[blindkid] Elimination of BESB in CT

Bo Page bo.page at sbcglobal.net
Wed Mar 2 13:21:23 UTC 2011


Carol,
Thank you for responding.  Yes, I would greatly apprecaite if you could share 
strategies.  When is a good time to call you?

If anyone else in the CT is interested in getting involved, please write.

Thanks,
Bo Page
Bristol, CT





________________________________
From: Carol Castellano <blindchildren at verizon.net>
To: "NFBnet Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)" 
<blindkid at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wed, March 2, 2011 8:03:31 AM
Subject: Re: [blindkid] Elimination of BESB in CT

Is there someone there who can organize the parents?  We are in the middle of it 
here in NJ and are in high gear for mobilization.  I would be happy to share 
strategies.
Carol

Carol Castellano
Director of Programs
National Organization of Parents of Blind Children
973-377-0976
carol_castellano at verizon.net
www.nopbc.org

At 04:05 AM 3/2/2011, you wrote:
> 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;Â 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;Â GENGA, 
>(Vice Chair), 10th;Â CANDELARIA, 95th; CLEMONS, 124th; DILLON, 92nd; FAWCETT, 
>133rd; FLEISCHMANN, 18th; GONZALEZ, 3rd; HADDAD, 54th; HAMM, 34th; HEWETT, 39th; 
>HOLDER-WINFIELD, 94th;Â HURLBURT, 53rd;Â KIRKLEY-BEY, 5th;McCRORY, 7th;Â NAFIS, 
>27th; ORANGE, 48th; REYNOLDS, 42nd; RITTER, 38th;Â ROLDAN, 4th; RYAN, 139th; 
>SAYERS, 60th; SCHOFIELD, 16th;Â TERCYAK, 26th; THOMPSON, 13th; URBAN, 43rd;Â 
>VILLANO, 91st; WILLIS, 64th. REPRESENTATIVES MINER, (Ranking Member), 66th 
>District, BETTS, 78th;Â CARPINO, 32nd;GIULIANO, 23rd; HWANG, 134th;Â 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. _______________________________________________ blindkid mailing list 
>blindkid at nfbnet.org http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org 
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindkid: 
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/blindchildren%40verizon.net
> 


_______________________________________________
blindkid mailing list
blindkid at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindkid:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/bo.page%40sbcglobal.net


More information about the BlindKid mailing list