UPDATE: Gamm's Special Ed Investigation Report Excerpt

Update 10:57 a.m.:

The Darien Public Schools website has just made Attorney Sue Gamm's entire preliminary report available on its website. Here's the school district's announcement, from the website Home page:

"On Monday, November 4, 2013 at a special Darien Board of Education meeting, Attorney Sue Gamm  shared her findings on the Special Education investigation.   The video of the meeting is available for viewing here.  Please click here for the Executive Summary and click here for Attorney Gamm’s Power Point Presentation. The complete report will be delivered to the Darien Board of Education within a few weeks.   The Board will promptly share the full report with the school community.  Thank you."

Original article, Monday:

Attorney Sue Gamm issued to the public a lengthy executive summary Monday evening of her report on Darien Public Schools' management of special education.

[Update: Elizabeth Hagerty-Ross, chairperson of the Board of Education, read this prepared response after Gamm presented her report Monday at Darien High School Auditorium.]

Here's an excerpt (of about a page and a half in the report -- pages 5-7 -- titled "Reflections") discussing the administration of special education:

As I reflect on my findings and two months of intensive involvement with the Darien community and documentation about occurrences over the past year, I offer the following reflections about what happened, what could have happened, and what could happen in the future.

As mentioned above, what is not different about Darien is the significant concerns raised about the "unsustainable growth" of special education costs. Especially with the ongoing impact of the nation's sequestration of funding, which includes IDEA [federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] funding, and the threat of future funding cuts if our government does not resolve the matter, it is the unique school district that has fiscal agents who are not raising an alarm, and expecting special education directors to do "more with less."

I have no doubt that Dr. [Deirdre] Osypuk [director of special education] was directed to address the high costs of special educatin in Darien, and that she had her own perceptions (following her initial review of services and IEPs) that the level of services to students exceeded any in her experience. Given that most special education costs are related to personnel, the challenge to special education directors is to manage effectively and efficiently, and in a manner that respects the integrity and mandates of IDEA/state processes. The Feb. 26, 2013 BOE Report and RC-24 Special Education Proposed Budget for 2013-2014 presents some of the best evidence that this challenge was not met. The document, which was produced by both Dr. [Judith] Pandolfo [assistant superintendent of schools for elementary education] and Dr. Osypuk, has many examples of cost reductions that are conditioned upon changes in student IEP services that had not yet been considered by PPTs. This document, as well as the various training documents and other directives, mirrored this backward process. In addition, there is ample information to show that Dr. Osypuk had the expressed support and positive reinforcement of her superiors throughout the school year for the actions she had designated and implemented.

When done properly, the process would have begun with the development of a standard operating procedure manual (SOPM) to document the lawful parameters for PPT decision-making, and other areas discussed in this report. DPS and non-DPS experts and stakeholders would have contributed to a draft, and its contents would have been based on applicable federal and state guidance, applicable research and literature. In addition, the process would include consideration of progress monitoring expectations, how student growth data is collected and shared with parents; and how personnel would problem-solve instruction for students not showing improvement. Furthermore, the process would have included consideration of ongoing and accessible data reports necessary to measure whether students are learning; instruction/services are effective; and costs are commensurate with expectations and student academic and social/emotional outcomes. With legal review, and feedback from parent attorneys as well, the foundation would have been set for staff and parent training, and a universal understanding of clear and comprehensive parameters for PPT decision-making and expected practices. In addition, there would have been a foundation for the meaningful involvement of parents and consensus-building during PPT meetings.

One of the most perplexing circumstances of my review was the failure of either of Dr. Osypuk's supervisors (Dr. [Stephen] Falcone [then superintendent of schools] and Dr. Pandolfo, who shared supervision responsibilities of the director) to ask about and/or ensure that BOE counsel was actively involved in the review of the multitude of directives and changes that were occurring at the begining of the school year and continuing through February. The failure of the superintendent to ensure the involvement of BOE counsel was especially questionable when the newly resigned and respected SLP coordinator in a letter dated Sept. 7, 2012 wrote about her concerns to the superintendent. Many of the procedures and practices referenced in the letter continued throughout the school year, and were the basis of some of the CSDE [Connecticut state Department of Education) findings and the findings below. This letter was written with great risk that it would become public, as it has, and resulted in a recognition that was not requested, and with a great loss of privacy.

While I do not expect Dr. Falcone or any other superintendent to be able to sift through the many concerns expressed in the long detailed letter, and on his own determine which had merit, he offered no reasonable explanation for not forwarding it to BOE counsel to investigate, make findings and give any recommendations for action. The area of special education, which is unlike any other area of education, is based on a complex set of federal and state laws and regulations, guidance and judicial and hearing officer opinions. It is not an area of expertise that one would expect district superintendents to possess. In a time of changing procedures and practices, the lack of BOE counsel was perhaps the canary in the coal mine. I believe that the 2012-2013 school year may have proceeded differently if there had been legal guidance and a process was followed similar to the one described above. This perception was validated by the many DPS individuals with whom I spoke, including upper level district and school administrators, who all indicated that the major lesson learned from the prior school year is that there were too many changes too fast.

The hard-learned lessons from the 2012-2013 school year, however, may enable the town of Darien to pull together and set forth on a course of excellence for all of its students. Many steps have been taken, including the hiring of the special education ombudsman, Dr. John Verre, who comes with a Connecticut background and a long history of special education instruction and administration. In addition, the involvement of Dr. Theresa DeFrancis to retrain staff and the initiation of various administrative procedures (e.g., retired hearing officer Mary H.B. Gelfman and facilitated PPT meetings) to address parent concerns are good actions going forward. I hope that with these findings and the recommendations I have offered, there is a will to put into place measures that not only provide a uniform understanding of special education and related efficient and effective processes and practices, and also focuses attention back on teaching and learning, and improved outcomes for all of Darien's students.