Showing posts with label BOE Admin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BOE Admin. Show all posts

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Reader Submitted: I would have simply liked to have heard, "I'm sorry". from the BOE

Below is a letter submitted to the Eye from reader Jane Majewski. Majewski spoke emotionally during the public session at the last Board of Education meeting Tuesday. Earlier in the year Majewski started a petition calling for the termination of three Special Education Administrators because of what she felt was the mismanagement of her special needs son's education. The petition is here. The photo is of the courtyard at Keigwin School where Majewski stated her son wandered into the pond area pictured after she was reassured that the doors to the courtyard we locked at all times.

Majewski's letter is below. The posting of her letter is a courtesy, and does not necessarily represent the views of all the Eye contributors. The burden of proof lies with the author, Jane Majewski.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Words That I finally heard for the first time from BOE member Shelia Daniels . The sound of those words almost made me to breakdown in tears. It was echoed again moments later by Cheryl McClellan. Words that I have been waiting for since the beginning of becoming vocal about the issues we faced in this school district. Words that had I heard sooner, from anyone, I would not have called for the terminations of our BOE administrators.

The apology came after I presented the BOE with photos and a plea.

I have consistently voiced my concerns about the closing of the DEAL program- on two levels. One, that it was being closed and two that that transition of those kids into icm status was done without parental input.

Had I been asked, I would have offered my time, my expertise, my physical help and financial resources to help ensure a safe transition of our children into the district schools. For free, I would have told administrators that preschool size furniture for fifth graders would be ineffective. For free, I would have pointed out that a timeout room should not include a circuit breaker box. For free, I would have suggested field trips to transition the kids. I would have created a simple brochure describing the general needs of our kids for the district schools. For free, I would have donated and hung a coat rack at Keigwin.

When I recently asked Ms. Slade; "why weren't the parents included in the decision to close DEAL and/or the transition of them into the community?" her response was, " we wouldn't include parents in facility decisions; that is an administration role".

Since that is the case; then I feel the administrators need to accept the responsibility of the failed transition.

I would have simply liked to have heard, "I'm sorry".

I AM SORRY

Thats's all.

I am not asking for anything more than a safe environment for my son and his staff. Which brings me to why I write this story.

When I first saw the quad pond garden at Keigwin, I panicked. I know my child enough to know he would find away into that area. I was assured he would not because the doors are securely locked.

Imagine my surprise to receive a phone call and incident report that my son opened an unlocked door from the art room and entered this very area! He was reportedly running around this cement, unleveled cement area with statues and a filthy pond containing dead fish.

The staff hired to work with my son are trained and responsible to restrain him if needed. To be compelled to restrain a child acting out in this area is inconcieveable!

The quad has three walls of windows on multiple levels; open for the school population to view the pond. How inclusive is it to him to be viewed acting inappropriate by peers? How does it effect their perceptions of children with autism?

I contacted Ms Slade and Ms Senges. Ms. Senges quickly investigated. She reported that a janitor allegedly knew the lock was broken for some time but failed to report it to the administration.

Why would he? Keigwin never had a population of "ICM" kids. Shouldn't have he been briefed on what our kids need for safety?

My son is not allowed to go to art until the lock is fixed. Now he is being restricted from learning.

The administrators put a child into a building that continues to restrict his learning and jeopardizes his safety in a serious way. The safety of the staff are also jeopardized! Where is their union leadership? If their union and administration can't keep them safe- no wonder a para recently quit her job instead of mandate reporting.

Ann Perzan and Laurie Slade;
I have to ask you,

Would you want to be a para responsible to restrain a child in this garden?

Would you want your child running around and climbing in it?

Will it take a serious accident for either of you to accept responsibility for not preparing the community to transition DEAL kids into ICM status?

What will it take for one of you to turn to us, our staff, and our son-
And say,

"I'm sorry" ?

Friday, January 27, 2012

Letter to the Editors: Concerned Parent still has unanswered questions regarding DEAL Program closure

The following letter was submitted to the Eye by Bielefield Elementary parent Jane Majewski, the mother who started the recent online petition concerning alleged mismanagement on the part of three administrators of the BOE administration overseeing Pupil Services and Special Education Services. It should be considered as an opinion piece; the verification of any facts & responsibility of claims made rests solely on the author. This letter, and others submitted by readers, are posted as a courtesy to readers,a and not necessarily the opinion of the team of regular bloggers or blog editors of the MiddletownEye.

Recently there has been much conversation about the closing of the DEAL program housed at Lawrence School and its possible impact on the current issues being faced at Farm Hill School.

At the last Board of Education meeting Dr. Frechette cited a report from the Connecticut State Department of Education, Bureau of Special Education, that covered a March 20 -24 monitoring site visit. As a result of that visit, Middletown was told that it "...needed to decrease the number of students in all disability categories who spend time in segregated settings as defined as students who are educated with their nondisabled peers." The report went on to say "This plan is to support the increase of students being appropriately educated in the district and within the general education environment that have otherwise been sent out of district or educated in separate classes due to behavioral needs or cognitive disabilities."

This is in direct contrast to the Cambridge report posted on the Lawrence School website. Within this report one sees a very different perspective to that of the BOE Administrators claim that they needed to disband the program. Allow me to highlight some of the statements on this report.

"In addition to its own regular student population the school provides education and support for 30 students in the Daily Experiences/Activities for Living Program (DEAL). These students would otherwise be placed out of district because of their significant learning and emotional needs. This is a district wide program that serves all 8 elementary schools in Middletown and which provides students with strategies to enable them to return to regular education, classrooms in their own schools."

"What the School Does Well.
The excellent behavior management strategies that are consistently demonstrated by staff ensure that the school is a calm and safe environment where students behave well, forge excellent relationships and learn the difference between right and wrong.

The school provides well for all students but particularly for those in the DEAL program to enable them to return to regular education, classrooms in their own schools. The learning difficulties experienced by students include autism, neurological impairments, emotional disturbance, intellectual disabilities and medical fragility".

At the recent Board of Education meeting Ted Radzka stated there was an increase in budget needs due to (amongst other things) an increase in cost to out of district placements and magnet school placements.

This is the reason why I became vocal about the issues facing Farm Hill. As a parent of a child in the DEAL program I was not told the DEAL program was being closed. It was just done. This is the lack of communication that parents are frustrated with. The conflict between the contradicting statements of the Cambridge report and the Administration is what leaves parents without a sense of trust.

Allow me to connect some dots. The DEAL program was closed. The children became ICM students at Farm Hill and Bielefield. The recommendations of Izzy Greenberg for redistricting (and closing of DEAL was under this) was not implemented. Farm Hill school did not have the staffing or resources to ensure a safe transition of this redistricting. Now, we have a divided confused community. As a direct result, children that would have been sent to DEAL are being sent out of town (farther away from our community) and the cost is increasing. More parents are applying to magnet schools for their mainstream children (myself included), cost is increasing.

No one is able to tell me where the ICM children's home schools would be. This is due to confidential laws that protect the children. The same administrators who fight to protect confidentiality of their clients have not fought to keep them safe and in an appropriate environment.

Why was DEAL really closed?
Why cant it be brought back?
If it worked (excellantly according to the cambridge report, staff and parents) why not keep it? It saves the taxpayers money and provides a nurturing and safe learning environment for all of our children

Jane Majewski