizure.  

I recently received a Christmas solicitation letter from the Connecticut Epilepsy Foundation. In it, Hedy Kelly shared her heart breaking story from this past September of the loss of her teenage daughter Kim. Kim had just been diagnosed with epilepsy eight days before she passed away in her sleep. Hedy recounts those painful days as they learned of her condition and the ensuing “merry-go-round” trying to figure out how to best treat her daughter.

As I can personally attest from the early days of Katie’s treatment, it was very difficult and scary waiting helplessly while the doctors determined the proper mix of drugs. However, a diagnosis of Epilepsy and seizures should not be viewed as a death sentence either. Much more research and development work remains to identify effective treatment regimens and the lack of funding is always an impediment to achieving progress and solving the problem. Current seizure treatment is often a “hit or miss” proposition with some treatments working and some not. However, children shouldn’t have to die until epilepsy research receives the huge cash infusion needed to find more effective treatments.

We have tried virtually all seizure treatment options, including homeopathic remedies. However, it has been years since any physician has alerted me to any new seizure treatments for Katie and there doesn’t appear to be much out there at the moment. Despite this reality, I continue to be hopeful and pray for that “miracle treatment” to come along.

In the meantime, it would be nice if the media stopped portraying a person having a seizure as some demonic possessed foam frothing monster. It would be even better if TV dramas stop depicting medical personnel holding down a person having a seizure and shoving a tongue depressor wrapped in gauze and tape in their mouth (which I actually saw recently on a cable hospital drama).

One would think that, in our “advanced” and “politically correct” 21^st century society, there would be a greater awareness of and sensitivity to the many disabilities that affect such a large portion of the population. Unfortunately, as Jett Travolta’s death reminds us, much work remains to be done before we get to that point.

Katie was discharged from the hospital on November 6, 2008, nineteen days after she was rushed to the emergency department at the Children’s Hospital. Since then, she has been stable and making progress but she is still not “out-of-the-woods”. Her bi-weekly CBC blood work continues to improve but is still not normal. Her surgical incision is closing from the inside out and now requires wound changes once a day. Her surgeon has ordered six more months of continuing antibiotic treatment – three months administered via IV twice a day and then three months administered orally.   

We have a standing weekly appointment with the surgeon who monitors blood work and modifies wound dressing techniques as necessary. Each week it’s a new ball game. We started with the “wound vac”, which required changing by a “certified wound nurse” three times a week. After four weeks of this, the deep muscle tissue started to fill in unevenly and the “leak” alarm would invariably go off when I had no nursing coverage. The most frequent time was on a Saturday or Sunday morning. I was getting a bit cranky and the last thing I wanted to do was a wound vac change at 2:00 a.m. to fix a leak.

My short temper with the wound care staff and the uneven tissue growth resulted in the wound vac being discontinued after four weeks. It was time to re-think the process and they came up with packing the wound cavity with gauze impregnated with Dermagram-B Cream. After watching the staff pack her spine I thought this is going to be a no brainier process and much easier than the wound vac.

My first attempt changing the wound vac dressing reminded me of an old “Calvin” cartoon where Calvin ended up with more wrapping and tape on him than on the package. It was not much different with me. I had pieces of the dressing film attached to everything including Katie’s hair, bed and my husband who was assisting me. It was a mess. However, I did get a good seal around the wound and that was the goal. It was wonderful to free Katie from that machine which made so much noise.

Since then, we progressed from Dermagram-B Cream to several different types of dressings changes depending on how the moisture content of the incision. For example, we used Mesalt, wet-to-dry gauze and Telfa bandages. I’ve also become quite good at monitoring how a wound changes during the healing process, with color and odor being the two of biggest indicators that something is wrong. 

Katie’s strength and endurance has improved in the last month. She has been sitting in her wheelchair for more than three hours a day – this is real progress! Nutritionally, she is doing well enough and is gaining weight. This was a big concern this past year before her surgery. Katie’s Pediatrician felt the scoliosis was so severe that it was interfering with her ability to properly digest food and therefore she was not receiving optimal nutrition.  

During her second hospital admission, we were surprised to learn that, in addition to a raging infection, she might also have a “sick thyroid” as her protein and potassium levels were well below normal. We noticed that she didn’t respond when poked with needles. I was told that our brains send out a chemical which produces a “fight or flight” response to pain or stress. In children like Katie, crying is a normal response when in stress or in pain. This wasn’t happening at all when painful procedures were being done on her. We were concerned that there was another underlying problem developing.

However, adjustments were made to her diet – e.g. – amino acid powder has been added to her formula and vitamins and nutritional supplements have been restarted. We are excited that she is gaining weight steadily but I’m still concerned that she is still missing something nutritionally. She is now experiencing an unusual amount of hair loss as well as muscle pain when stretched or massaged. As of yet, no new dietary changes have been ordered.    

We therefore continue to wait and monitor. At the end of January, the Vancomycin will end marking the halfway point of the treatment and Katie will then start on three months of oral antibiotics. Bi-weekly blood work will continue checking the “CRP” (C Reactive Protein) and Sed Rate (Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) levels. When these levels reach and are maintained within normal ranges, the surgeon can declare victory. However, if these remain high, this means that the infection is still active. The only alternative would then be another surgery to remove the rods from her spine and we start all over again. I don’t want to think about that prospect.

In the coming weeks, I will be changing the focus of this blog to a discussion of topics in the news relevant to parents of children with disabilities. These will include epilepsy, ethical issues associated with physician discussions of end-of-life planning and educational topics etc. So – stay tuned!

Our deepest sympathies go out to the family of John Travolta and Kelly Preston on the loss of their beloved son Jett. Words cannot describe the pain and sorrow that a parent feels when they have lost a beloved child. Our prayers are with you during your time of grief.