The state has summoned members of the Killingley Board of Education and the superintendent to ask several more questions about whether the board’s denial of high school subsidized mental health centers violates the state’s educational interests. I have answered your question.
In a letter sent to Killingley officials on Monday, the State Department of Education described a “thorough and time-sensitive review” of the many issues raised in April’s parent complaints to which the board first responded. After the review, “questions arose,” he said. May.
Among them are: When Killingly applied for several federal grants, he said he had plans to set up a “school-based health center” to provide social and emotional support to students. The board later decided against establishing school-based health centers, despite a $3.2 million federal grant. The Department of Education would like to know more about how and why the board made that decision.
For months, the town has been embroiled in a fight over a school-based health center.
Parents, teachers, and students are voicing their support for the center, citing the growing need for mental health care at Killingly. The board voted against the center in March, saying he was concerned about the lack of parental consent to care, but the health care providers who would have run the center said they would not allow parental involvement. “emphasizes that it is essential for successful treatment.”
Director Noam Ferron said in a previous interview that he was worried health center staff would talk to children about “controversial topics.”
Parental rights is a topic with growing right-wing support. Parental support groups in schools across the country are opposing mental health programs such as social-emotional learning, claiming they are Trojan horses of critical race theory.
Opponents of Killingley’s health center have repeatedly raised complaints and phrases more commonly referenced by rights, including gender identity, cultural cancellation and abortion.
“The board’s actions and omissions are grossly negligent and downright dangerous,” said Christine Rosati Randall, one of the complainants and an advocate for the health center. “We should not wait any longer for intervention.” .”
Ferron said he has received state documents and plans to attend a public hearing to answer questions, but no exact date has been set.
“I will not comment further,” Ferron wrote in an email reply to CT Mirror’s request for comment.
Angeli said he believes the school district has provided documentation showing that the school “has made considerable efforts to meet the social and emotional needs of its students.” He added that the state’s letter does not refute this, but seeks clarification, and the school district will work to address the issue.
“I have recommended that the Killingley Board of Education, with the support of three members, introduce a school-based health center at Killingley High School. It’s just an additional measure to make it accessible, not because it wasn’t supported yet,” Angeli wrote in an email to CT Mirror.
The board’s 6-3 vote to reject the health center was premised on the former chairman’s resignation and April complaints.
State Departments of Education do not often investigate these types of complaints. After the investigation was closed, Commissioner Charlene Russell Tucker made recommendations to the State Board of Education asking if she did not believe there was sufficient evidence to support the allegations or if the district could make improvements to resolve the issue. Mike said he would either recommend the plan.
The State Board will make the final decision on what needs to be done.
The department’s follow-up meeting will be with current Killingley Board Chair Ferron, Democratic Board member Susan Lannon, and Superintendent of Education Robert Angeli. According to the letter, Ferron or Angeli may suggest other school administrators who can attend and provide relevant information.
The state has proposed four dates in late August for possible meetings.
Questions about Esser
The state has listed several comprehensive topics that staff would like to ask about at the August meeting.
The first is the Killingly Board’s application for federal grants under ESSER II (Elementary and Middle School Emergency Relief II Fund) and the American Rescue Plan ESSER. The school said he received more than $3 million from the American Rescue Plan ESSER alone, the letter said.
Congress originally established the ESSER fund in 2020 to help schools recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funds were released in several tranches.
In its ESSER II application, the board said part of its strategy for addressing social-emotional learning was the “addition of school-based health centers.” [that] In addition to enabling students to provide social and emotional support, we can also continue to focus on mental health safety. ”
The application also includes a reference to school-based health centers in the needs assessment, the letter said.
The commission also referenced the center in the American Rescue Program ESSER application, the letter said.
“Given the events that followed, the CSDE [Connecticut State Department of Education] After initially expressing support for both the ESSER II and ARP ESSER grant applications, we are interested in understanding the sequence of events and reasons behind the Killingly Board’s apparent refusal to establish SBHC. I have. SBHC” is written in the letter.
In its May 3 response to the state, the board noted ESSER I expenditures to establish behavior analyst status and social-emotional learning specialist status in elementary schools.
Health center alternatives
The state also asked Killingly to discuss alternatives to school-based health centers.
In a May 3 response, the Killingly Board said members had discussed health center alternatives, such as peer mentoring programs, and had asked the Superintendent to share further information at the May 11 meeting. rice field.
However, the petitioner said it was not on the May 11 agenda. The agenda posted on the Board’s website does not include discussion of alternatives as an item.
In response to public comments, Angeli said staff were awaiting answers to questions about liability from district attorneys and were considering alternatives, according to the May 11 meeting minutes posted on the board’s website. said they were investigating. A motion by one of his board Democrats to add discussion and possible action on medical centers was denied.
The state asked for clarification on what happened at the meeting and to provide more information on efforts to find alternatives.
“Furthermore, although SBHC is not the sole focus of the CSDE investigation, but rather is part of the complaint, it is useful to understand whether the Killingly Commission believes it has fully resolved the SBHC issue.” said the letter.
The state also wants to clarify whether it has sufficient funding for additional staff to attend to the mental health needs of students in lieu of health centers. asked how many students were placed in out-of-district treatment programs. [the students’] You need guaranteed support beyond what your district can provide. ”
“Therapeutic programs generally, but not exclusively, work with students who are considered mentally ill, and the Killingly Commission recognizes the ability of the Killingly Commission to provide the withdrawal students with the treatment support they need. Acknowledging the shortfall, Killingly said .Did the board place all students identified as mentally ill outside the school district?” the letter says.
Rosati Randall hopes the state will take immediate action as the lack of care is affecting children’s ability to learn.
“They haven’t learned when they’re thinking about suicide,” she said. “When they’re suffering from panic attacks, they’re not learning. Adults who have the power to help these students need to, and sooner or later.”