Embedded Files
Effective School Solutions (ESS), so named, has been Superintendent Torres-Rodriguez’s choice as the go-to folks for providing mental health services to Hartford Public Schools students since May 2021.
Their dubious “effective” services, as to cost ($1.7 million), number of students currently being served (85), and the overall betterment of the student’s being served, have been questioned here.
These questions loom larger after it recently became clear that the folks driving the ESS bus are unable to answer basic questions about the students who are receiving their services. It’s 85 students! How much of a data dump does that require?
If ESS hasn’t yet honed their skills with MS Excel, at the very least, the Superintendent’s crack data team should have been able to provide their usual skewed number slides for ESS to at least appear that they are effective data managers…for all of 85 students.
Although ESS’ CEO Duncan Young does not have any mental health training or education, he does have an MBA from the Wharton School, so I’m quite sure data management most likely took up a chapter or two from a book on that program’s required reading list.
He did state a month later at the Board’s Regular Meeting that, “For any investment of this size for the school district I think it is important that we have the metrics to make sure we’re tracking our progress.” Exactly. Let’s see how that is working out.
The first no-clue response from the ESS superheroes came in a response to a question by Hartford Board of Education Member Deristel-Leger at the Board’s March Teaching & Learning Committee meeting.
Ms. Leger wanted to know how many of the 85 students being serviced by ESS have Individualized Education Programs (IEP) or “504s” (plans created under the federal IDEA act, providing students with disabilities equal access to education)? Since both are required by law for special education students, this question should have been as easy as asking Joe Biden the following question, “Ok, Joe, what is your first name?”
Amy Barrett, ESS’ Project Director, but obviously not data director, replied, “It’s a significant number…we don’t have that information here…we’ll get back to you.” Ok, thank you. You’re fired.
This dialogue occurred while the Superintendent’s Assistant Superintendent of Special Education, Jennifer Hoffman, had her own little Brady Bunch square on screen during the virtual broadcast of this meeting. One would think that as head of all special education students at HPS, she would be aware of how many of the 85 handed over to ESS required IEPs and 504s. But as John Belushi would have said, “But nooooooo.”
Ok, Ms. Barrett, let’s try this one, and anyone that does have the answer, feel free to chime in.
Ms. Leger asked what percentage of the 85 students are reading at grade level. Ms. Barrett (who works for ESS, the group HPS is paying $1.7 million) laughs and asks Ms. Hoffman (who works for HPS) if she has that information. Ms. Hoffman didn’t have a clue.
CEO Duncan Young chimed in; “we love doing additional data analysis for the district,” so we’ll get that information to you. Gains in educational achievement for students who go through the ESS program are one of ESS’ marketing go-to phrases, yet for 85 students they cannot provide a number who are reading at grade level. Mr. Kienia laughs.
The Superintendent loves to tout her “on-track” data, the tracking of educational achievement for the HPS student body to identify those at risk for not earning even HPS’ version of a diploma, yet offered no response to Ms. Leger’s question.
For the next question, Board Member and Committee Chair Deristel-Leger stated that she wasn’t sure who was next, Board Member Browdy or Bello. ESS CEO Young chimed in quite appropriately, “Don’t ask us.” Exactly.
So, Ms. Ledger stated that she would make an alphabetical choice. She chose Ms. Browdy over Ms. Bello. Don’t ever again ask a question about grade level reading.
And you know Ms. Browdy is going to ask a question about data that nobody will have. And she did. And they didn’t.
Ms. Browdy asked if the service sessions provided by ESS could be broken down by each Hartford school where they provide services (8), and how many of the 85 students are located at each of the schools. CEO Young said, “No problem at all.” But it was at this moment. He promised to make a cute little graph for Ms. Browdy and get that information to her.
ESS’ Hartford focus, “really focused,” stated Mr. Young, is 8 schools and 85 students, yet it is a puzzle as to how those 85 students are spread among 8 schools. Did I mention that Mr. Young has an MBA from the Wharton School? ESS touts in their HPS approved slide show, with bold font, that they have provided 6,758 sessions to Hartford students this school year, but they cannot say how that number was aggregated.
