It has been over a year since reports from parents of
students at Farm Hill Elementary came to light of students being locked in what
other students called "scream rooms." Since the first reports
emerged, the Board of Education make up when got some new faces during the
following election, Superintendent Michael Frechette was bought out of his
contract and replaced with Superintendent Patricia Charles, a new principal
Richard Hendersen took over at Farm Hill, various culpable parties
subsequently left, others remain, but complaints seem to be less at least from
the perspective of what the media is reporting and many other positive
district wide changes in policy have taken place. Just last week it was
reported that Superintendent Charles was able to find away to reduce
copier contract costs for example, freeing up more money for actual education.
At this time last year starting in the spring and going on into the fall
and beginning of the next school year, the media was flooded with
letters from parents with complaints, and headlines about outspoken parents in
tears at Board of Education meetings dominated.
Better communication over all between Administrators and
parents is happening- a good thing that needs to be brought to light. A full
investigation was put forth by the Connecticut's Child Advocate and Persons
with Disabilities offices. An editorial was published in the Hartford
Courant calling to light the fact that this report was finished
and that the results were that the procedures in place regarding the use of
seclusion in public schools in Connecticut were not working, and needed to be
revisited.
Local papers (not naming names
here) and tv stations were quick to put the term "scream room" front
and center. National debate was sparked about discipline in school and
disability services because of what was happening in Middletown. The
segregation versus integration of challenged students raged on during this time
over a year ago, but with no conclusions reached, unfortunately, has died down
in the media. The unfortunate aspect not that some issues have been eliminated,
but that there are still conclusions of what is best that have not been reached.
Some students whose parents were at the center of such debates last year are
now at alternative schools outside of the district that can better meet their
needs, and others had their individual education plans reevaluated and
readdressed at their local schools. Is no news good news? For the sake of the
students, we hope so.
Was it the new BOE? Was it the
departure of one superintendent and the actions of a new superintendent and
administration? Was it parents taking more involved roles at schools? Was it
schools asking for those roles to be taken? Budget transparency? More money? Less money to the wrong things? Was it this report? As election
season approaches and many will step up and try and take credit for all the
changes seen; the truth is it is a combination of these factors and no one
individual who changed things - we really did do it together.
Something good happened in
Middletown that changed our attitudes toward education, and we should all be
proud. Is the fight over and everything ok? The fight for the collective doing
what it is supposed to for education is never over.
Vague in some areas, and specific
in others, the existence of this state report itself is a good step in a
positive direction establishing for the record that there were in fact problems
- problems parents brought to the attention of the media after frustration with
the then broken Board of Education Administration . However, this good news
story was not picked up by local media and papers, our volunteers almost missed
the news the report was finished, had the Courant not published a brief three
paragraph editorial. It is nice to report good news for a change.
The full final report is available here:
http://www.ct.gov/opapd/lib/opapd/documents/adobe/reports/no_more_scream_rooms_opa-oca_report_7-13_final.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of the Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities and
the Office of the Child Advocate
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY No More “Scream Rooms” in Connecticut Schools:
An Investigation into Seclusion Practices at Farm Hill Elementary School, including Analysis of the Responses of the State Departments of Education and Children and Families, and Recommendations for Reform
July 2013
James McGaughey, JD Jamey Bell, JD
Executive Director Child Advocate for Office of
Office of Protection and Advocacy the Child Advocate
for Persons with Disabilities
for Persons with Disabilities
INTRODUCTION
In January 2012, through numerous parent complaints and extensive media coverage, both the Offices of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities (OPA) and the Child Advocate (OCA) were made aware of concerns regarding the alleged inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion of students in Middletown’s Farm Hill Elementary School. Allegations reported included frequent incidents of children exhibiting out of control behaviors in their classrooms, child and staff injuries related to attempts to control child behavior, frequent calls to parents to remove their children from the school, calls to the police, and emotionally distraught children being dragged down school hallways to what were publicly dubbed “scream rooms” within the school. OCA and OPA responded immediately, initiating a joint investigation pursuant to their specific individual statutory mandates and responsibilities. Because reports about the “scream rooms” raised educational regulatory concerns as well as allegations that children were being maltreated, OCA also promptly contacted both the Department of Education (SDE) and the Department of Children and Families (DCF). Those agencies also initiated their own investigations.
PURPOSE OF THE JOINT OPA/OCA INVESTIGATION
OPA and OCA eventually determined that the most useful purpose of their joint investigation would be to examine the incidents and practices at Farm Hill Elementary School in terms of the systems issues they brought to light. More specifically, the joint investigation looked at the practices at Farm Hill Elementary School through a broader lens, one that considered how well the educational and child welfare systems are responding to the needs of students with behavioral and emotional health needs, and addresses how those systems’ responses might more comprehensively address those needs. The decision to focus on systems issues was reached, in part, because the SDE and DCF investigation reports reflected sound methodology, evidenced thorough examinations of pertinent facts, and unflinchingly applied standards from relevant statutes and regulations. DCF examined the evidence it gathered in light of its statutory mandate to investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect. As the designated State Education Agency (SEA), SDE investigated pursuant to its General Supervision System responsibilities, which are intended to ensure Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) correctly implement the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and related provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes (Sections 10-76a to 10-76h, inclusive). Both agencies’ investigations ultimately provided valuable information and recommendations. However, their findings were specifically focused on compliance with existing special education laws, legal requirements governing the use of restraint and seclusion, and laws prohibiting child abuse and neglect. The joint OPA/OCA investigation attempts to delve into questions of policy and best practice, looking beyond the constraints of current statutes and regulations.
