Report points to staffing, data and dispute-resolution gaps
Connecticut Education Commissioner Charlene Russell-Tucker told the Connecticut State Board of Education on Wednesday that a state-commissioned review found problems in the special education system that can interfere with students getting what they need, even as the state meets federal targets.
Russell-Tucker commissioned the report six months earlier after concerns that Connecticut was not doing enough for students with disabilities. The findings were released Wednesday and were presented at the board meeting, with WestEd, the consulting group that conducted the evaluation, sharing the results alongside the commissioner.
“We didn’t do this because we thought we were going to get a report that says” things were fine
Russell-Tucker said she did not commission the report expecting reassurance. She told board members, “We didn’t do this because we thought we were going to get a … report that says, ‘You’re doing everything well,’” adding, “That was not the point.”
Instead, Russell-Tucker said the review was intended to identify challenges so the state could discuss next steps. “We did this because it was a need — to make sure that we understand and uncover where the challenges are, so we can literally be having this conversation today, very clearly and concisely, about what it is our next steps need to be,” she said.
The report found federal targets are met, but the system still struggles
According to the report described in the presentation, flaws included staffing shortages, cumbersome data-collection software, and widespread lack of confidence in how disputes are resolved. The review said those issues may make it harder for children to access resources needed for a free adequate public education, commonly referred to as FAPE.
The report also identified a “bright spot,” saying Connecticut routinely meets federal targets regarding special education. But Feinstein said that appearance of compliance can mask ongoing problems, arguing that if the state sets and meets low targets, the federal government may not register a failure even when many students are not receiving adequate support.
Advocates criticized accountability and the dispute process
Attorney Andrew Feinstein, who represents children with disabilities, called the report “devastating.” He told the board that the Bureau of Special Education “sees itself primarily as a conduit to transmit district-generated data to the federal Department of Education. It does not see itself as accountable to parents and teachers,” and he said the bureau is “ineffective in improving results for students.”
Kathryn Meyer, an attorney with the Center for Child Advocacy who works with low-income families, said families with children with disabilities are sending them to school while worrying about more than just educational quality. In a written communication to the Connecticut Mirror, she said families were concerned about “their child’s safety and supervision,” describing district-by-district inability to provide adequate staffing support and saying “our children are paying the price.”
WestEd praised the decision to commission the review
Rorie Fitzpatrick of WestEd praised Russell-Tucker for seeking a proactive assessment. She told the board, “This was not a compelled endeavor. The compulsion here was a commitment to results for students.”
Recommendations focused on vision, staffing organization, and legal oversight
The report included four categories of recommendations for the state Department of Education. Those recommendations included better defining the state’s “vision” for students with disabilities so system participants understand the goals and mission; mapping out and streamlining how staff and workflows are organized; and coordinating more effectively within the department to address staffing shortages.
The report’s fourth category focused on strengthening legal oversight and transparency in how Connecticut handles disputes between parents and teachers. Advocates said this is significant for families who believe schools are not providing adequate assistance, including when disagreements arise over issues such as staffing, an individualized education program (IEP), or other needs.
Complaint and hearing-officer processes raise concerns for families
Feinstein said the most accessible option for low-income parents is the state administrative complaint process. He said it is free but involves extended delays and that its results can be “legally suspect,” and he said he seldom relies on state complaints.
Meyer also said the Center for Child Advocacy has experienced problems with the complaint process, including cases where “corrective action has not been fully monitored or enforced.” She said “Corrective action is not meaningful if a district doesn’t think it’s going to be required in a timely manner,” and she said the report’s data showing the number of complaints filed seemed low and did not align with her experience.
On due process, Feinstein said families who can afford lawyers can pursue a process that eventually leads to an impartial hearing officer, described as similar to court magistrates. The report, however, found widespread mistrust of the quality of Connecticut’s hearing officers, with doubts about how knowledgeable they are in federal and state law.
Legal expert support and clearer hearing-officer standards were among proposals
The report recommended that Connecticut hire a legal expert to support investigators and analyze their findings to help ensure legal integrity and determine appropriate corrective actions. Meyer said that step appears appropriate, saying that “having someone with a legal lens to support them in that process, I think, is really critical.”
To address hearing-officer concerns, the report recommended that Connecticut establish clear criteria for hearing officer competence and make those criteria transparent to the public in an effort to rebuild trust. It also recommended providing guidance to parents without legal representation to help them navigate the process.
Advocates urged action aimed at shifting the bureau’s mission
Feinstein urged the board to read the report and pressed for broader changes to how the education department operates. He said, “demand that the department (of education) make fundamental change, both in the structure and operations of the Bureau of Special Education and, more importantly, by making clear that the mission is not to passively collect data, but to enhance the education of students with disabilities.”
Meyer wrote in an email that the state’s education agency needs to prioritize the voices of parents, students and educators by following through on WestEd’s recommendations, particularly around monitoring and enforcement of children’s legal rights to a meaningful and safe education. She said, “Urgent action and accountability are needed.”
This story was originally published by The Connecticut Mirror and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.