‘Allegations are incorrect’ about study
In fact, the district and steering committee are so concerned that our report be objective, they have directed us to reveal our findings only in our final report. This approach is highly unusual in my experience ...
On March 28, an article was published in Greenwich Time (“Greenwich parent raises concerns about special education study”) regarding allegations made by a parent who claimed anonymous sources relayed information that Public Consulting Group (PCG) implemented improper and unsanctioned study methods to assess special education within Greenwich Public Schools (GPS). An online version of the article went so far as to label PCG’s approach “illegal” in a subtitle that has since been removed. (Editor’s note: The author is referring to an online article summary that “The parent alleged that the firm is illegally sharing information collected from parents with district administrators.” Summaries are not removed, but are only visible when articles are initially published online.)
As a principal of PCG where I have served for more than 30 years, and as someone with extensive experience overseeing educational reviews for districts nationwide, I can attest that the allegations are incorrect. Respectfully, I would like to voice my concerns about the inaccuracy of the information and offer these corrections so readers have accurate information to inform their opinion of the forthcoming special education study.
PCG was contracted by Greenwich Public Schools at the start of the 2020-21 school year to conduct an independent study of the district’s special education program, to assess: (1) the special education referral process and data collection; (2) program costs; (3) staffing; (4) instructional practices; and (5) performance of students with disabilities. The district clearly directed, contractually, that PCG’s efforts be independent and conducted totally removed from any potential influence or bias from district administrators, parents, board members, steering committee members, or other associated parties. In fact, the district and steering committee are so concerned that our report be objective, they have directed us to reveal our findings only in our final report. This approach is highly unusual in my experience conducting similar reviews, in that it is customary to share a draft of a findings report, giving the subject an opportunity to comment before the report is final. In proceeding with our review, PCG has strictly complied with the agreed scope of work expectations that no project findings, survey results, preliminary conclusions or recommendations have been shared with any of the GPS stakeholders referenced.
Because PCG’s evaluation is essentially an independent audit, I would expect members of the GPS community to feel some level of uncertainty; therefore, in an effort to alleviate some of those concerns, I would like to address several details published in Sunday’s article, specifically:
1. The statement “…students involved in the audit were observed without parental consent and that the results of interviews with parents conducted by the firm were shared with school administrators …”
PCG did conduct remote visits to a representative sampling of educational settings where students with IEPs learn as part of its contracted scope of work with GPS. The approach to these virtual classroom observations was presented and discussed publicly during an Oct. 20 presentation to the district’s Board of Education. All virtual observations of teacher methods were conducted in accordance with Board policy — a fact that was confirmed by the board on more than one occasion. Finally, while PCG did conduct parent interviews in accordance with the publicly discussed approach to this special education review, the results of these interviews have not been shared with district administrators or anyone else.
The statement “…also referenced a 2017 federal investigation centering on work PCG did in New Jersey.” This statement relates to a November 2017 audit report issued by the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) that was refuted by the State of New Jersey. That refutation is part of the actual published report. At the time the report was issued, the state spokesperson said, “It’s important to note that the report is just the first of many steps in the process of a federal audit.” In the more than three years since the report was issued, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has not taken any additional steps to address the OIG’s findings. PCG maintains a positive working relationship with CMS. Last, PCG remains in very good standing with our client, the State of New Jersey. PCG has been awarded a number of additional statewide contracts and/or contract extensions since 2017 by the State of New Jersey, including: statewide COVID-19 contact tracing work, data intermediary services for the Department of Health, and helping hospitals statewide improve their delivery of health care systems and to further the CMS’ goals of better health and efficiency for individuals and the public. These new and extended contracts in New Jersey are in addition to the ongoing school-based Medicaid work that was audited back in 2017 against which CMS has taken no action.
While PCG does not make a regular practice of responding to every complaint or allegation made in public meetings relating to our work for state and local government entities, we do so here to set the record straight on some of the more significant mistaken allegations reflected in the article.