Mr. Young then goes on a used car sales pitch about how well they have cut into the chronic absenteeism numbers for all of 85 students, and overall percentages were stated for each school. Yet, they cannot say how many students they are treating in each school! Jesus. You’re all fired. Take your ESS back to Jersey.
Furthermore, Ms. Hoffman, her of HPS employment, stated in response to a question by Board Member Bello that ESS is only working with students in the schools which showed a “significant need” for their services. Yet she, or anyone else, offered no numbers for any of the 8 schools which could identify them as having a “significant need” for ESS services.
I would love to be a fly on the wall of the Superintendent’s office during a state audit of HPS’ special education services, a long overdue and “significant” oversight need.
This meeting was the “vetting” of ESS for their $1.7 million contract extension. Despite being light and grey with data, the contract was passed on for certain approval at the Board’s April Regular Meeting without having “t’s” crossed and “i’s” dotted. But, this is the Hartford Board of Education, they’re not like NASA, or even the DMV.
Nobody got any sma’ta by the time of the April 18th Regular Meeting.
When the ESS spot on the Regular Meeting’s agenda arrived, Superintendent Torres-Rodriguez briefed the Board, citizens at the meeting, and the millions watching at home, with the same grey ESS data described in March as being what “success” looks like.
Prior to ESS coming to the floor, the Superintendent showed slides with updated chronic absenteeism data for Hartford schools. This was school wide data, not data based on the 85 students serviced by ESS. Yet, when CEO Duncan Young rose to speak, he was pleased to mention that he noticed the 8 schools that ESS was working in had been shown on the Superintendent’s slides as having a decrease in chronic absenteeism.
Board Member Browdy asked, “how can we be certain that we can attribute those absenteeism improvements to ESS?” Mr. Duncan stepped back his wanting to take credit for the entire absenteeism improvement for an entire school. “I don’t think we can say that all of that reduction is due to ESS.”
You “think?” Of course you can’t claim that, there’s no “think” about it. You’re probably handling less than 15 kids in any one school. Metric numbers for an entire school are not going to improve simply due to your presence.
If a $10 million dollar LEAP program begun last year across the state including in Hartford (where they only work with a handful of students), has resulted in this month’s district wide chronic absenteeism rate being 10 points higher than where it was at the beginning of the school year, then a 13-member team from Jersey working with only 85 students is going to have as much effect on an individual school’s chronic absenteeism rate as a $1,000 retention bonus has on HPS’ teacher attrition rate.
Board Member Walker then delivered the “pièce de résistance” to the point that Effective Schools Solutions is less of an effective, capable, trustworthy, and transparent partner of HPS than the data shows.
ESS’ claim to million-dollar fame is that they are able to provide a higher level of services to students with the most “intensive” needs, the TIER III student, than a district’s in-house social worker support group could provide.
Mr. Walker stated that he has been informed that there are many TIER 3 students throughout HPS that are not receiving adequate mental health services, and he asked CEO Young for a percentage number of HPS Tier III students that are being serviced by ESS?
Mr. Young stated that they are getting “the vast majority” of those TIER 3 students in the schools they are working with. A subjective phrase used to replace real numbers and to which many teachers would state, B.S. Mr. Slim Shady then went on a non-contextual rant about their student identification process before calling on Ms. Amy Barrett, ESS Project Manager, to bail him out.
Before Ms. Barrett began to speak, Board Member Walker felt it obvious that he had to clarify his question, since Mr. Young avoided it like the Superintendent avoids employee town halls.
Mr. Walker clearly and emphatically restated his question. However, rather than Ms. Barrett taking the question, the Superintendent’s HPS rep for special education, Ms. Hoffman stepped to the plate. Ms. Hoffman’s answer began with the normal district leadership script of the discounting of any knowledge provided by teachers, in this context, relating her answer to Mr. Walker’s knowledge of non-treated students across the district.