The SDE Response: SDE found that Farm Hill Elementary School had violated multiple legal requirements related to the use of seclusion for their students. Specifically: both special education and regular education students were subjected to seclusion (some on multiple occasions); none of the children identified as special education eligible had properly constructed individualized educational plans (IEPs), functional behavior assessments (FBA) or behavior intervention plans (BIP); administrative policies and procedures were nonexistent; training for staff in understanding and managing behavior in young children had not been provided; and, parents were neither aware of nor notified about incidents of seclusion for their young children. Nine corrective recommendations required compliance with the current regulations regarding restraint and seclusion. All measures of compliance utilized paper responses and certifications to the SDE before the end of 2012.
The DCF Response: The DCF investigator documented concerns about lack of documentation on the “time out” room “log”, outdated IEPs, lack of behavioral plans for students identified, apparent lack of written policy related to the use of the ALA room, parents’ concerns about not knowing that their child was placed in the ALA room, and the belief that the school was not adequately prepared to manage difficult behaviors.
DCF did not ultimately substantiate the allegations of neglect by the Farm Hill Principal citing P.A. 07-147 which allows for seclusion rooms for “persons at risk”. Their investigation did, however, conclude that “the issues and concerns identified in the investigation are associated with a failure to follow proper procedure and demonstrate the need for additional training and resources.” DCF documentation did not indicate that it had reviewed the circumstances of any particular child involved in their investigation, or pursued information regarding what factors may have been contributing to the behaviors which led to the use of seclusion by the school. This is particularly significant, as many of the children who were secluded at Farm Hill Elementary School were otherwise known to DCF.
Middletown Public Schools’ Response: Middletown’s response to the investigations by SDE, DCF, OPA and OCA resulted in administrative personnel changes, enhancements to Farm Hill staffing, and assurances of compliance with the SDE’s requirements for corrective actions.
OPA/OCA FINDINGS & ANALYSIS
OCA and OPA concur with the conclusions and recommendations made by DCF and SDE in so far as they reflect factual findings and outline reasonable, immediate improvements to correct deficiencies. More specifically, the SDE and DCF investigations reflected rigorous, thorough and objective fact-finding, and produced reports that were useful in illuminating instances of inappropriate use of seclusion, and failures to follow legally required procedures – procedures which are intended to promote safety and safeguard civil and human rights. However, as the summary above demonstrates, the two agencies’ findings were focused on Middletown’s compliance with existing legal requirements, not on broader questions of policy and best practice. A principal finding of the OPA/OCA joint investigation is that both SDE and DCF need to continue and, in fact, expand upon their leadership initiatives in this arena.
OPA/OCA Discussion Regarding the SDE Investigation
Beyond its role in providing General Supervision and establishing specific requirements for corrective action that may flow from investigations such as that conducted at Farm Hill Elementary School, SDE is responsible for providing leadership and coordinating with other service systems in an attempt to locate related services resources for LEAs that are attempting to comply with IDEA requirements. Toward that end, SDE has recently developed an MOU with DCF regarding the sharing of certain educational records, and sponsors training in topics relevant to behavioral intervention through its related technical assistance program, the Special Education Resource Center. It has also recently issued a guidance document addressing the identification and education of students who fall into the Emotional Disturbance category, and, pursuant to Public Act 12-88, has begun to track and report annually on the frequency with which restraint and seclusion is used in schools. SDE has also successfully applied for a federal grant that provides individual schools with opportunities to participate in Scientifically Based Response to Intervention initiatives, including initiatives geared to providing positive behavioral supports. While its report on Farm Hill Elementary School does not refer to these or other leadership activities, they represent important components in a comprehensive approach to decreasing utilization of aversive procedures such as seclusion. OPA and OCA strongly recommend that SDE continue these endeavors and, in fact, develop a comprehensive plan for systematically ensuring that LEAs and approved special education schools, including those operated by Regional Education Service Centers (RESCs), engage in effective efforts to prevent restraint and seclusion use and to embrace approaches based on positive behavioral support pedagogies. This is especially important because it is reasonable to believe that Middletown is not the only local school district in Connecticut utilizing seclusion as a behavior management technique and that problems similar to those that surfaced through the Farm Hill School investigation may exist elsewhere. It is thus imperative that SDE have the capacity to assess the scope of these challenges for local districts and provide the kind of monitoring, supervision and technical support needed to do address them. Click to read more:
