RESPONSE TO THE REPORT
AT SANDY 

BY THE OFFICE OF THE CHILD ADVOCATE

 

Abbreviations:

SHES- Sandy Hook Elementary School NPS?Newtown Public Schools
SDE- State Department of Education Adam Lanza

Office of the Child Advocate KF- Key Finding
INTRODUCTION

?Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants?? Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court justice

In the aftermath of the shooting at Sandy Hook, the Of?ce of the Child Advocate
(OCA) was directed by the Connecticut Child Fatality Review Panel to prepare a
report focusing on the life of AL with the goal of developing a set of
recommendations for public health system improvement. The report was released
on November 21, 2014, nearly two years following the tragic events of December
14, 2012. The OCA based the legitimacy of the report?s findings upon "thousands of
pages of documents? reviewed, consultation with law enforcement and members of
the Child Fatality Review Panel, interviews, and "extensive research.?

An essential element of fair discourse is the opportunity for rebuttal. Because we
were never afforded the opportunity to challenge the findings, it was incumbent
upon us to exercise the initiative to do so. We were not complacent and our silence
until now should not be misconstrued. We chose to delay our response to the report
for good reason. Like so many others traumatized by the events of that day, we too
were profoundly affected by the unconscionable loss of lives including those of our
friends, colleagues, and former students.1 We felt that a response at the time of the
report?s release would have been too emotionally driven to be productive in any

 

1 In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the former Director of Pupil Services was summoned to
return to Newtown and remained to support the district? 3 recovery through the opening of the Chalk
Hill School and was officially recognized by the National Association of School for
"Courage, Compassion, and Collegiality shown during and after the 2012 Newtown ragedy?. The
former Supervisor of Special Education voluntarily returned to support Newtown special educators
during the recovery.

sense. Time has allowed for greater perspective and we believe that our response
can now take a more constructive approach intended to inform our collective
understanding as a matter of historical record. We owe this to the twenty students
AND the six educators who lost their lives on December 14, 2012 and to whom our
response is dedicated.

We are taken aback by the report?s negative depiction of the Newtown Public
Schools, in particular the aspersions cast upon the special education program when
our experience indicated otherwise. Newtown has a long history of educational
excellence and we were proud of the accomplishments made during our tenure.2
We were known for developing model programs that were often replicated by other
school districts and our expertise and knowledge was regularly sought by state
leadership to help define "best? practices in Connecticut. We are offended by any
insinuation that our skills as educators and clinicians or that of our staff and
contracted consultants are substandard to those of outside service providers and
remain unapologetic if our capacity to responsibly provide our students with a free
appropriate public education diminished their fiscal "bottom?line?.

We question the report?s integrity with concerns based upon its conclusions
including the objectivity of the panel and misleading and or missing in formation.
We are also troubled by our exclusion from the process without explanation. Given
our long?standing commitment to serving the public good, we are confident that we
could have provided additional information to assist the panel objectively in their


Joseph Goebbels, a German propagandist, once stated, ?If you tell a great lie and
repeat often enough, the people will eventually come to believe it?. To that end, we
are highly concerned by the false and, increasingly in?ammatory and damaging
narrative being perpetuated about the ewtown Public Schools.3,4 The attacks have
been strategic, have targeted specific district leadership, and have resulted in both
personal and professional damage. We cannot and will not allow this ongoing
defamation to continue. We will not let others define the legacy of our dedication to

 

2
http: 
3 Dle%3 D0413 

3 

Feinstein 

2

the students and families of Newtown, nor that of the myriad of other professionals
who served under us.

The desire to attribute causation in the aftermath of tragedy is understandable. We
all feel safer if we can identify and prevent such acts of violence from occurring in
the future. The OCA admittedly stated that their report cannot and does not answer
the question of ?why" AL committed murder. That notwithstanding, it is our View
that the caring and competent educators of Newtown took more than reasonable
steps to help a child who presented with anxiety and social deficits in the absence
of signs of aggression to master the developmental tasks of childhood. AL left the
ewtown Public Schools with experiences in extracurricular activities, a successful
job placement, and an earned diploma.

What follows is our response to the OCA report framed around the aforementioned
concerns.

 

OBJECTIVITY OF THE PANEL.

?The idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your
contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another?- Richard Feynman, Theoretical Physicist, Nobel Prize Winner

A basic standard of research embedded in the ethical codes of a multitude of
professions is the ability to maintain objectivity, an essential value that forms the
basis for public trust.5 Those conducting research should be led by their data and
not by other interests that might undermine the integrity of their work. Further,
standards of research dictate that authors and/ or contributors to research need to
disclose personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests, biases,
or relationships that could reasonably be expected to impair their objectivity.

Excluding employees of the OCA, the communications consultant, copy editor, and
student participants, the report cites a panel of four primary authors and four
additional contributors along with their affiliations. With reference to the
aforementioned research standard, we find the obvious absence of full disclosure of
all panel members? affiliations curious and question the motivation to list only those
mentioned. Consequently, we refute the objectivity of the panel based on its
composition given that:

The panel does not include a public school educator nor is any panel member
certified by the Connecticut State Department of Education to work in a
public school.

0 Four of the eight panel members mentioned above are or have been affiliated
with Yale, which is repeatedly referenced as a primary care provider to AL in
the report?s findings.

0 Five of the eight panel members own or are employed in full or in part by
education consulting firms.

 

5 National Institutes of Health, NOTICE: 
4

Listed below are the authors and contributors with affiliations excluded from the
report:

PRIMARY AUTHORS

Christopher L.C.S.W.-former state representative from Newtown who,
along with state representative Debra Lee Hovey, requested a formal investigation
by the Connecticut State Department of Education?s Bureau of Special Education
(ESE) of the Newtown Special Education Department and school system in 2011.6
Following their review, the BSE found the request baseless and declined to launch
such an investigation.7,3,9 Given his history of antagonism toward the school
district, Christopher should have immediately recused himself from the
paneL

Iulian Ford, PhD?Advanced Trauma Solutions10

Andrea Spencer, PhD-Founder and CEO, Solutions. LLC11
Harold I. Schwartz, MD- Yale School of Medicine12

 

ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTORS

Michael Powers, Psy.D.?Yale School of Medicine13
James Loomis, Ph.D.-Yale School of Medicine?

We are concerned that the report?s authors make criticisms about educational
programming even though the shootings occurred three and a half years after he

 

5 
deptz

7 

1461572th
8 

9 A parent survey conducted by the Newtown Board of Education PPT Task Force on 6/15/2012
found that 97% of parents agreed with their child?s IEP and felt they were included as part of the
Planning and Placement Team process.

1? 
code/key/BKMF7vaCBqPA9
13 

13 powers-3.0rofile

14 

5

successfully earned his high school diploma and had exited NPS. That time span
was marked by occurrences beyond the control of any public school system. Page
103 of the OCA Report states, he looming prospect of moving from Newtown may
have increased anxiety, as he may have worried about where he would go to
live, and the loss of the sanctuary he had developed in his home. This was quite
possibly an important factor leading to the shootings.? Also, Page 104 describes
some of these occurrences as "a cascade of events, many self-imposed, that included:
loss of school, absence of work, disruption of the relationship with his one friend,
virtually no personal contact with family; virtually total and increasing isolation;
fear of losing his home and of change in his relationship with Mrs. Lanza, his only
caretaker and connection; worsening depression and anxiety; profound and
possibly worsening anorexia; and an increasing obsession with mass murder
occurring in the total absence of any engagement with the outside world. AL
increasingly lived in an alternate universe in which ruminations about mass
shootings were his central preoccupations.? In addition, in the years following
graduation from high school, there were other factors beyond the school's control
including:

1. presumed refusal to take medications,

2. The loss of treatment by community who voluntarily
surrendered his license to practice in both CT and NY following multiple
allegations of sexual relationships or sexual behavior with clients. [See
footnote 48 on page 39]

A lack of mental health services to AL as a young adult,

refusal to communicate or interact with his father,

The possibility of brain damage from anorexia [referenced on page 102],
His mother?s consideration of plans to move him into an RV as she planned to
sell the house,

anticipation that his mother might move with him to a new state, and
access to a growing arsenal of guns coupled with his growing and
obsessive interest in mass shootings.





KEY FINDINGS 

The report presents 37 Key Findings. 19 of these findings make references to 
educational services. 16 of these 19 findings can be refuted using information
presented in the body of the report. It is our opinion that, in such cases, the
authors? recommendations should in part be considered with careful scrutiny or in
whole disregarded.