Ms. Hoffman went on to speak in a similar context as Mr. Young had done previously, neither answering Mr. Walker’s question. Mr. Walker stated that since he hadn’t gotten a response to his question, he would stop there and would look to the district for that information. Good luck with that.
Board Member Dirstel-Leger then asked about the racial breakdown of the group of 85 students serviced by ESS. CEO and Wharton School MBA graduate Duncan Young answered, “We don’t have the exact numbers, but we estimate about 85% plus would be Black or Hispanic.” An “estimate,” “about,” “85% plus.” Great.
These folks do not inspire enough confidence to be hired to provide mental health services to my cat…if I had one. I don’t. It was an estimate. Questions they could not answer include:
How many of the 85 students are on IEPs or 504 plans?
How many of the 85 students are at grade reading level?
What is the breakdown of ESS sessions at each of the 8 schools?
How are the 85 students dispersed among the 8 schools?
How many TIER 3 students are from each of the 8 schools?
What is the racial breakdown of the 85 students?
At this same Regular Meeting, during the Public Comment portion of the agenda and previous to Board Member Walker reporting on less than adequate special education services being provided to some Hartford students, Michael Downes, President of the Hartford Federation of Substitute Teachers, reported to the Board and Superintendent that there are substitute teachers in Hartford who are being assaulted by students. Obviously, an emotional stability issue.
Similarly, Carol Gale, President of the Hartford Teachers Union, rose at this same meeting and reported that she is hearing from “many” schools in Hartford where students with social and emotional issues are “being recommended for outplacement but are being denied.” Yet the Superintendent thought it a gem of achievement when she announced that due to paying ESS $1.7 million, only 3 students in the ESS service group had been outplaced.
A few teachers from Global Communications Academy have concurred in their discussions with me that there are at least 5 students in that school who require outplacement but are left in a school which has no special education teacher, no paraprofessionals for those students who require 1-to-1 support, and a school where IEPs are not being adhered to in most cases.
A teacher relayed to me that even 10-year-old students recognize the disruption and danger created by the lack of mental health services for some students at Global. Students are asking why disruptive students, some who throw furniture, swear like sailors, and threaten other students, are not being removed from the classroom.
So, excuse me when I question the Superintendent’s and ESS’ definition of “success” as being 85 students going from “0.77” discipline incidents per week to “0.54” discipline incidents per week. And isn’t it ironic that this dynamic duo of data diligence can micromanage that data, yet they are unable to report how many students in their treatment group are on IEPs?
Due to the diligence of the questioners, the Superintendent felt it important to schedule a session to discuss the how HPS is picking up the slack in-house for ESS. This suddenly important session would be held 8 days after the ESS Regular Meeting brain fart, at the Board’s April 26th Teaching & Learning Committee meeting. Although the Superintendent and 6 Board members did not show for this meeting, soon-to-be New Haven Superintendent Madeline Negron and Special Education Superintendent Jennifer Hoffman appeared for a presentation on HPS’ in-house special education programs.
The slide image below was unapologetically displayed to the mini-Board to highlight all 4 of HPS’ “in-house” special education programs. You will note at the top of the slide that HPS’ in-district “specialized services” are going out to a robust 268 students. HPS has over 3,000 special education students. Although not stated, it appears that this ‘268’ number may represent some of the Tier 2 and Tier 3 special education students in HPS. You will remember from the Regular Meeting, held a week earlier, that Board Member Walker was left wondering if he would have to fire up his ChatGPT to find out what percentage of HPS Tier 3 students were being serviced by ESS. This meeting did not provide that answer.
You will note from the image that it shows the number of students being serviced by each “in-house” partner and from which Hartford school they belong (it appears 13 of RISES’ students have gone missing). This is a breakdown of 268 students, a similar breakdown was asked for by Board members a week earlier for just 85 students handled by ESS and it could not be provided. And they’re being paid $1.7 million.
So, these are HPS’ “specialized in-district services” for special education students. The only “in-house” program from the bunch is the Transition Learning Resource Room, listed on the right. The other 3 are outside vendors given hundreds of thousands of dollars every six months to provide special education services. Why are they being referred to as HPS “in-district” programs? ESS occupies HPS space, just like RISE, IGOAl, and STEP, and just like these three outsiders, they too receive big checks from HPS, yet they are not listed as an “in-district” special education program.
