by Arne
RE: “Gengras/St.Joe: Student M: $82,300″ from the 2007/2008 budget
The young man who was placed at Gengras was ‘inherited’ from another public school system when his mother moved back to Woodstock. He was 19 years old, did not walk, did not talk, was not toilet trained, was intellectually disabled, had brain damage, and was tube fed. Besides being in a self-contained class for severely impaired individuals he required nursing services, a one to one TA, OT services, PT services, Speech and Language services, specialized vocational experiences (because of his age it is required), and special transportation. He not only went to school during the regular school year but also had summer services. He was undoubtedly the most severe special education student the school system has had. The Woodstock school system tried to return him to Woodstock to reduce costs but the mother would not hear of it because this student had been in the Gengras program for a long time. Even if he had come back to Woodstock, he probably would have cost as much in an EastConn program as this program costs around $47,000 for a student who is just a behavioral issue or has a severe learning disability.
So yes, this poor kid’s teaching was very expensive and, no, he did not make much progress; but the school system was still required by state statutes to provide him with a very extensive (and expensive) program.
First of all, I am very sympathetic to the special needs of this child and the mother’s concerns, as well as the good intentions of the BOE. The title of this article misrepresents my intentions which were not to “attack” but to inquire. This same kind of emotional response to tax payer inquiries seems to be rather prevelant and it is deeply unethical and wrong.
Putting all emotional attachment aside for a moment for the sake of opening a more pragmatic discussion, I would like to prompt some discussion by asking some purely hypothetical questions that DO NOT, by the way, reflect any personal opinion on the matter:
1- Are we obligated, as taxpayers, to provide medical supervision, nursing care, physical therapy, speech therapy, ect. for a child… under the umbrella of our “public education” budget?
It seems to me that there lies a potential whereby a town could potentially have 2 more or 3 more or a dozen more such kids come in and our educational budget would go to hell in a handbasket…compromising all the other kids.
2- If the town of Woodstock is footing this kind of bill, isn’t it deserving of a progress report from St. Joes that includes itemization of costs incurred, outcome based criteria for services, proof of services, ect.? Note that the expectation for the same kind of accountability has been questioned her in regards to the Academy.
3- Further (and again, all emotion aside), does the mother really have a right to determine where her child receives his services if she is not paying for them?
Thanks Arne for the information. You didn’t have to. You clearly went out of your way and while I am appreciative, I have to admit that I am squeamish about reading confidential information on a website despite name being withheld. Gosh, if it were my kid, would I be barking up a different tree? Something, I suppose, that needs to be considered. Regardless, I think it is important to ask these questions.
I might add, that once again, this is a clear example of where our BOE’s hands are tied. I am glad that this issue was brought up and to some extent clarified. The lesson, once again, is that our BOE is often not to be blamed (and nor is Prop 46 or the Academy) but rather the problems we face as a town are a direct result of state statutes and policies. What or who drives/drove these statutes, these unfunded mandates and what can be done to change them? Clearly they reflect an imperfect system that has led to widespread disatisfaction, insufficient funding, and increasingly unsupportive public.
After criticizing Tax on a previous thread, I have to say he is correct in asking the question, concerning severly disabled people, about at what point the “education” budget should be paying for services. This is not to suggest that society shouldnt bear the burden, but perhaps not charged to local education.
In a culture that measures everything quantitatively, is it any wonder that we must force ourselves with legal contrivances to do the right thing? … (see Smila’s new article. Admin).
This thread is doing what it was intended to do - Explain via a “real” example where and how the SPED line item in our budget is going.
IMO the real point here is that the costs of providing this education (State and Federal unfunded Mandates) was thought out and understood to make the local’s pay.
I would be very curious if someone knows how these kinds of costs are absorbed or handled in other states where the costs of Education for these SPED children.
The broader issue of the equity or effectiveness of the special education laws or the financial burden imposed on municipalities to abide by them can be debated without reference to the details of any case. As Taxpayer himself suggests, it makes him squeamish to read the details of this particular case. It should make all Cafe readers squeamish because they are doing something they shouldn’t.
It is grossly inappropriate for the Cafe to publicize this information about a child, regardless of the position on an issue or the intentions of the author. Admin should go back and read their own editorial policy they have touted.
Paying their taxes does not entitle - or qualify - Taxpayer or anyone else to trample the rights of others with a demand for a “Citizens Audit” of the care any particular child receives under special education laws. These are not leased buses - they are disabled children. The cost and effectiveness of these efforts are reviewed routinely by well-qualified teams of professionals. Can’t Taxpayer just trust - in this one case - that these professionals are actually doing their jobs conscientiously? Or does he have to insist - because some of these people are public servants - that this child’s entire personal medical and educational history be dragged through the Woodstock blog-press by the likes of Dave Richardson?
Snuffy–
I agree with you. However, let’s be clear here, it is not and never was my intention to “trample the rights of others” nor was it on my insistence or my approval that personal medical history of an undisclosed child be “dragged through the blog-press”. Further, I intentionally never reacted to or responded to the personal information that was disclosed because it was not necessary or essential in order to prove my point. Evaluation of progress, determination of value, allocation of resources, and accountability to taxpayers need not impose on the confidentiality rights of students.
Further, this is not a matter of not trusting professionals. I am confident that a place like the Gengras Center at St. Joe’s is filled with highly competent and caring individuals who I am not worthy to question their integrity or their skill. But, I might add, so are the people at Eastconn and WPS.
However, this is a matter of principle. A matter that sets a standard, because lets face it, use of public tax dollars notoriously lacks accountablity…whether it be right here in little old Woodstock or on a grander scale, the TARP funds. I’m sure that the people at the Woodstock Fire Dept. and the Academy and the Federal Reserve are also very capable and caring professionals.
Bottom line, if public monies are used to provide services, accountability for how that money is allocated, how it is spent, its effectiveness, and how well the measure of its intended benchmarks are met, need to be transparently available to the taxpayers. Especially, nw more than ever, when there is a finite amount of money to go around.
Taxpayer -
Paying your taxes is the duty of every citizen; simply fulfilling this obligation does not entitle you to demand whatever you want whenever you want it while trampling the rights of others. This strange belief permeates every issue you write about. Believe it or not, other people have rights that are not subordinated to your self-invented, inflated belief in “taxpayer rights”.
I have the right to have the nation’s security apparatus defend me and my family from terrorism without disclosing all information they possess to you because of your exaggerated “taxpayer rights”. Public school teachers have the right to use their contracted medical care without disclosing their medical records to a Preston Schultz-sponsored “Citizens Audit” in the name of “taxpayer rights”. The police have the power to solve a murder, like the one that occurred here in Woodstock three years ago, without disclosing all the information they possess to the murderer in the name of “taxpayer rights”.
There seems to be no end to the demands you make in the name of “taxpayer rights”. You have absolutely no business whatsoever intruding into the specifics of a case at a local level where it is obvious readers will figure out who is being discussed. What the hell is the matter with you?
Snuffy is fundamentally wrong. In any situation ……( see A Taxpayer’s new article. Admin)… I see that Snuffy is not, but instead supports the status quo, once again. A pity, really. What is the matter with him? Turning the tables once again.