51?? 
AL presented with significant developmental challenges from earliest
childhood, including communication and sensory difficulties, socialization
delays and repetitive behaviors. He was seen by the New Hampshire ?Birth to
Three? intervention program when he was almost three years old and
referred for special education preschool services.

Response to KF1:

This key finding, about early years of services in New Hampshire, is made
without complete information. Specifically, page 20 states that "Records do not
always document the level of services that AL received during these early education
years, which professionals were working with him, or the frequency and duration of
serv1ces.?

Regardless of this lack of information, the report draws conclusions and criticizes
preschool services for insufficiently addressing important aspects of 
programmatic needs including his:

a) Cognitive and social?emotional development,

b) Possible issues with expressive communication,

c) A likely diagnosis of autism,

d) Aspects of programming for his rituals and sensory sensitivity, and

e) Comprehensive educational assessments.

Furthermore, the authors criticize Newtown Schools for insufficiently transitioning
AL from early services in New Hampshire to SHES. Again, these criticisms are made
even though "It is not clear whether the school district was provided, asked for,
or considered material from early intervention or preschool program in New
Hampshire? and social withdrawal and isolation became "less obvious in his
later years at Sandy Hook Elementary School."

 AND MB.
The Newtown Public Schools also provided some special education services to
AL when he was in elementary school, but services were limited and providers
did not identify any communication or social-emotional de?cits (KFZ).

social?emotional challenges increased after fourth grade. (KF3)

Response to KFZ and KF3:

In grades 4?7, the increased challenges were observed in his home, not in school.
Page 36 states, "Mr. Lanza noted that when AL was between the ages of 11 and 12,
he began to seem a little different, less happy. To Mr. Lanza, AL grew more anxious
and frustrated, though he did not seem to Mr. Lanza to be angry or aggressive.? Yet,
in school, page 36 also notes that his ?positive academic trend? continued. A
teacher at Reed Intermediate School ?remembered him as bright, if reluctant, with
good ideas regarding creative writing. AL would not necessarily engage in
conversation, but he would not ignore others. This teacher remembered no
incidents of bullying or teasing, a common refrain from virtually all teachers or
other former classmates of AL's. Another teacher who had worked with him from
2002-04 remembered him as a shy, quiet boy who listened and participated in
class.?

On page 29 of the report, the authors note that AL transitioned from SHES to
Reed Intermediate School for grades 5 and 6. The report states, "According to
school records, he exhibited good effort, made independent application of grade-
level concepts and skills, and showed great insight into the motivation of characters
in stories he read, as well as solving mathematics problems. He was described as
well?liked by his peers and showing appropriate classroom 

Also on page 29, another student?s mother said AL spent a lot of time with her son
during this period of time. ?She told police that AL and her son would do typical boy
things together and would ride bikes and play in the neighborhood. AL often spent
time at this friend?s house and the mother described AL as ?normal and polite.? Her
son had also been to house and had never reported any worries or unusual
incidents."

In the report?s summary for ages 5 through 10, page 31, the authors refer to AL and
his brother as, ?doing many typical childhood activities. They also say, was
described by some as seeming happy, smiling, and participating in community and
school activities."

On page 37, 7th grade teacher at his parochial school states, truly do not
believe that parents were upfront with teachers about mental capacities.
Furthermore, on page 32, the authors also admit, "There is no clear indication in the
family?s records regarding how AL actually socialized or got along with children.?
Still, even with admissions of limited information or documentation, the report?s
authors draw conclusions in their key findings about increased social-
emotional challenges.

If there were not increased social?emotional challenges being observed by
elementary school personnel or reported to them, it is logical for AL not to receive
direct services targeting this area.

Regarding the authors? commentary on a lack of services for communication
needs, they draw conclusions about a paucity of services for his social
communication skills without clear knowledge of home?school interactions about
these needs. Page 34 says, is not clear if there were individuals who could
recognize the social-emotional red ?ags in his presentation at school or speak to his
family about what kinds of supports might be available either in the school or
community to assist In addition, page 34 states "The goals and objectives
from education plan had been primarily focused on articulation, with little
recognition of the social aspects of education. An incorrect assumption may [italics
provided] have been made that any social isolation AL demonstrated was solely
based on the degree of his speech intelligibility.? While admitting here the
tentative nature of this assumption, the authors still go on to conclude that 
efforts were limited in addressing his communication needs.