As to RISE, five contracts dating back to 2021, state that the scope of their work is in dealing with keeping 9th graders on track to HPS’ version of a diploma. The scope of services for these contracts state nothing of special education work. So are they? And as to STEP, they do not deal with students in the general classroom as their focus is on those who have gone through the school system yet need assistance with life skills and the challenges they face once they have completed school. That apparently leaves IGOAL, operating as The Center for Children with Special Needs (with a 1-year $726,000 contract in August of 2018), as the only “in-district” program, and as mentioned, they are not HPS folks.
This matters because it shows that HPS’ in-house special education programming is as weak as their presentations on special education. They have the one TLR room with others being planned, they are actively recruiting special education teachers and paraprofessionals while offering those here more professional development, and, according to Jennifer Hoffman, for the past two years she has been holding monthly special education “advisory meetings” with teachers and parents for a sharing of dialogue and concerns. This is the bulk of HPS’ in-house special education program.
The main goal, the program, of HPS and special education is to refrain from outplacing as many special education students as possible. This is, in fact, part of federal and state law, which states that these students are to be placed in the “least restrictive environment.” A hand that is overplayed in school districts around the country, hence the reports of students who should be outplaced yet are left in the classroom, restricting the learning environment of general education students.
And general education teachers are left having to deal with the consequences. A slide presented previous to the one shown above, stated that TIER 2 students are given targeted services “delivered in a small group, generally by the classroom teacher,” with paraprofessionals occasionally serving as “consultants” to the teacher. A situation where general education teachers are dealing with special education kids who have IEPs, and a situation where a para is often not available.
The goal, states HPS during a February 9, 2022 Board Meeting, “is to reduce its overall identification rate” of students with disabilities, in order to keep them in-district and reduce special education costs. How can you reduce the number of students who you identify as having a disability? I don’t think there is a pill or an app for doing away with disabilities. But it is being done.
In HPS, special education enrollment has dropped 7% while statewide is has increased 10%. A state assessment of HPS from August of 2021, states that the goal for HPS should be to “decrease placements in separate schools, residential or other settings,” to 8%, a goal they said HPS was failing in achieving as their reported rate was 13%.
Fearing ridiculous “least restrictive environment” language in federal legislation, and mandates from the state to reduce your outplacement numbers and being unable to recruit special education teachers and paraprofessionals, results in reports of ineffective treatment for special education students. Reports heard during two Board meetings over the past month, and reports to which Board Member Browdy would add to at the current meeting being discussed.
Ms. Browdy stated that as part of her “day job,” she hears much about the special education situation in HPS. A concern that arises often is that proper attention is not given to a student’s IEP. She stated that parents are cognizant of the teacher and para shortage, but their concern is the law and the well being of their children. One-on-one support from paraprofessionals is lacking “big time,” said Ms. Browdy, and it is happening every day. Ms. Browdy stated that a conversation with the Superintendent on IEP compliance is needed.
However, HPS claimed during the February 2022 Board meeting, that a “focus group” of teachers, parents, paraprofessionals, and administrative type folks, that HPS should consider reducing its “reliance of 1:1 as an accommodation – to provide more classroom-based support.” I’m thinking this thought came from the administrative members of the focus group, rather than a para or a teacher. The sad part of this is that an ill-informed parent, drinking the Superintendent’s Kool-Aid, may concur with the thought, to the detriment of their child.
A call to action is required here. Hartford teachers need to reach out to the parents of Hartford school children and convene a parent-teacher summit where the parents are informed about untreated and ineffective treatment of special education issues and the behaviors caused by those issues, as well as the criminal neglect that may be occurring at HPS.
Teachers are reporting on these issues to their union leaders, to Board Members and to others, and even kids are reporting them to their teachers, yet the Superintendent and ESS are reporting to everybody that they have achieved “success” with their special education plan for Hartford students.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse