An eighteen smoking gun salute to you
Friday September 9, 2005
To: Debra Rooney
Principal of the Mary Lyon
School
To: Jean-Dominique Hervé Anoh
Program Director at
the Mary Lyon School
Debra Rooney:
An eighteen smoking gun salute to you.
I want to
thank you and Herve kindly for the extended discussion
yesterday about the use of restraints at the Mary Lyon
School. As with so many things in dealing with you, you at
first deny or say anything you wish, but under extended
discussion the truth starts to come out.
In our conversation, you and Herve, in detail
agreed that restraint is used at the Mary Lyon School. In
fact you said I was common knowledge, and I should have known
this. Well now that I do and you admit it, I that much more
strongly want my daughter transferred out of the Mary Lyon.
Of course as always, BPS will not respond to my requests.
This is interesting, because in our June 27,
2005 letter to you and Carol Lennon, BPS Assistant “Program
Director,” asking for our daughter to be transferred out of
the Mary Lyon School, we gave as the first reason that
restraint is used there. Now Carol Lennon wrote us a letter
that said you categorically denied this then. Now much the
opposite is agreed upon. Herve went in detail, about names of
holds, disagreed with the types of holds that I mentioned,
mentioned methods like CPI, TCI and so forth. (Smoking gun
number one.)
I find Carol Lennon’s wording interesting. She
passes the buck onto you Debra following the typical BPS
practice of making sure the buck of responsibility is passed
down, not up, should any things be exposed. What a culture
this is. However, I am sure she knew. In fact, I have found
out this policy of the use of restraints at the Mary Lyon
predates you, according to other parents and others I have
talked to, so Mary Nash then certainly knew.
I asked Herve if he would use these methods on
all students with disabilities at the school. He said that
well if the disability was blindness, then it would not be
appropriate. This shows ignorance of what would be
appropriate for an Asperger’s child, and even my daughter.
He never said it would be inappropriate for my daughter. This
shows his ignorance, and his willingness to consider restraint
on a five-year old girl. In fact if restraint had never been
used on our daughter, would it only be logical that he would
have used her as an example under these circumstances,
circumstance were her is trying to persuade me that restraint
was not in fact used on my daughter. An analogy with the
blind child is apt. My daughter is blind to understanding
many social interactions. His implications that these methods
are appropriate shows total ignorance as to the sensitivities
of this neurological disorder. These approaches cause harm of
a unique order to this set of children. To blame her for
things she is incapable of comprehending and specifically to
use punitive measures is basically abusive. Herve, and
clearly no one else at the school, seems to understand that.
Why was blindness chosen as the contrary case, and not
children with these kinds of neurological disorders, this
shows his blindness. Expertise consistently agrees with me on
this issue. If he knew more about her disability, and was
sure she was not restraint, why was not she used as an example
of a contrary case? The subtext is that Anaya was restrained
and he feels it was legitimately done. (Smoking gun number
two.)
I find it very interesting that you would state
that all parents who send their students to this school know
that restraint is used there. I said in reply that I did not
know, how was I to know? Did you pass around a letter? Is it
specifically stated somewhere? At the same time, you seemed
very concerned that other people, parents, would learn of this
fact. That my presence there would allow them to know this.
Your very concern proved the point that it is not only NOT
generally known, but also you and BPS carefully work to make
sure it is not known. If you were not concerned about keeping
this fact secret, why were you engaging me out there in a
public place? You seem concerned about this coming out, but
not that children in that school have to endure the
frightening scenes there that I witnessed. One again you
always follow a twisted logic. You use the name of protecting
the children really only to cover your posteriors. (Smoking
gun number three.)
As for the specific use of restraint on my
daughter, again I find your responses interesting. When I
insisted that I saw restraint used on my daughter with my very
own eyes, Herve as is typical, always finds as many arguments
as possible to reject the issues that you do not want to be
true, even if they are true. Here one of the arguments he
brought to bear was that I did not see what lead up to the use
of restraint on my daughter. This is a very interesting
approach to take. He was not denying that restraint was used
with my daughter, rather he only was saying that I could not
understand that at the times it would have been appropriate.