Graphic writings ?appeared to have been largely unaddressed by schools and
possibly by parents."

Response to KF4:

The OCA report cites only one of graphic writings that was allegedly written
when he was in public schools. According to the own report, there isn?t any
evidence that this one story was even submitted to his teachers. Speci?cally, on page
29 of the report, referencing a book, ?The Big Book of Granny,? the report?s
authors say the book MAY have been submitted. Again, on page 33, the report
states, "There is no evidence of communication in any form between the school and
parents about this book. If the book was indeed turned in [italics provided) or

9

 

otherwise brought to the attention of school officials, there is no indication as to
whether its contents were carefully reviewed.?

This point is also made on page 29, "There is no clear indication in the educational
records that school staff carefully reviewed or were otherwise explicitly aware of
the contents. There is no mention in the school record of any staff response to
receiving this 

Furthermore, the report?s authors use information given by a former student, who
was listed on the "Book? as co-author, to draw their conclusions. This student is
described on page29 as "an individual who as an adult was diagnosed with mental
illness and is purportedly living in a residential settings.?

While the report references other disturbing pieces of creative writing,
these pieces were written in the fourth quarter of 7th grade year when he
transferred to a parochial school. His teacher at the parochial school is quoted as
saying, remember showing the writings to the principal at the time, creative
writing was so graphic that it could not be shared." Footnote 45 states, "There is
no copy in the educational record of this disturbed writing." Hence, while the staff
of the parochial school appear to have seen the disturbing writings, there is no
documentation of NPS personnel ever having seen any graphic writings that are
referenced in KF4.

KF 5 

anxiety began to further impact his ability to attend school and in 8th
grade he was placed on ?homebound? status through his education plan- a
placement for children that are too disabled, even with supports and
accommodations, to attend school. (KFS)

AL had several sessions with a community between age 13 and 15,
though there are no medical records regarding this physician?s treatment.
Through brief correspondence with the school the supported Mrs.
Lanza?s desire to withdraw AL from the school setting in 8th grade. (KF6)

Response to KF5 and KF6:

These key findings fail to explain that while Mrs. Lanza initially wanted to withdraw
her son and opt for home schooling, an NPS administrator ?recommended that the
family and school work together to try and meet needs, even in unconventional
ways if necessary.? (See page 41]. In fact, in spite of having the support of 

10

 to keep him out of school, Mrs. Lanza eventually agreed to re-enroll AL
into Newtown Public Schools and to an Individualized Education Program that
included up to 10 hours a week of special education. [See page 42]. As an example
of the authors? bias against NPS, the authors fail to give credit to school personnel
for working effectively with Mrs. Lanza and the to reach this
compromise as a beginning step. It would have been much easier for the school
district to go along with Mrs. Lanza?s desire to homeschool her son, especially with a
report supporting that desire.

On page 42, the DEA report explains the Planning and Placement Team?s 
decision, ?The school district followed up on the recommendations at
an IEP meeting IEP indicated that AL was to receive up to 10 hours of special
education in the form of tutoring based on the belief that AL could not
function in a regular education environment." This decision re?ects compromise
from Mrs. Lanza?s initial position of wanting to opt for home schooling. With
encouragement from NPS personnel, Mrs. Lanza changed her initial position to an
agreement to enroll AL as a student of NPS to receive special education through
homebound instruction.

KF6 is also misleading in stating the provided "brief correspondence.?
In reality, as the report documents, the evaluated AL in Sept, Oct, and
Nov of 2005, he attended PPT meeting in Dec 2005 and he shared
recommendations to school personnel in person, through written correspondence,
phone calls, and through mother.

 

kw w-
?The district provided little surveillance of homebound status, which
lasted an entire school year.?

Response to RF 7:

The district not only provided surveillance, the district provided the homebound
instruction. [The week the report was due, the authors of the report cancelled their
interview with a key NPS administrator who could have directed them to records
about the surveillance].

11

RF 9
?Recommendations from the Yale Child Study Center, where AL was evaluated
at age 14 9th grade year) offered prescient observations that withdrawal
from school and a strategy of accommodating AL, rather than addressing his
underlying needs, would lead to a deteriorating life of dysfunction and
isolation.?

