Michelle Vitulich - Photo Ken Valenti
Michelle Vitulich – Photo Ken Valenti

By Ken Valenti

WESTPORT–Plans for a review of the Westport School District’s special education services took a step forward this morning, when the Board of Education approved a request for proposals (RFP) detailing what the district is looking for, and cleared 10 companies to apply for the project.

Parent Michelle Vitulich said one of the firms, CREC Resource Group of Weatherfield, Connecticut, might have a conflict of interest because it provides services that Westport students might assigned to.

Board Chair Lee Goldstein noted that their vote was only on whether the firms, responding to an earlier call from the district, showed that they met the qualifications for the job. 

“Invite them all, I agree,” Board member Neil Phillips said as the board approved the firms in a 6-0 vote at Staples High School. The firms are:

The Board also voted 6-0 to approve the RFP, with revisions intended to more clearly explain the role the firm will play in assessing the district’s special education services and their impact on students and families. 

“The review is intended to move beyond procedural compliance and examine whether the District’s continuum of services is aligned to student needs, supports placements in the least restrictive environment, is delivered with fidelity and consistency, produces meaningful outcomes and experiences for students, and uses human and financial resources effectively,” the RFP says.

Board members discussed revisions to ensure that the review gets to the heart of the services and their effectiveness. Board member Jill Dillon said she would like to see wording that better reflects students’ meaningful growth, not merely outcomes.

“How do we define what meaningful growth is?” she asked.

Vitulich told the board that the firm should get to the root of why conflicts arise over the services provided, and why parents sometimes must resort to obtaining legal advice to advocate for their children.

“This is their trajectory to independence,” Vitulich said of the services. “This is whether or not they’ll get a job, whether they’ll learn to read.”

Tracey Vizzo, another parent, said her son was not given supports that were promised.

Goldstein suggested the addition of wording that would stress that the consultant should explore families’ experiences with the services, “especially if there is a disagreement” over them.

Board member Stephen Shackelford began a discussion about whether the board members should take part in interviewing the firms that apply, along with the administration. That could mean a subcommittee of two or three board members in the interviews, or executive sessions in which the entire board meets with the applicants.

“I would like us to have a seat at the table at the interviews,” Shackelford said.

Several caveats arose with the idea. Goldstein said that if they held executive sessions – if closed-door sessions were permitted – the board members would need to commit to attending them for all of the interviews.

She rejected one suggestion that arose to hold public interviews with three finalists.

“It feels like a circus at a certain point,” she said. 

Board member Andy Frankel noted that the board could submit questions to the administration to ask potential consultants.

Superintendent Thomas Scarice said the administration expects to issue the final RFP next week, giving firms 30 days to apply.