A state legislator who sought to shift the burden of proof in special education hearings to parents is dropping the controversial bill.
“I don’t plan on pursuing it as is,” state Rep. Tom O’Dea, who represents New Canaan and Wilton, said Tuesday.
The Republican lawmaker said he changed his mind after meeting with constituents from other municipalities, including Stamford, where he said the impact would be much greater than in his towns.
The bill called for parents — instead of school districts — to prove their school’s special education services are insufficient for their child. Those disputes often result in so-called special education hearings, which are formal meetings to resolve these disagreements.
O’Dea said the idea was to help school districts struggling to meet state mandates amid cuts in state funding.
The bill, introduced in January, drew support from groups like the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents and Cooperative Educational Services, which argued the costs and risks of taking the disputes to court are too high and these decisions should not be placed in the hands of lawyers.
But critics of the proposal said the burden should remain on school districts since they have the teachers, psychologists and specialists needed to prove their case.
Stamford resident Jaclyn Pioli, one of the parents who met with O’Dea in recent weeks, was encouraged by his move. The 35-year-old said she had to quit her job and liquidate her retirement savings so she could prove her son needed to be placed out of district.
CAPSS Executive Director Joseph Cirasuolo, noting Connecticut is one of just five states that place the burden of proof on school districts, said he was disappointed.
“It’s a shame,” he said. “That means that the school districts, before they go to a hearing, are settled for programs that are more expensive.”
Out-of-district tuition for students with special needs has been blamed for Stamford’s skyrocketing special education costs. The district has had 30 special education hearings since the 2014-15 school year.
Cirasuolo thanked O’Dea for “taking a shot at it.”
“This would be a major mandate relief,” he said, “but there doesn’t seem to be any political will to address this issue.”
It’s not clear whether O’Dea will officially withdraw the bill or just not act on it. The Legislature’s joint education committee may still discuss the proposal, but he is “confident” the burden of proof will not change this year.
Pioli, who still fears the proposal will come back in some form next year, said there is a disconnect between top education officials and the reality parents face with special-needs children. One of the challenges, she said, is the quality of special education services varies drastically in each school.
“Superintendents never have a full idea of what is going on,” Pioli said. “There is no uniformity in our schools.”
She said lawmakers should concentrate on developing a solution to improve special education services in public schools so parents don’t have to fight with districts.
O’Dea said he plans to find ways to make the process less burdensome.
“I want to see the money going to kids,” instead of spending it in legal fees, he said. “There are things we can do, certainly, to streamline the process.”
Kevin Schultz contributed to this story.
[“Source-stamfordadvocate”]