Response to KF9:

PS did not support the mother and desire to withdraw AL from
public school [See response to With advice and encouragement from 
personnel, Lanza and the eventually agreed to have AL receive
services from NPS that provided accommodations, modifications AND specialized
programming. These services addressed his underlying needs and brought him
from his former isolation to mainstreamed classes, inclusion in an extracurricular
activity, and a successful job placement in the community. He earned his high
school diploma.

The accommodations provided by NPS were not in absence of treatment for 
underlying needs. NPS knew AL was being treated by a licensed who
communicated with school personnel and participated in a PPT meeting to
determine AL's re?eligibility for special education and to design his IEP. While this
moral and ethical behaviors were later the subject of an investigation,
at the time, the parents and school team had no reason to question the validity of
the input. In fact, the Yale Advanced Practice Registered Nurse
who saw AL for a few visits, contacted to say ?all agreed" it
would be better for the family to "work with one provider" and that the "consensus?
was the would be the best person as AL liked and trusted him.

The approach of taking ?baby steps? to reintegrate an anxious and school-avoidant
student is the approach being currently used by a private special education school
that specializes in students with chronic school absenteeism due to anxiety. This
school's personnel are regarded as experts in the area of educational programming
for students with significant anxiety. This school has been approved by State
Department of Education as meeting all of the state?s standards, policies, and
procedures. Yet, the authors of the DEA report criticize NPS for using the same
approach.

12

?Yale?s recommendations for extensive special education supports, ongoing
expert consultation, and rigorous therapeutic supports embedded into 
daily life went largely unheeded.?

Response to KF11:

There is no evidence that NPS received a report from Yale with these
recommendations. In fact, there is no evidence that Yale had ever finalized the
report because the authors could only locate a draft report.

Furthermore, while the report?s authors criticize providers for not heeding Yale?s
recommendations for ongoing expert consultation, they also admit they don?t really
know how much consultation was provided by community 
Specifically, page 39 states: "Present day telephone interviews with the community
revealed that medical records were, at some point, destroyed.
There were no copies of this evaluation or treatment of AL contained
in pediatrician?s records, and no copies found by authors in state police
evidence files from the Lanza home. 

While the authors criticize NPS for its failure to heed Yale?s recommendations for
extensive special education supports, Mrs. Lanza repeatedly expressed satisfaction
and appreciation for school team and the progress he made. For example, on
page 28, in a letter she wrote on 5/18/01, Mrs. Lanza wrote about his elementary
school experience, "He has made tremendous strides in your school system.? On
page 65, the authors note, ?Mrs. Lanza expressed written appreciation for the work
of the school team with AL. She stated that she was 'impressed? with one particular
school staff member who helped him return to regular classes at the high school,
even when Mrs. Lanza thought they had run into a ?brick wall.? Mrs. Lanza
commended this individual as having had ?tenacity and creativity to find the
doorways in that wall.? Mrs. Lanza described a group of teachers and counselors
who were assigned to work with him, and that as a ?parent of a child with special
needs,? she appreciated the group leader?s 'accessibility, positive attitude, and 
ability to handle any situation that [arose).? Furthermore, page 66 of the report
describes emails between Mrs. Lanza and school staff as being exchanged every day
of the week and the tone ofthe emails being one of "cordiality and even
partnership.?

13

 F1 3

?Once AL was diagnosed, education plan did not appropriately classify his
disabilities and did not adhere to applicable guidelines regarding education
for students with Autism Spectrum Disorders or Emotional Disturbance.?

Response to KF13:

The diagnosis of an Autism Spectrum Disorder was listed as a ?rule out" and would
have required testing that he wasn?t able to tolerate. This conclusion is addressed
on page 43, Iune 2006 IEP record noted that primary disability was "to be
determined," but the team agreed to defer evaluation due to his extreme anxiety and
the recommendations. 

Footnote 53 notes the IEP Team could have identi?ed primary disability as
Autism or Emotional Disturbance based on his diagnoses from the community
However, guidance from the State Department of Education indicates a
school district needs to provide evaluations that are different and more
comprehensive than the evaluation for educational purposes.15

Yale personnel only said he MAY have this disorder.

