[blindkid] Elimination of BESB in CT
Bo Page
bo.page at sbcglobal.net
Wed Mar 2 09:05:21 UTC 2011
For anyone who's blind in Connecticut, this may mean no more services for our
kids.
Concerned mom of an 18 year old in high school
Information for anyone interested in services for children with VI or Blindness
Appropriates House Bill #6380
Elimination of BESB
Move Children Services to the State Department of Education
Move the remainder of BESB services to the Department of Social Services
Public Hearing Testimony begins March 4th at 5:00 PM in room 2C at the
Legislative Office Building
Appropriations Committee:
SENATORS HARP, (Chair), 10th District; PRAGUE, (Vice Chair) 19th; DUFF, 25th;
GOMES, 23rd; HARTLEY, 15th; MAYNARD, 18th.
SENATORS KANE (Ranking Member), 32nd District; MARKLEY, 16th; WELCH, 31st.
REPRESENTATIVES WALKER, (Chair), 93rd District; ABERCROMBIE, (Vice Chair), 83rd;
MILLER, (Vice Chair), 145th; GENGA, (Vice Chair), 10th; CANDELARIA, 95th;
CLEMONS, 124th; DILLON, 92nd; FAWCETT, 133rd; FLEISCHMANN, 18th; GONZALEZ, 3rd;
HADDAD, 54th; HAMM, 34th; HEWETT, 39th; HOLDER-WINFIELD, 94th; HURLBURT,
53rd; KIRKLEY-BEY, 5th;McCRORY, 7th; NAFIS, 27th; ORANGE, 48th; REYNOLDS, 42nd;
RITTER, 38th; ROLDAN, 4th; RYAN, 139th; SAYERS, 60th; SCHOFIELD, 16th; TERCYAK,
26th; THOMPSON, 13th; URBAN, 43rd; VILLANO, 91st; WILLIS, 64th.
REPRESENTATIVES MINER, (Ranking Member), 66th District, BETTS, 78th; CARPINO,
32nd;GIULIANO, 23rd; HWANG, 134th; KLARIDES, 114th; LAVIELLE, 143rd; O’NEILL,
69th;PERILLO, 113th; RIGBY, 63rd; SAMPSON, 80th; SAWYER, 55th, SIMANSKI, 62nd;
WADSWORTH, 21st; WOOD, 141st.
Senior Committee Administrator:
Susan A. Keane
Room 2700, LOB 860-240-0390
See www.cga.ct.govfor information on the bill, committee members and hearings
Future legislative bills:
Implementation bill # H1102
Human Services Committee
Details not yet available
Here are some implications of the proposed bill.
If you are so inclined, contact members of the Appropriations committee or your
own Senator or Representative. You may wish to pick out 1 or 2 points that you
feel are important to share with them. The more people that they hear from, the
more they will understand the implications. Remember, if you call, you may only
be given less than a minute to make your point.
On paper, it looks like BESB will simply be divided and the parts assimilated
into other agencies. The proposed cost savings is that of 4 personnel at the
administrative level. Due to supportive federal dollars, this comes to about a
$288.000 savings. In fact, there will be no cost savings; it will cost the
state more. Let me explain why.
By splitting the agency into two parts, they will have to divide up its
resources, resulting in the need to duplicate services, equipment and
personnel. Right now the agency shares a braille unit which produces braille
for adults and children; it shares a professional library, specialized equipment
and material for the blind, a low vision center, and an assistive technology
lab. In addition, special assistants and braillists do work for multiple
divisions. The cost of reproducing these services is huge. For example, just
the cost alone for a new braille embosser that is currently used by the agency
is $50,000. This is just one of multiple expenses. The Low vision center is
filled with Closed Circuit TVs and adaptive equipment. One CCTV can run $3000
while specialized software costs around $1000. Braille note takers cost
approximately $6000. To set up both locations with this equipment and hire the
personnel to support it will cost far more than what is projected to be saved.
In addition, by splitting the agency it results in reduced programing for their
clients. BESB is well known for its ability to work together between divisions
to create high quality programs for clients, parents, teachers,
paraprofessionals and other districts personnel. Programs include: parent,
vocational, technology, student skills of daily living, sports programs, weekend
programs, summer programs, transition programs, teacher in-services, OT, PT and
PE teacher in-services, paraprofessional in-services, CEU trainings, deafblind
and multiple disability training as well as others. BESB housed numerous
training programs within their facility-with the new model they will not only
lose expertise for these events, they will lose the training facilities as well.
Putting the teachers under SDE is a short term plan. This is an agency that
does not provide direct services or have any knowledge of the education children
who are blind. In fact it is in conflict with what they do-that of evaluating
and monitoring educational programs. They are not prepared to implement the
kind of programing BESB clients need. It is a conflict of interest. The last
time this was proposed, the SDE came out and said they would simply give the
money to towns and do away with state services- a likely scenario again.
Currently there is only a temporary commissioner of the SDE; no one even knows
who will be running the Department. The implications of this are frightening to
the BESB families and will cost the towns much more in the long run. Towns are
not in a position to hire their own teachers for 1 or 2 students which will
likely result in no services. Although the intent might not be to impact
services, the result will.
One concern that arises with this consolidation is simply one of space. Will
the SDE have storage for the Braille and large print library currently housing
60,000 volumes? How about space for volunteer braillists? We also need to
think about the 43 current Children's Services staff, the facilities for student
programs (use of kitchen facility for teaching ADL) and the facilities for
in-service training for district personnel. In addition, consideration of
storage of specialized materials for loan to students as well as space for the
professional library must be found.
With this consolidation, Children Services would lose their purchasing function
as it would go to DSS putting a strain on the SDE’s staff. In fact, the
purchasing may be eliminated and become the responsibility of the towns. SDE
will be responsible for managing a group of highly trained teachers without the
managerial knowledge or expertise in blindness-they have little or no knowledge
or understanding of the Expanded Core Curriculum for the blind mandated by
IDEA. Also lost will be the consolidated client data. There will also be a
cost of integrating Children Services database with SDE.
BESB is a centralized center where constituents can receive all services from
birth to death. With such a low incidence population, this is the most cost
effective model. Asking towns to take this over when they might have but one
student this year and 4 the next is unmanageable and cost ineffective. Being a
low-incidence disability, blindness cannot be administered in the same way that
other disabilities are. The costs to educate a child with blindness are huge.
The needs of BESB’s clients are unique and by having centralized services they
are able to provide for them in a cost effective/service delivery model that
works. There is no cost savings or program improvement resulting from the
proposed changes.
A constituent who has a family member who is losing vision, a parent who has a
baby born blind, a school district with a student who qualifies as VI or an
individual who has a visual problem can simply pick up the phone and make one
call to talk to many service delivery persons. Once divided and incorporated
into a larger agency the process will become cumbersome. Reaching the head of
the agency will no longer be a simple task, layers of bureaucracy will stand in
the way, and once located, that person will know little about the needs of a
person with blindness.
More information about the BlindKid
mailing list