Bergen Commission subgroup outlines survey plan for needs‑based special education study
May 14, 2026 | Education, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Connecticut
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Bergen Commission subgroup on special education met to plan a needs‑based study of special education programs and services, agreeing to distribute targeted surveys to private and public providers and to request state data to fill gaps.
The subgroup’s cochair Tom Cosker read the commission charge: “commission shall conduct a needs based study to determine if additional special education programs and services are required in the state to meet student demand,” including a review of approved and nonapproved public and private special education schools and whether those schools maintain wait lists. Cosker led discussion of scope, emphasizing the group should focus on students with IEPs and the programs and services that serve them rather than upstream general‑education tiered supports.
Parents and advocates told the group families report long waits for specialized programming. Liz Baumgartner, a parent and CREC administrator, said some families “have to wait over 6 months, if not over a year to 2 years, for certain specialized programming,” a concern members said the survey is intended to quantify. John Flanders of Special Education Equity for Kids of Connecticut said many students lack local services because districts “do not have the facilities to do it” and urged the subgroup to use multiple data sources to capture that gap.
A Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) official, identified in the meeting as Brian, clarified that while IEPs must be implemented, delays often stem from finding a placement or environment to deliver services rather than from a pause in the IEP itself. “There is no waiting for an IEP to be implemented…there may be waiting for an environment or a location to implement those services,” he said, and offered to provide CSDE data and to present the agency’s application/approval process at a future meeting.
Sean Cyr, who drafted the surveys, described two versions: one for private providers (approved and nonapproved) and another for public school programming. The instruments ask about program type, capacity, current wait lists, reasons districts refer students out, and barriers to initial approval or renewal. Members discussed whether responses should come from program directors or site leads; they agreed program‑level answers are preferable where organizations operate multiple sites.
To maximize responses, the subgroup agreed the official distribution should come from a Bergen commission/CGA email account with supporting notices from professional groups and CSDE. The group discussed technical logistics — the working Google Form is tied to a temporary Gmail account and responses must be routed into CGA systems — and asked staff to ensure data are exported into a central repository rather than requiring manual re‑entry.
The subgroup coalesced on a distribution timeline: send the survey shortly after the July holiday (proposal: week of July 6) with a short initial response window (target early August, with reminders and a possible extension). Brian also proposed using the Sept. 14 back‑to‑school special education conference as an opportunity for follow‑up data collection and in‑person engagement.
Members asked for supplemental state data (counts of approved programs, program locations, outplacement rates and other CSDE records) to cross‑check survey returns. John volunteered to compile a list of nonapproved programs so the subgroup can reach those providers with a modified outreach. The chairs asked members to review the draft surveys and return comments so distribution can proceed over the summer.
The subgroup scheduled a June meeting to finalize data requests and, if CSDE can, to receive a brief presentation on the approval/licensing process for private special education programs. The chairs closed by listing action items: finalize the surveys, prepare distribution lists (public programs, approved privates, and nonapproved providers), route the form responses into CGA/commission infrastructure, and solicit targeted CSDE data ahead of the next meeting.
The subgroup plans to reconvene in June to review materials and next steps.
The subgroup’s cochair Tom Cosker read the commission charge: “commission shall conduct a needs based study to determine if additional special education programs and services are required in the state to meet student demand,” including a review of approved and nonapproved public and private special education schools and whether those schools maintain wait lists. Cosker led discussion of scope, emphasizing the group should focus on students with IEPs and the programs and services that serve them rather than upstream general‑education tiered supports.
Parents and advocates told the group families report long waits for specialized programming. Liz Baumgartner, a parent and CREC administrator, said some families “have to wait over 6 months, if not over a year to 2 years, for certain specialized programming,” a concern members said the survey is intended to quantify. John Flanders of Special Education Equity for Kids of Connecticut said many students lack local services because districts “do not have the facilities to do it” and urged the subgroup to use multiple data sources to capture that gap.
A Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) official, identified in the meeting as Brian, clarified that while IEPs must be implemented, delays often stem from finding a placement or environment to deliver services rather than from a pause in the IEP itself. “There is no waiting for an IEP to be implemented…there may be waiting for an environment or a location to implement those services,” he said, and offered to provide CSDE data and to present the agency’s application/approval process at a future meeting.
Sean Cyr, who drafted the surveys, described two versions: one for private providers (approved and nonapproved) and another for public school programming. The instruments ask about program type, capacity, current wait lists, reasons districts refer students out, and barriers to initial approval or renewal. Members discussed whether responses should come from program directors or site leads; they agreed program‑level answers are preferable where organizations operate multiple sites.
To maximize responses, the subgroup agreed the official distribution should come from a Bergen commission/CGA email account with supporting notices from professional groups and CSDE. The group discussed technical logistics — the working Google Form is tied to a temporary Gmail account and responses must be routed into CGA systems — and asked staff to ensure data are exported into a central repository rather than requiring manual re‑entry.
The subgroup coalesced on a distribution timeline: send the survey shortly after the July holiday (proposal: week of July 6) with a short initial response window (target early August, with reminders and a possible extension). Brian also proposed using the Sept. 14 back‑to‑school special education conference as an opportunity for follow‑up data collection and in‑person engagement.
Members asked for supplemental state data (counts of approved programs, program locations, outplacement rates and other CSDE records) to cross‑check survey returns. John volunteered to compile a list of nonapproved programs so the subgroup can reach those providers with a modified outreach. The chairs asked members to review the draft surveys and return comments so distribution can proceed over the summer.
The subgroup scheduled a June meeting to finalize data requests and, if CSDE can, to receive a brief presentation on the approval/licensing process for private special education programs. The chairs closed by listing action items: finalize the surveys, prepare distribution lists (public programs, approved privates, and nonapproved providers), route the form responses into CGA/commission infrastructure, and solicit targeted CSDE data ahead of the next meeting.
The subgroup plans to reconvene in June to review materials and next steps.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