 

 

KP 14

?Though AL showed initial progress in 10th grade with the school?s plan to
incrementally return him to the school environment, his progress was short-
lived. By the spring of that year, AL had again withdrawn from most of his
classes and had reverted to working on his own or with tutors.?

Response to KF14:

It is important to consider starting point, after his mother abruptly withdrew
him from public school in September 2004, to attend a private school in 7th grade,
i.e. he was so anxious he wouldn?t leave his house. Given this state of significant
anxiety and isolation, progress from 7th grade to his graduation, was
remarkable and more than ?short?lived." By the time of his graduation [June 2009),
he had been fully mainstreamed, he had participated in an extracurricular activity,
he had successfully participated in college courses, and he had a successful job
placement through the high school?s Job Coach in the community. This progress did

 

15 

14

not appear in a vacuum. Instead, progress was made through programming that was
highly individualized to meet his unique learning profile and in consideration of his
social?emotional needs. His programming included mainstreamed classes, tutoring,
independent studies, transitional services, college courses for high school credits,
special curricular modifications, accommodations, summer services and
collaboration with parents and It?s also important to note the
authors interviewed many of teachers and peers. No one observed any
aggression from AL or any aggression towards him.


parents (and the school) appeared to conceptualize him as intellectually
gifted, and much of high school experience catered to his curricular
needs. In actuality, testing performed by the school district in
high school indicated cognitive abilities were average. 

Response to RF 15:

In actuality, some of scores were in the superior and very superior ranges.
While he was not identified as a gifted student, test findings do support the school?s
conceptualization of AL as a student with gifted capabilities.

Of course PS catered to curricular needs. It is the district?s responsibility to
cater to student?s curricular needs. However, NPS also catered to his social?
emotional needs. See response to KF14.

AL completed high school through a combination of independent study,
tutoring, and classes at a local college.

Response to KF 16:

AL completed high school through a PLANFUL combination of independent study,
tutoring, classes at a local college AND through specialized instruction,
mainstreamed classes, summer services, transitional services, child study meetings,
evaluations, and extensive home school collaboration.

15

 1 7
?Records indicate that the school system cared about AL's success but also
unwittingly enabled Mrs. Lanza?s preference to accommodate and appease AL
through the educational plan?s lack of attention to social-emotional support,
failure to provide related services, and agreement to plan of independent
study and early graduation at age 17.?

Response to KF17:
See responses to previous Key Findings 11, 14, and 16.

Also, note that NPS personnel and Mrs. Lanza did not simply appease AL. As noted
throughout the report, school and social interactions created intense anxiety for AL.
In middle school, he became school avoidant and did not attend school for months.
He wanted to be isolated at home. His community recommended that
AL not attend school to avoid detrimental effects. Eventually, however, the
parents and PS personnel supported AL in attending school,
learning, and earning his diploma at age 17, through effective use of desensitization
strategies, positive reinforcement, motivational systems, and the delivery of quality
special education.


and his parents did not appear to seek or participate in any mental health
treatment after 2008. No sustained input from any mental health provider is
documented in educational record or medical record after 2006.?

Response to KF18

In footnote 48, the authors note, ?Copies of billing records obtained and reviewed by
OCA may not constitute the universe of billing records available.? Hence, their
criticism of mental health providers for failing to provide sustained input is based
on an admission that they may have lacked evidence.

Pages 39 and 40 include a section entitled, "Treatment by a Community 
Beginning Fall 2005." While the investigators did not find documentation of
sustained input from any mental health provider, they did theorize that 
community had more of an extensive relationship with AL than the
obtained records would indicate.

Page 89 concludes," It is not clear what steps the school district took, beyond
correspondence in the spring of 8th grade], to confirm or determine what

16

treatment was in fact being provided to AL or his family. However, it is also possible
that school personnel may have asked for and received verbal updates from Mrs.
Lanza that do not appear in the school record [italics provided], and the answers the
school received were satisfactory.? Also, later on page 89, "In this case, authors
cannot know the degree to which Mrs. Lanza may have heightened or mollified the
school?s concerns about AL, and she certainly presented as invested and concerned
for his who knew how to manage her son?s unique with the
case ofAL, it would have been difficult to predict the risk of violence and the tragic
outcome, and the family could possibly have made a credible case [italics provided]
that they believed that they were meeting his needs.?

