The original NYT article, A Terrifying Way to Discipline Children, has sparked denials and
research.
For some reason, a telephone closet seems more defensible than a mop closet to the superintendent, but misses the point. Any parent familiar with this type of child abuse is aware that it is ineffective, counter productive and inappropriate.
Superintendent denies use of 'seclusion rooms' in Lexington schools
Former resident alleges daughter was kept in 'mop closet' at Fiske
Former Lexington resident Bill Lichtenstein alleges his daughter Rose was repeatedly locked in a seclusion room while in kindergarten at Fiske Elementary School during the 2005-2006 school year.
Lexington —
Allegations a former Lexington kindergartener with special needs had been confined to a small room as punishment have raised serious questions about the school district’s past and present practices.
In a New York Times op-ed article published Sunday, Sept. 9, former Lexington resident Bill Lichtenstein wrote his then 5-year-old daughter Rose, now 12, while a kindergartener at Fiske Elementary School during the 2005-2006 school year, had been repeatedly locked in a “seclusion room,” which he described as a "basement mop closet."
In an interview Tuesday, Sept. 11, Lexington Public Schools Superintendent Paul Ash disputed Lichtenstein’s account.
“He painted a picture of a school district that abused his daughter and we want to say that’s not accurate,” said Ash, who was superintendent at the time of the alleged incidents. “We don’t put kids in mop closets. It was a telephone closet, it was not a basement room, and it was lit and a staff member was there.”
During a School Committee meeting on Tuesday night, Ash reiterated his position, saying he did not find any misconduct on the part of teachers or school administrators at the time.
“The staff members, I believe, acted honorably and in the best interest of the child,” he said. “We have notes for the days in question and they do not reflect the details described in the op-ed column.”
In an interview prior to the meeting, Lichtenstein stood by his account and was incredulous Ash would refuse to acknowledge the action taken by the school as inappropriate.
“I just find it hard to believe that passes as appropriate in anybody’s mind as a proper way of handling a child,” said Lichtenstein, who now lives in Newton. “If nobody did anything wrong, why did the town of Lexington write a check, mostly for treatment to help Rose get over this?”
Settlement agreement
Lichtenstein and his former wife June Peoples took legal action against the school district in late 2007, initially seeking $5 million but later settling for $125,000, as well as reimbursement for Rose's education for a three-year period, amounting to approximately $75,762 per year.
According to a complaint filed with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals, the Lexington schools hired Jacqueline Squeglia as Rose’s one-on-one aide in November 2005. The complaint states Squeglia was not shown any policies and procedures concerning restraints or seclusion, had “no training about, or even knowledge of, what a ‘seclusion restraint’ is,” and did not know Rose was on an individualized education program (IEP).
In a New York Times op-ed article published Sunday, Sept. 9, former Lexington resident Bill Lichtenstein wrote his then 5-year-old daughter Rose, now 12, while a kindergartener at Fiske Elementary School during the 2005-2006 school year, had been repeatedly locked in a “seclusion room,” which he described as a "basement mop closet."
In an interview Tuesday, Sept. 11, Lexington Public Schools Superintendent Paul Ash disputed Lichtenstein’s account.
“He painted a picture of a school district that abused his daughter and we want to say that’s not accurate,” said Ash, who was superintendent at the time of the alleged incidents. “We don’t put kids in mop closets. It was a telephone closet, it was not a basement room, and it was lit and a staff member was there.”
During a School Committee meeting on Tuesday night, Ash reiterated his position, saying he did not find any misconduct on the part of teachers or school administrators at the time.
“The staff members, I believe, acted honorably and in the best interest of the child,” he said. “We have notes for the days in question and they do not reflect the details described in the op-ed column.”
In an interview prior to the meeting, Lichtenstein stood by his account and was incredulous Ash would refuse to acknowledge the action taken by the school as inappropriate.
“I just find it hard to believe that passes as appropriate in anybody’s mind as a proper way of handling a child,” said Lichtenstein, who now lives in Newton. “If nobody did anything wrong, why did the town of Lexington write a check, mostly for treatment to help Rose get over this?”
Settlement agreement
Lichtenstein and his former wife June Peoples took legal action against the school district in late 2007, initially seeking $5 million but later settling for $125,000, as well as reimbursement for Rose's education for a three-year period, amounting to approximately $75,762 per year.