Thus he is showing that he thinks the use of restraints is
legitimate for her. Even tacitly agreeing that it might have
been done. It shows total ignorance of her needs, who she is,
her tinny stature, her only five-years of age. In fact this
is consistent with what I have come to understand, that the
school uses restraint, not as a last resort, as you try to
say, but as a consistent and regular policy, often at the most
minor of needs. This is what I saw with Anaya’s Kindergarten
teacher Lynn Quinn. It was quite clear that as far as she
understood, that for the minor fussing my daughter was doing,
restraint was the right and appropriate response. It became
clear early on last year that no one working with my daughter
had any substantive experience or training Asperger’s. I
stated this categorically in our team meeting in October of
2004, of which your response was not to train staff, but to
work to more solidly entrench her at the school and fight us.
The lack of training is something no one ever has denied.
What I did not know then, is that instead of applying
appropriate approaches, Lynn was using restraint as part of
the methods that were made available. Not only did the school
miss what was right, it used what was wrong. (Smoking gun
number four.)
There is no credibility to your statement that
restraint is used at the Mary Lyon as a last resort. I have
seen it, and other parents know that it is consistently used
as an inappropriate and simple solution. In other cases I
have viewed the use of restraint on other children at the
school, I could see no one in danger, no child capable of
causing danger, only small young children screaming, usually
suffering from the restraint itself. There could be no
purpose, but the misguided belief that this would change a
child’s behavior for the better. You should be aware that not
even animal trainers recommend this form of learning. My
daughters IEP specifically states the requirement for positive
approaches. You clearly do not get it. I figure if you feel
comfortable about changing my IEP without informing me, they
you equally feel no obligation to work within the bounds of
it. What value is it then? I actually have no evidence that
many of the services agreed upon were rendered at all. But I
do have plenty of evidence that the services that were
rendered were done so by people who did not have the skills
needed. I have to ask you, why would you never allow me to
talk to Anaya’s speech and language provider? This in spite
of the fact that this person should have been on of the point
persons in her program. This is quite suspicious. Why would
you not let our daughter’s psychologist train any one? Why
did you remove a psychologist from my daughter IEP without my
permission? You have no reasonable answers to these. (Smoking
gun number five.)
Herve complained during our discussion that I
should have come to him to talk about it. Well in letter
after letter I mentioned problems and BPS does not respond.
And specifically in the letter I mentioned
above I called the school to task for using restraint, but all
my letters are methodically and systematically ignored. I
never heard from Bill Henderson as to the letter I sent to him
before the one I sent to Carol Lennon. When I finally got
him on the phone a month later, all he said was he gave my
letter to the legal team. There is plenty of evidence that
BPS has a policy of not replying, with only the legal team
calling the shot. BPS thinks of its legal defense from day
one, rather then supplying its legally required support of
special needs students. (Smoking gun number six.)
As we have talked about in previous
discussions, it was more than once reported to me that my
daughter was heard screaming all the time at your school. She
does not do it at home, so this alone makes me wonder what you
do at your school that makes her do this. You never rejected
this fact. Interestingly you only said that I have no right
to know this. Again you logic is to protect you posterior and
not any display of real concern for the children. (Smoking gun
number seven.)
Why do you want her to return to this school?
You have never given a legitimate reason for this. I have
stated repeatedly, and you have agreed, that she emotionally
fell apart at your school, a pattern that other children with
similar profiles suffer at your school. Yet you continually
maintain it is the right place for her. (Smoking gun number
eight.)
There were many interesting things in this
conversation. At first you deny that my daughter was
restrained. Then you backed off and said that state
regulations say that it can be used as a method of last
resort. Thus confirming my statement that it was in fact used
with my daughter. Herve said that they train their staff in
restraint. (Smoking gun number nine.)
It is interesting that you again deny that my
daughter’s IEP was changed behind our backs, even when we have
the paper trail to prove it was changed, you feel you can deny
it. This as in case after case, your credibility is called
into question. I saw you call your secretary to task for
giving me the updated and changed IEP that I had never seen
before. It does not take a genius to know that you were in
the loop on this. (Smoking gun number ten.)
Well as our dialogue continued, and we started
to discuss the specific fact that Lynn Quinn applied restraint
techniques to my daughter, Herve insisted that Lynn knew what
she was doing. This is interesting. Yes, she may have known
how to apply a given method. This in fact shows an agreement
that she could very well have applied restraint to my daughter
and repeatedly. What is totally missing at your school is the
knowledge that these are not appropriate methods for using
restraint on my daughter and most likely many other students
who have fallen apart at your school. Never has anyone
acknowledged this. It is quite clear that you think these
approaches are appropriate. But not as last resorts, but as a
key method of working with students.