KF30
"In the course of entire life, minimal mental health evaluations and
treatment (in relation to his apparent need] was obtained. 0f the couple of
providers that saw AL, only one- the Yale Child Study Center-seemed to
appreciate the gravity of presentation, his need for extensive mental
health and special education supports, and the critical need for medication to
ease his obsessive-compulsive 

Response to KF30

While the authors demonstrate a bias against PS, they also demonstrate a bias in
favor of the Yale Child Study Center. Perhaps this bias is perpetuated through the
inclusion of contributors who are from Yale or who have known associations with
Yale. 0n the other hand, public school educators are excluded.

KF30 includes an inaccurate undocumented statement. Specifically, the authors
state, ?0f the couple of providers that saw AL only one?the Yale Child Study Center
(italics provided) seemed to appreciate the gravity of presentation, his need for
extensive mental health and special education supports, and the critical need for
Yet, pages 38 and 39 describe how staff of Danbury Hospital also
recommended evaluations and therapeutic educational placement at the
Center for Child and Adolescent Treatment Services and offered a full evaluation of
him to expedite admission to the school. In addition, page 45 credits Danbury
Hospital as the only health care provider to educate the Lanzas about the potential
harms of extended homebound status or school withdrawal or to provide
meaningful alternatives for treatment and education. On page 46, the authors also
describe the hospital?s recommendations as ?sound and appropriate.? It is
interesting to note that in the key findings, regardless of the aforementioned praise
for Danbury Hospital?s response to visit, the Yale Child Study Center is

17

described as the only provider to appreciate the gravity of needs to make
appropriate recommendations.

While the report?s authors praise Danbury Hospital?s recommendations, they note,
on page 47, that the Emergency Department staff may not have been in the position
at the time of his visit to doubt or compel the family?s follow up, or to communicate
with the school without Mrs. Lanza?s approval. The community 
ultimately made drastically different recommendations than the Emergency
Department staff, and these were the recommendations that were provided to and
adopted by the school system.? is it fair to criticize school staff for considering the
recommendations over recommendations they never received,
especially when the predicted dire consequences for failing to follow his
recommendations? Keep in mind, at the time, the was licensed and Mrs.
Lanza held his opinion and care in high esteem. Furthermore, esteemed
personnel from Yale also referred parents back to the community


In addition, page 4-0 says that community reported seeing AL
approximately 8 times, but "records obtained by OCA provide a picture of a longer
and more extensive relationship between the community and AL than
portrayed by this in multiple interviews.? The report continues to say
"the extent of actual participation with or progress in treatment or What
treatment actually was provided cannot be confirmed due to the lack
of records, and the absence of any meaningful corroboration of the treatment,
including the lack of any treatment records or recommendations in the pediatric or
educational file for the bulk of this time period.? In other words, even though the
authors admit they do not know the extent of private treatment with his
community they conclude that only Yale Child Study Center
appreciated the gravity of needs.

Regarding the conclusion that the Yale Child Study Center was the only provider to
appreciate need for medication, the authors overlooked their own commentary
on page 39 that ?Records indicate that individual and medication
management were billed by the community and this community
did indeed make recommendations for medication as also stated in
footnote #48.

The authors commend the Yale Child Study Center as the only provider to
appreciate the gravity of presentation, his need for extensive supports, and for

18

 

medication.16 Yet, the authors do not address Yale?s limited response to its
recognition of grave need including the admission of Yale?s apparent failure to
produce a final report. There is also no evidence that PS ever received the report,
even in draft form. Furthermore, Yale?s APRN only met with AL four times between
October 2006 and February 2007. In March 2007, this APRN contacted 
to say ?all agreed" it would be better for the family to ?work with one
provider? and that the ?consensus? was the would be the best person as
AL liked and trusted him. Unfortunately, no one, neither NPS nor Yale?s APRN, could
predict that would leave the country and surrender his license
amidst allegations of misconduct with his clients.

 

16 Given that an authorized release of information was signed by mother, Yale personnel could
have taken the necessary steps, to convey the information to school district personnel or at a
minimum to Newtown?s school physician.

19

 

 

SUMMARY

The report?s inaccurate and/ or biased statements of key findings have lead readers
to draw invalid conclusions about the reasons for the tragedy of 12/ 14/ 12. NPS has
been unjustifiably condemned by individuals who reference the OCA report as
evidence to support their own outrageous claims. To say the least, this outcome is
disappointing, mostly because misplaced blame creates missed opportunities for
meaningful discussion, problem solving, and future prevention of violence.
Furthermore, these claims unnecessarily demoralize and re-traumatize NPS staff.

