A nonprofit advocacy group has urged that Connecticut students no longer be placed at a boarding school for students with autism after an investigation revealed allegations of abuse and neglect at the private program in New York.
In statement shared with the Courant Tuesday, Kevin Bronson, a spokesperson for the Connecticut Department of Developmental Services , said DDS had “ceased referrals” to Shrub Oak International School , an education program in Mohegan Lake, New York that bills itself as “a therapeutic day and residential school for autistic children, adolescents, and young adults with complex co-occurring conditions.”
The decision came after the nonprofit advocacy group Disability Rights Connecticut warned state officials at DDS and the Connecticut State Department of Education of “serious safety concerns for students with autism attending Shrub Oak,” in a series of letters brought to light by a recent investigation into allegations of abuse at the school by ProPublica .
Shrub Oak has rejected allegations raised in ProPublica’s reporting and maintained that the school provides a “safe, supportive educational placement opportunity,” in a statement on the Shrub Oak website.
The letters obtained by ProPublica reveal that between February and March, Disability Rights Connecticut urged state officials to take “immediate remedial action” after the organization said a preliminary investigation into the school allegedly “determined that students at the Shrub Oak have been abused and have been and continue to be neglected.”
During the investigation, Disability Rights Connecticut wrote that the organization received complaints about students who allegedly received “unexplained bruising and injuries” while attending the school.
Disability Rights Connecticut also alleged that Shrub Oak engaged in “inappropriate use of seclusion” through a “hold and close policy” and maintained padded “quiet rooms” that were unsafe for students.
Disability Rights Connecticut wrote that the organization staff “observed one student virtually confined to his room and forced to sleep on a linoleum floor with no bed or even mattress.”
“He had no personal items or other furniture,” the organization wrote. “The only items in his room were magazines and newspapers on the floor and numerous empty water bottles. During the visit, the student was observed lying on the floor covered in a blanket that appeared to be similar to a moving pad.”
In the letters, Disability Rights Connecticut also advised that Shrub Oak “is not subject to full oversight or regulation by the State of New York.”
According to a letter the organization shared with Connecticut officials, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education decided to cease relations with Shrub Oak and pull students from the school in November of 2023 after the department learned Shrub Oak’s host state, New York, had not “approved the program to provide services to students with disabilities.”
In his statement for DDS, Bronson said the state of Connecticut and its entities “have had a limited relationship with Shrub Oak, with a small number of Connecticut residents receiving supports” at the school.
Bronson said DDS “has been in regular communication” with Disability Rights Connecticut about the organization’s concerns with the school and that the department “has had team members out visiting Shrub Oak regularly, as well as communicating with the families of the individuals” who currently attend the program.
In a statement to the Courant Tuesday, Matthew Cerrone, the director of communications for the Connecticut State Department of Education, said that as of May, four students from the state were enrolled at Shrub Oak.
State intervention
Cerrone said that in early May, CSDE contacted the four districts that outplaced students to Shrub Oak about the allegations.
The action came nearly three months after Disability Rights Connecticut first alerted CSDE leaders about “serious and substantial concerns” at the school in a Feb. 8 letter obtained by ProPublica.
Cerrone said CSDE could not disclose the names of the four districts due to student privacy concerns.
Based on reporting by ProPublica, at least one of the districts was Bridgeport.
In a copy of a May 1 letter obtained by the publication, CSDE Special Education Division Director Bryan Klimkiewicz wrote to Bridgeport Public Schools Special Education Director Selena Morgan and Superintendent Carmela M. Levy-David, instructing the district to review whether “Shrub Oak program continues to be an appropriate placement for the student.”
Klimkiewicz notified Morgan and Levy-David of the allegations of “abuse and neglect of students attending” Shrub Oak and the preliminary findings from Disability Rights Connecticut’s investigation into the school.
Klimkiewicz also highlighted that “Shrub Oak is currently not an approved special education facility (school) by the New York State Department of Education,” nor is the program “licensed as a residential facility.”
Citing the “serious nature of the concerns,” Klimkiewicz, on behalf of CSDE, directed Bridgeport’s Special Education Department to review Disability Rights Connecticut’s preliminary report and “determine whether the District needs to conduct an onsite review of the Shrub Oak program.”
In the letter, CSDE also directed the district to review the student’s contract with Shrub Oak, share Disability Rights Connecticut’s preliminary report with the student’s parents, and “convene a planning and placement team meeting to review the student’s placement” in the program by May 31.
Cerrone said CSDE issued the same advisories and directives to each district with students placed in Shrub Oak.
Bridgeport Public Schools did not respond to questions Tuesday regarding what action the district has or will take following the Shrub Oak allegations.
The district also did not comment on why Shrub Oak was selected for the student’s out-of-district placement or whether the student was removed from the school.