According to a complaint filed with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals, the Lexington schools hired Jacqueline Squeglia as Rose’s one-on-one aide in November 2005. The complaint states Squeglia was not shown any policies and procedures concerning restraints or seclusion, had “no training about, or even knowledge of, what a ‘seclusion restraint’ is,” and did not know Rose was on an individualized education program (IEP).
According to Ash, Squeglia was hired specifically to work with Rose and when Rose left the school system, Squeglia’s employment was terminated. Ash insisted her termination was not a result of the allegations.
“When Rose went out of the district, we no longer had need for the aide’s work,” he said.
The suit was settled in October 2008. Ash characterized the settlement discussion as focused on how to best meet Rose’s educational needs rather than an admission of wrongdoing by the district.
“It became a special education discussion,” Ash said. “This was for the child. When we can’t educate a child with our resources, we help find resources out of district.”
According to Ash, Lichtenstein breached a non-disclosure clause in the settlement agreement by publishing his op-ed. Ash said he could not speak to whether the town would pursue any action against Lichtenstein for violating the agreement.
Why was there a non-disclosure clause if there was no wrong-doing?
Lichtenstein said he decided to go public with the allegations in part because of the revelations of the Jerry Sandusky-Penn State child sexual abuse scandal, which he said demonstrated the consequences of adults remaining silent when a child is mistreated.
Lichtenstein said he believes Rose was not the only student disciplined in this manner and he hopes his column will spark further investigation into the practice.
“It’s always haunted me that we were told that other kids were involved,” he said. “It’s hard to believe that they went through all that effort to create that room just for my daughter.”
Time-out vs. seclusion
During an interview Tuesday, Ash drew a distinction between a “time-out room” and a “seclusion room,” and was adamant the school district does not use seclusion rooms.
“We never put students in seclusion rooms, ever,” Ash said.
According to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the use of “seclusion restraint” is prohibited in public schools. The department defines restraint as: “Physically confining a student alone in a room or limited space without access to school staff. The use of ‘time out’ procedures during which a staff member remains accessible to the student shall not be considered ‘seclusion restraint.’”
A time-out room, as was used in Lexington Public Schools, is not equivalent to a “seclusion restraint” because a teacher or staff member is always present, Ash said. According to Ash, School Committee policy at the time allowed for teachers to take a student to a time-out room where they would stay with a staff member for no longer than five minutes.
Lichtenstein alleges his daughter was kept in the room for up to an hour at a time over the course of three months. But Ash was emphatic Rose was never in the room for more than five minutes, citing detailed notes kept by the school at the time.
Ash said the time-out practices were discontinued in 2007 by Director of Student Services Linda Chase, “not because of the Lichtenstein case, but because she felt there were more effective ways to help a student calm down.”
During the School Committee meeting Tuesday, Chase stressed the district does not use seclusion restraint.
“We don’t practice that in any situation,” she said.
Chase, who was not with the district at the time of the alleged incidents involving Rose, described the current practices at the Lexington Public Schools as “positive behavioral intervention.”
For students who continuously act out, she said the school system uses a “functional behavioral assessment” and trained crisis management teams to determine the best course of action.
“Restraint is an absolute last resort,” she said. “It is used if harming themselves or others in imminent.”
Chase said staff members take careful notes whenever restraint is used and the school is legally required to notify parents of any restraint lasting longer than five minutes.
Moving forward
School Committee Chairman Margaret Coppe called the allegations disturbing.
“I think an overwhelming feeling in the town is: How could this happen in the first place?” she said.
“My major concern now is that parents trust us to take care of their children in school.”
School Committee members expressed a desire to conduct an independent investigation into what happened to Rose and if similar situations happened to any other children.
“We can’t change what happened,” Coppe said. “It happened, and we don’t want it to happen again.”
Read more: Superintendent denies use of 'seclusion rooms' in Lexington schools - Lexington, MA - Lexington Minuteman http://www.wickedlocal.com/lexington/news/x1107518379/Lexington-superintendent-disputes-claims-of-mistreatment-of-special-needs-student#ixzz26aLlxxCz
Lichtenstein Explains 'Seclusion Room' OpEd, Allegations Against LPS
A former Lexington resident opens up about the OpEd he penned for the New York Times alleging his daughter, then a 5-year-old special needs student, was locked in a closet by educators within the Lexington Public Schools.