The authors of the OCA report demonstrate their bias against NPS in their failure to
cite as key ?ndings:

0 For most of elementary and intermediate education, AL made good
academic progress. While he is described as being a quiet student, school
personnel were successful in encouraging him to participate in class
discussions and group activities.

0 The investigators found no evidence of AL being bullied or being a bully.

In 7th grade, when AL began to show increased anxiety at home, Mrs. Lanza
abruptly withdrew him from public school to try a placement in a parochial
school and later in a small, public high school in a town other than Newtown.
There is not any evidence of Mrs. Lanza having communicated to NPS the
reasons why she withdrew him from public school until these two attempted
placements were not successful.

0 After attempts at two other schools were unsuccessful, Mrs. Lanza returned
to NPS to inform personnel of her decision to opt for home schooling for AL.
While this decision would have been an easier route for NPS, school
personnel convinced Mrs. Lanza to re?enroll him in NPS and to work in
collaboration with Newtown?s school personnel.

0 School personnel communicated with community and
worked with him to design and implement an IEP that eventually re?
integrated AL to being mainstreamed at Newtown High School. AL had a
successful job experience in the community through the support of high
school personnel. He also participated in an extracurricular activity. Mrs.
Lanza expressed deep satisfaction and appreciation of school personnel for
their collaboration and nearly daily communication. These accomplishments
were reached in spite of the community initial concerns that

20

 extreme anxiety would prevent him from ever re-entering the school
building.

IEP was highly individualized, creative, and ?uid. At different times in
8th grade and in high school, AL received tutoring both at home and in the
school after school hours, he participated in mainstreamed classes with
supports, independent study projects, and in college classes through a
college-high school partnership program.

Additional evaluations were offered and declined by Mrs. Lanza as they were
anticipated to be anxiety provoking for her son. community 
participated in discussions about additional evaluations and agreed with
Mrs. Lanza?s reasons for declining them.

As a highly capable student, with several scores in the very superior and
superior range, AL was able to accelerate his programming that included
credits earned for independent studies on his personal time. With advice
from parents encouraged his high school team to have
him earn his high school diploma ahead of time. team supported this
proposal because he was faring well in the college-high school partnership
program. Indeed, his believed a college campus would cause less
anxiety for AL than the environment of a large, comprehensive high school.
IEP team, in collaboration with parents and exited AL
from special education when he earned his high school diploma as required
by special education laws and regulations. This decision was made through
the PPT process in the belief that it was in best interest.

In the three and a half years between exit from NPS and 12/ 14/ 12, there
were numerous developments that were never communicated to NPS
personnel and were well beyond the school district?s control. In fact, the
authors of the OCA report also lacked information from these last few years
of life. Page 104 states, ?Authors believe it was important to know as
much as possible about mental state during the last period of his life so
as to better inform clinical conclusions and recommendations. Our capacity
to know with any certainty, however, is severely limited by the paucity of
information. 

After graduation, his primary and sole clinician, a community
surrendered his license and moved out of the country amid
allegations of sexual misconduct. There is no documentation about the
impact of these developments on AL.

After AL graduated from high school, there is ample evidence that 
mental health deteriorated. There is also evidence that Mrs. Lanza tried to

21

 

find adult services and treatment for her son. She explored out-of?state
programs. Connecticut, like many states, has a lack of services for high school
graduates and young adults who struggle with mental health challenges.
[The authors of the OCA Report reference this dearth of services on pages 89
and 94). The most common age for a person to have a breakdown
is in the early 20?s. Yet, like AL, many of these young adults have graduated
from school systems that have provided daily contact with a team of caring
and skilled professionals to post-secondary lives where they receive a few
hours per month of counseling at best.

In light of the biased and misleading information presented in the OCA report, we

respectfully request that a copy of this response be permanently attached to the
OCA report as a matter of public record.

Respectfully submitted,

 

16 /r 
Dr. Michael Regan

Former Director of Pupil Services

Newtown Public Schools

32mm Cam 20/19/52
lane Calabro

Former Supervisor of Special Education
Newtown Public Schools

22