Legislators’ Unusual Call For Special Ed Probe

Raises Procedural Questions

By John Voket

On May 18, Representative DebraLee Hovey and Representative Chris Lyddy co-signed a letter to the state Department of Education “requesting a formal investigation of the Newtown Special Education Department and school system based on the inordinate number of complaints registered with our offices.” This week a Connecticut Department of Education spokesperson classified that request as “very rare.”

While the state DOE spokesperson, Thomas Murphy, said there was no way for his department to track whether such a request has ever been initiated by a state lawmakers before, he said, “We are not aware of a state lawmaker filing a complaint through the Complaint Resolution Process.”

Mr Murphy said it is “certainly possible that state lawmakers have requested investigations through special education units other than the due process unit or other bureaus or offices within the state Department of Education, but I would not be aware of that.”

At the same time, First Selectman Pat Llodra, who spent much of her career working in the education field, said that she is confident the district is poised to move forward addressing concerns brought to light by Reps Lyddy and Hovey on behalf of as many as 50 parents who contacted the lawmakers during recent months.

“I spoke with both Dr [Janet] Robinson and [Board of Education Chair] Bill Hart this week, and they both said they clearly understand it is a serious event when legislators call for such an investigation,” Mrs Llodra told The Bee.

The first selectman said she was reassured by both school officials that “they want to fully examine each issue, particularly [accusations] that practices are flawed, or the perception that they are flawed.”

“Both Bill and Janet say there has to be corrective action,” Mrs Llodra said. “We are committed to ensure the community has confidence in special education practices. I believe they will do the right and best thing.”

In a follow-up letter to a meeting attended by Rep Hovey, Superintendent Robinson and Mrs Llodra in mid-March, Rep Hovey acknowledged that some concerns parents expressed may be rooted in perceptions. Referring to Newtown’s Director of Pupil Personnel Michael Regan, Rep Hovey observed based on the complaints that he has a “chilling effect on the progress of the PPT [Planning and Placement Team] and its outcome.”

“There appears to be a perception that [Dr Regan] has veto power over team decisions. Whether this is fact or perception, again, means that perception is somewhat a reality, so it needs to be addressed,” Rep Hovey wrote.

‘Appropriate Feedback’ Invited

The initial March follow-up letter from Rep Hovey was also sent to State Senator John McKinney and Suzanne Lang, a Newtown resident who has formed a support group called Parents Advocating for their Children (PAC) and has influenced the district’s creation of a special education advisory board. According to Rep Hovey, information and referrals made through PAC were among the correspondence that prompted her to initiate the March meeting with Newtown officials.

On May 25, Dr Robinson issued a press release referring to the complaint, and praising Newtown’s special education professionals. At the same time, Dr Robinson said the special education department is “always striving to do our work better.”

In that release, Dr Robinson expressed a willingness to undergo a “fair and thorough evaluation” and to “take advantage of any opportunity to receive appropriate feedback,” presumably from state officials if such an audit is to occur.

Mr Hart told The Bee that he and the rest of his board are “committed to ensuring that the District provides a free and appropriate public education to all the students in Newtown.”

“I know that the District has a dedicated and competent staff that tries to do the best possible job,” Mr Hart said. “I look forward to seeing the results of a full review of the District’s special education programs.”

But according to Mr Murphy at the DOE, there is still some way to go before an audit of Newtown’s special education system is initiated, if one occurs at all. And he said due to the unique nature of the lawmakers’ complaint, it is possible an investigation may be initiated by another bureau at the state level beyond the complaint resolution process.

“At this point in time, we are not sure the Bureau of Special Education will be handling this through the complaint resolution process or whether other bureaus within the department will be involved.  The complaint is very broad and somewhat general, so we need more information before we determine how or if we will be doing an investigation through the Bureau of Special Education,” Mr Murphy said. “It may be through the office of legal affairs.”

First, state DOE officials have to sit down with Reps Hovey and Lyddy to review their concerns in person. And the DOE spokesman clarified the parameters under which complaints of this nature are required to be addressed.

“Through the state’s complaint resolution process, a complaint may be filed by anyone and must allege a violation that occurred not more than one year prior to the date that the complaint is received by the Bureau of Special Education,” Mr Murphy explained. “It may be about a specific child or be ‘systemic’; there is a 60-day timeline to complete and report on a complaint investigation, although extensions may be granted for complicated complaints involving a great deal of documentation and/or a need for additional time to investigate.”

Five Years, 42 Cases

Mr Murphy noted that since the 2006-2007 school year the state has compiled 42 hearing requests, calls for mediations, and/or complaints from Newtown special education parents or caregivers. The majority of the hearing requests were eventually dismissed or withdrawn, typically because the parties settled.

Eight complaints resulted in one violation found; one dismissed because the parent went to a hearing; one pending; one finding of no violation; and the rest either withdrawn or dismissed.

In the 13 mediation cases since 2006, four did not reach an agreement. But Mr Murphy noted, “That a mediation did not result in an agreement only means that the parties did not reach agreement on the day of the mediation. Often, the mediation process puts the parties on the road to settlement and an agreement is reached sometime later.

“Also, it is quite common for parties who do reach agreement on the day of mediation to draft the agreement sometime later so that we do not necessarily ever receive the actual agreement,” the state official concluded. “In any case, mediation agreements are strictly confidential in accordance with federal requirements.”

As the process initiated by the lawmakers’ call for an investigation moves forward, Mrs Llodra conceded that the ultimate concern for privacy and the protection of the identity of parents and children involved will necessitate much of the procedure, if an audit is to occur, to play out outside the public eye.

“An audit is procedural. Reviewers look at whether there is compliance with procedures,” Mrs Llodra said. “The answers are usually yes or no, with the possibility of suggested improvements is concerns are discovered.”

But in more than two decades of work in the educational arena, Mrs Llodra said she never saw or heard of an audit into the areas of access and quality of service.

“I’m confident internally there will be a process initiated to improve communication to parents,” she said. “But the need to maintain confidentiality hampers the level at which the audit [process] can play out in public. We have to trust it will play out in a fair and balanced way.”