When I pressed Herve and you as to how was I to
know that this school used restraint, that this was kept from
me, you could not come up with an answer. When I said I would
have never sent my daughter to this school if I had known they
use restraints, you had no answer. Let us recall a meeting
we had in the fall of 2004 where you stated that Anaya’s IEP
was constructed so that she looked like a behavior problem in
order to allow her to be placed at the Mary Lyon. I could not
understand the implications of this then, but now they are way
beyond the pale. Again the fact that BPS would do this shows
a marked lack of interest in the well being of children and
just basic ignorance. Mixing Asperger’s and behavior problem
kids is dangerous to the Asperger’s children. (Smoking gun
number eleven.)
I suggested that there is every reason to
believe that the use of restraint on Anaya was a pattern, a
repeated pattern as would be the case of a teacher trained to
think this was an appropriate approach. Anyone with even the
most limited sensitivities would know that abusive
interventions just provokes and makes students that much more
frustrated and anxious. This in turn gains more restraint.
The very method, does not deescalate, but in the long run only
escalates the friction between the child and the teacher. My
daughter's falling apart was consistent with such an
increasing cycle of conflict. (Smoking gun number twelve.)
It is also interesting that Herve confirms that
Anaya did have a breakdown, that her mental health
degenerated, a pattern experienced by other students. It is
amazing you have not called into question your methods in
general. (Smoking gun number thirteen.)
However, once again you give the ludicrous
retort that it was because toward the end, and let me say this
was after she started to deteriorate, the ludicrous answer
that that I stopped bringing her to school the full day. I
reduced her school day as I saw the horrible consequences of
it. This is one of the most audacious of your twisting of the
rational. (Smoking gun number fourteen.)
When I stated that you have training in
restraint but not training in her needs, Herve dodge the
question again. He said that he had lots of training. But
really he did not address the need for specific training. I
do not care that he has two masters’ degrees. I think it is a
sign of ignorance that he should think that a masters in
remote sensing would even remotely have value understanding
spectrum disorders. In fact, the very fact you stated last
year that you needed to write an IEP for her that purposefully
misrepresented her to be a behavior problem, makes it clear
that your school is not knowable or represented as a school
that understands her needs. Even as further evidence of you
ignorance, all experts agree that mixing Asperger’s students
with those that have behavioral problem is a danger to the
Asperger’s students. The very fact that you put my daughter
in a school where restraint is a key training, is just proof
of your ignorance.
Again when I brought up yesterday that at the
last IEP meeting you stated that the school DOES need
training, Herve dodge this. He tried to claim that all they
needed was some updating. Let us not mince words. You all
have no idea of what is appropriate for Asperger’s children in
general and my daughter in particular. You have tried hard in
every way imaginable to cover this fact up, and again, as
always, the truth has a way of working its way out. I am
really tired of the lies. I am tire of harm being done to my
daughter. I would be happy at any time to have you offer a
lecture as to what you feel is appropriate for these kinds of
disabilities. I challenge you now to a public discussion as
to what you feel is appropriate for these students. I know
you will not accept all you can offer is misconceived and folk
ideologies about this topic. The only reason you are refusing
to transfer my daughter out of the Mary Lyon is that BPS has
no appropriate program for her, is unwilling to construct one
for her, and wants to avoid a private placement at all costs.
(Smoking gun number fifteen.)
Herve did agree he was not an expert in
Asperger’s, that he could not be an expert in everything. I
said that the school made itself out to have this knowledge,
and if this were a business situation, it would be considered
fraud. He had no response to this.
I thank you kindly for calling off this
important discussion at this time. It seems that all you can
offer is academic arguments. Herve loves the philosophic
debate, but I am still waiting for an appropriate education
for my daughter.
You all should be ashamed of yourself. All you
have done is defend your turf and position. At every turn
that is all you do. Not once have you shown concern for the
plight of my daughter.
Just who do you think you are? You clearly do
not show the integrity that any parent requires to trust their
child to another indevidual.
What I see here across the board at BPS is a
pattern of attempting to take advantage of special education
parents and children at every turn. I must say it is one
thing to fight with parents, but to take actions that do harm
to children in order to save money as so many of the issues I
have called the school to task for boils down to, this is both
contrary to law and human decency.