A photo posted to Bill Lichtenstein's Facebook page.
Photos (7)
Photos
Pdfs (2)
Pdfs
It wasn’t the settlement or his daughter's recovery that motivated journalist and former Lexington resident Bill Lichtenstein to write an OpEd for the New York Times about the alleged mistreatment of his daughter, then a kindergartener, within the Lexington Public Schools six years ago.
It was Jerry Sandusky.
Or, rather, it was the seismic fallout from the child abuse scandal that rocked Penn State, tarnished the reputation of legendary football coach Joe Paterno and forced the responsibility of adults to protect children into the public consciousness.
In a piece published over the weekend by the New York Times, Lichtenstein writes about “seclusion rooms” as a cruel punishment for special needs students, and the shock of finding his young daughter naked in a basement closet, standing naked in a puddle of her own urine.
Although there was no indication of any sexual misconduct involving his daughter, Lichtenstein said following the Sandusky/Penn State scandal got him thinking about the responsibility of adults
to not turn a blind eye when children’s safety is at stake. That, combined with Senate hearings over the summer, compelled Lichtenstein to share his version of his family's story.
“The thing that has always haunted me, in addition to the details of what happened to [her], is we were told at the time that other kids were involved,” said Lichtenstein. “The idea, the not knowing if it had ever been investigated and if the parents had been told, made me think about writing an article.”
According to Lichtenstein, during the 2006-2007 school year his then-5-year-old daughter was locked in a basement closet of the current school administration building, which at that time was being used as the Fiske Elementary School during construction. The closet, Lichtenstein says, was being used as a “seclusion room,” a controversial form of treatment and punishment used for special needs students that has come under fire from the Government Accountability Office and federal lawmakers.
By his own account, Lichtenstein said he never asked to see the room, which educators reportedly described as a “time out” room to which his daughter, who was on an IEP, was sent to some days.
“There was a simple presumption, any parent being told that, that it would be an appropriate setting for a 5-year-old child,” Lichtenstein said.
To view the “seclusion room” Lichtenstein says his daughter was locked inside or to read through the parents' presentment letter and proposed findings and judgments, click through the photos and PDFs posted above.In a statement released Monday night, Lexington Superintendent of Schools Paul Ash said district records from the days in question do not reflect Lichtenstein’s allegations, but indicate that staff members followed protocol.
In the statement, Ash also notes that the allegations were not brought until two years after the incidents allegedly occurred. According to a report last night on Fox, the Lichtenstein family settled with the district for $125,000 for therapy bills; according to the presentment letter provided by Lichtenstein, the family initially sought $5 million in damages. The settlement reportedly occurred in 2009.
Speaking with Patch on Monday, Lichtenstein said that in retrospect, had he known all of the facts, he would have done more at the time. But, as it was, the family’s first concern was the well being of their daughter, and believed that her situation was an isolated incident.
The girl was pulled out of the Lexington Public Schools, spent months recovering at home and then entered a program. The family no longer lives in town, and their daughter attends a public educational collaborative outside of Lexington, according to Lichtenstein.
With the settlement in the rear view mirror, Lichtenstein said payoff from his piece—which he says he pitched to the Times and secured interest by telling the national story of seclusion rooms—would be if it leads to other incidences of mistreatment of children to come to light.
“My hope is that [she] continues to get past this,” he said, “And the second hope is that if any other children were involved, they can identify those kids and let the parents know.”
The Times piece isn't Lichtenstein's only work on mental health issues and punishment.
Lichtenstein, a Peabody Award-winning print and broadcast journalist, was diagnosed with manic depression in 1986, according to an interview with New England and Film.com, and in 1990 formed Lichtenstein Creative Media, a company that has produced a number of works tackling mental health issues.
In late August, Lichtenstein wrote a piece for HuffPost about the Massachusetts child welfare system being labeled the fifth worst-managed in the country.
http://lexington.patch.com/articles/lichtenstein-explains-times-oped-allegations-against-lp
LPS Superintendent Statement Challenges NYT OpEd Alleging Mistreatment of Special Needs Student
In a written statement, Superintendent of Schools Paul Ash rejects claims made in an OpEd column by former Lexington resident Bill Lichtenstein, published over the weekend by the New York Times, that his daughter was mistreated at Fiske.
No comments:
Post a Comment