Additionally, the district would not disclose how many Bridgeport students have been outplaced to Shrub Oak or whether district officials monitor the experiences or progress of students at out-of-district schools.
In an email, the district’s Director of Communications Suzanne Turner said the district could not answer the Courant’s questions because the inquiry “involves personal and protected educational information.”
Who holds responsibility?
While Cerrone said parents have the “right to unilaterally place their child in a private special education facility,” he said placements are typically determined by a student’s parents and school-based members on a planning and placement team.
Cerrone said that in Connecticut, “the overwhelming majority of students who receive special education and related services are educated within their district’s public schools.” However, Cerrone noted that “Sometimes, when a child’s disability is particularly profound, their educational needs require placement in either a private day program or, again, in a residential program, in either of which they would typically have limited-to-no interaction with non-disabled peers.”
“Both federal and state law require that a student with a disability be educated in the least restrictive environment,” Cerrone said. “This is an individualized determination and can range from a mainstream classroom setting within the student’s neighborhood school to a residential placement such as Shrub Oak, depending on the needs of the child.”
Cerrone said that just 6.71% of students with disabilities in the state are currently “placed in a separate school, residential facility, or homebound/hospitalization settings.”
When students receive an education outside their home district, Cerrone said the “private school is primarily responsible for ensuring the safety of students who have been placed in their school.”
Cerrone added that the sending district “has educational jurisdiction over the student (and) is responsible under both federal and state law for ensuring that the student’s placement is reasonably designed to provide the child with a free appropriate public education in the safest and least restrictive environment.”
Deborah Dorfman , the executive director of Disability Rights Connecticut, said “the states are also responsible for oversight.”
“There is a state responsibility to monitor, to make sure that when a student is being sent out of state that they’re getting the services that they need and that they’re not … being abused or neglected,” Dorfman said.
She added that “the big problem occurs when a child is sent to an out-of-state school that isn’t licensed.”
Disability Rights Connecticut said it could not provide an update on its investigation into alleged abuse at Shrub Oak.
The organization declined to comment on specific concerns about the school, however, Dorfman said that in her experience as a legal advocate, out-of-state placements for students with disabilities are “really problematic.”
“Especially if you have a student who may have disabilities that affect their ability to communicate, or have disabilities that affect their behavior, they’re more likely to be subjected, for example, to seclusion or restraint or other interventions. It may be very hard for the student to be able to say what’s going on (and) the parents may not know fully what’s going on because they’re so far away,” Dorfman explained.
Dorfman said a lack of oversight at unlicensed and unregulated facilities compounds these vulnerabilities by limiting avenues for parents and students to report concerns.
State monitors observe ‘deficient’ facility
In a March 25 report obtained by ProPublica, DDS observers conducted an unannounced visit to Shrub Oak, three days after Disability Rights Connecticut alerted the department to its preliminary findings of alleged abuse at the facility.
In the report, the observers described the school’s appearance as “more akin to a penal institution than an educational campus.”
During the tour, the observers documented soiled bedding and food waste in Shrub Oak dormitories as well as “deficient” dining services.
The observers wrote that Shrub Oak did not provide “individuals with full place settings such as cups, spoons, forks, knives, napkins, and plates,” forcing students to “dine out of takeout containers without liquids.” They described the dining arrangement as “a substandard practice that compromises (student) dignity, nutrition, and overall well-being.”
The observers noted that Shrub Oak’s “environment and overall milieu appeared primarily custodial,” and that “staff interactions appeared primarily focused on managing behavior rather than fostering skill development and autonomy.”
The observers said students lacked “opportunities for self-directed activities and personal responsibility … community integration and real-life experiences” and that “intentional programming or activities geared towards developing residential skills such as cooking, cleaning, self-care, and personal hygiene were not evident.”
In the report, the observers concluded that during the visit “there did not appear to be any basis for a determination of immediate jeopardy to any of the DDS individuals at Shrub Oak. Nonetheless, the observed shortcomings did reveal significant gaps in promoting a habilitative milieu and facilitating residential skill development.”
In a response to a ProPublica article about alleged abuse at the facility published on May 8, Shrub Oak said the children attending the program “are safe, have always been safe, and are being taught and cared for by trained and caring professionals.”
The school countered concerns about oversight, conditions and services raised in the article and criticized ProPublica for “attempting to malign a program that is providing critical services to individuals in need.”
“While families and school districts across the country struggle to serve autistic individuals with the most profound needs, Shrub Oak provides them with a safe, supportive educational placement opportunity to ensure students receive appropriate services,” the school wrote. “It appears, however, that ProPublica, through the publication of this article, seeks to denigrate Shrub Oak, either intentionally or out of ignorance of the challenges faced by autistic individuals.”
Most Popular
Comments / 0