How dare you stand in the way of my daughter
having a decent future, with your endless bureaucratic games,
lies, deceits, manipulations. Then add to that abuse, which
you do not even have the knowledge to recognize as abuse.
Then there are the people above you, who insist at every turn
this is the right place for our daughter, not on any grounds
of fact, but on cost and face saving bureaucratic expedience.
However, this would be too kind. I believe I
am speaking correctly, when I state that they wish parents of
children with special needs would simply go away. In fact
there is evidence that making them do so is one of BPS’s
strategic goals.
When we were going to choose a school, Aida
Ramos the other Assistant “Program Director” insisted, with
the most offering smile she could muster, that the was the
right place for my daughter, but only was willing to show it
to us after the school year ended, and insisted she stand
guard as we spoke with the kindergarten teacher and than after
Mary Nash. Even then it was evident that both the
kindergarten teacher and later Mary Nash showed marked
ignorance about what appropriate for this disability.
(Smoking gun number sixteen.)
There was of the more interesting things that
you said yesterday in response to my concern that restraint
was use on my child was that when we sent our child to the
school we knew that it was a school which uses restraints.
The subtext is obvious. You were defending the use of
restraint on my child by saying I gave tacit approval to it by
sending my daughter there. This is an outrageous defense.
(Smoking gun number seventeen.)
Finally, when I said to Herve, you have no
right to allow a perfect stranger to put their hands on my
daughter. His response was, she is not a perfect stranger she
is Anaya’s kindergarten teacher. Well there you go. That
nails it. (Smoking gun number eighteen.)
There is nothing other to conclude, but that my
daughter was restrained, repeatedly, and not just in the
instance I saw. You all knew about it and supported it. A
five-year old girl, that could harm no one, was restrained, a
girl far intelligent enough that you could have reasoned with
her, intelligent and sensitive enough to be deeply emotionally
wounded by these actions, a little girl that wants to look up
to and love and earn the respect of her kindergarten teacher,
who instead was manipulated and tormented in a horrendous way
to support your egos and foolishness. And this my dear friends
is abuse.
My foolishness was that I trusted you all, my
mistake was I gave you all the benefit of the doubt, my
mistake was to think that these public servants would have the
interest of my child in mind, my mistake was to think that
they would never harm children, my mistake was to put trust
where trust was not due. Yes, thank you, you tricked us into
placing our daughter in a place that is not right for her.
And now you will not right the wrong. Exhausting parents is
your modus operandum. What culture, what threats from
superiors, what confusion as to what is moral and just, allows
you all to make these choices in your life, and you want to
teach our children, teach our children to make the right
choices, you want to direct the education of our children, you
want to instill in them the values that are contrary to all
the great teachings, accept maybe Machiavelli and his like.
Children learn more from the culture of the adults they see
around them, then what is in their lesson books. In this
instance you have failed all of Boston. Yes, these children
may pass their standardize tests, but what kind of citizens do
you want? Are you stewards of the future of this great city,
our precious young gems in this great city, or are you just
protectors of your near and above six figure salaries given to
you in trust by the very parents who trusts you violate an a
daily basis, parents who give you their children in trust to
you. If I had given my daughter in trust to a baby sitter,
only to find that she had been covering up my daughter’s
screams and anxieties in reaction to her “care”, and saw my
daughter fall apart in her hands, and saw her use methods I
would never use on my child, every parent would say, it is
time to revoke that trust.
In all the discussions I have had with you,
never have you ever seemed concerned for my daughter, never
have you even been willing to enter into a dialogue as to how
to make things better, at every turn it is simple denial that
anything is wrong. Let me correct this, before the BPS
Special Education Central office got involved, you did show
some humanity. I wonder what they did to you to change you so
drastically.
However, from everything I have seen, at this
time ignorance, arrogance and maybe even fear of reprisals
from above, reaches to the core of everyone I have mentioned
in this letter. And the smoke from the guns that clearly
points to my daughter’s restraint and abuse are making me gag
and feel sick. It is time that the white wash and the rosy
scenarios start to peal away so the fish that rots from the
head down is exposed to the scrutiny is deserves.
Fondest regards,
Barry Grushkin
©
Barry
Grushkin 2005 All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with Permission.
5
Year Old with AS Restrained
