Change is the
essence of life...  
Surrender who you
are for who you
could become...
~ unknown

















                             A bench press, back pull, free weights, two 'cardio' bikes and a      
                             'Stepper' facing a TV...for those who want, need, or enjoy exercise.


1.Medical Professionals
  1. Dr. Edwin Njoku, MD - East Hartford's Christus Medical Group (RX - Suboxone)
  2. Dr. Tom Feldman, MD - Hartford, CT (Internal Medicine)
  3. Dr. Wayne Franco, MD - Middletown, CT (Internal Medicine)
  4. Dr. Joyce Kamanitz, MD West Hartford, CT Psychiatrist ( RX Suboxone)
  5. Dr. Dale Wallington, MD Farmington, CT Psychiatrist (RX - Suboxone)
  6. Dr. Sam Silverman, MD West Hartford, CT Psychiatrist (RX - Suboxone)
  7. Dr. Richard Goldberg, MD Berlin, CT (RX- Suboxone)
  8. Dr. Anthony Roselli, MD, Avon, CT (Family Practice & RX Suboxone)

2.Specialized, Advocacy or Professional Groups

  1. National Alliance for the Advocacy of Buprenorphine Treatment www.naabt.org
  2. Search for Addiction Therapists  www.addictionsearch.com
  3. Dr. Lisa Zacheo Hypnosis Treatment www.mindmattershypnosis.com
  4. The Learning Well www.thelearningwell.com
  5. The American Psychological Association www.apa.org
  6. The National Association of School Psychologists www.nasponline.org
  7. Connecticut Psychological Association  www.connpsych.org
  8. Connecticut Association of School Psychologists www.caspweb.org
  9. American Counseling Association www.counseling.org
  10. Psychology Today Magazine www.psychologytoday.com

3.School Psychology Professionals

Wellspring Behavioral Health has an established affiliation with Dr. Veronica Scarfi, Ph.D.,
founder of The Learning Well. The Learning Well provides unique and holistic School
Psychological Interventions for the residents of Central CT. The Learning Well offers
comprehensive and thoroughly progressive Psycho-Educational Assessments for school aged
children and adolescents, Life Skills Instruction, Counseling Service, Contracted Advocacy, and
additional specialized programs to reduce stress and increase motivation. The Learning Well is
located in Middletown, CT. Dr. Scarfi can be reached by calling (860) 463-2360.  

4. Article of Public Interest

The Dangers of Psychological Assessment in the Computer Age

As a Board Certified School Psychologist in CT since 1993, I’ve noticed the evolution of a
disturbing trend currently prevalent in the field of education. Professional educators communicate
effectively by using a comprehensive and commonly understood educational language.
Unfortunately, the use of this rich and varied vocabulary is now being restricted. The use of
computer programs designed to enhance uniformity and efficiency within the schools has
facilitated some of this language restriction. But the real culprit is an administrative mindset held
by numerous school districts throughout the state. These districts favor the minimization (or even
elimination) of subjective remarks during the documentation of individually administered
psychological and educational evaluations. These administrative policies hinder the ability of
professional evaluators (e.g. School Psychologists, Speech & Language Clinicians, Occupational
Therapists, etc) to provide parents with comprehensive, contextually based feedback.

These restrictive administrative policies are particularly apparent in systems scrambling to comply
with state and federal assessment guidelines. By standardizing all of their documentation,
administrators in these systems can rest assured that every federally mandated question will
asked and answered. However, parents of school-aged children should understand that variability
is inherent in the assessment of individual student cognition and behavior. Thus, the freedom to
engage in subjective remarks is a necessity for professionals when constructing and reporting the
results of psychological, social work, and speech and language evaluations. Paperwork
streamlining may indeed enhance efficiency. However, the price may be the presentation of
incomplete educational assessments; limited in both scope and productivity.

Observable, empirically verifiable data has very limited meaning if not combined with a balanced
analysis based on the integration of both subjective anecdotal remarks and empirically based
data (e.g. School Psychologists examine student report cards not only to see the grades, but to
read the impressions of individual teachers). The behavioral or intellectual assessment of any
child is first and foremost a very human (and simultaneously complex) process. Thus, the overuse
of language restricting computer programs designed to streamline the evaluative process often
removes the wonderfully intricate variability of human cognition and behavior. The result for
evaluator’s is often the submission of incomplete but homogenized documentation that fits neatly
into one educational slot or another. More importantly, however, the practical result for the
children being assessed is a potential lack of individualized strategic thinking by members of the
child’s PPT. This increases the likelihood that the PPT will arrive at incomplete or inaccurate
conclusions. Consequently, long-lasting problems for both the child and his/her parents can result.

In My experience, the common administrative rationale for the implementation of these restrictive
policies (in addition to the necessity to adhere to federal assessment guidelines) is that the
subjective impressions of psychologists, teachers, speech clinicians etc, are perceived as a  
potential liability in the event a parent chooses to engage in a due process hearing and/or other
legal action. However, those districts insisting upon ‘safe,’ uniform and sterile documentation often
perform an injustice to an individual student in order to serve the larger system (paradoxically, a
system designed to serve that same individual student). While school systems often have limited
resources and do need to evaluate the collective and individual good, if this restrictive tendency
becomes entrenched in educational thought, educators may lose sight of the human mosaic that
lies beyond the sterility of closed ended forms, standardized evaluation scores, and the limited
narration now often only grudgingly permitted on PPT forms.

Consequently, it would be wise for parents to advocate for balanced administrative directives with
regard to the documentation of formalized student assessments. Data driven analysis and
thoughtful subjective interpretation are not mutually exclusive. Administrative adherence to this
extreme policy is unnecessary. The needs of both administrators and students can be met by
using thoughtfulness and compromise. In this regard, parents should be cognizant of their
personal strength in relation to their school districts. As a general rule, school districts prefer not
to engage in confrontation with parents. The fear of lawsuits is the true power plant behind
numerous educational policies (e.g. the famous ‘PJ’ case that has changed the way all schools
now must place and service students classified with an Intellectual Deficiency). Parents may find it
beneficial to remember that school personnel are your public servants. Consequently, parents
should feel comfortable advocating for their children by asking for comprehensive evaluations
that illuminate a potential range of possible difficulties and a consensus about how to best
remediate the issue. Parents need not to settle for a few pages of check marks regarding this skill
or that trait in the absence of thoughtful remarks.   

It may also help parents to know however, that how they choose to use their power can result in
either positive or negative ramifications for the school system. This issue… the administrative
restriction of subjective commentary during the documentation of student assessments…was
partially generated by systemic fears of how parents might respond if confronted with two different
views of what might be causing a child to struggle within the classroom. The litigation other
parents have initiated in different towns has helped facilitate the state-wide administrative notion
that a district must be kept ‘safe.’ As a result, too many teachers, psychologists, and special
educators are afraid to speak with parents in a candid manner. Thus, if you as a parent want your
school to be absolutely candid, it would be wise to prepare yourself for the possibility you may at
times hear unsettling information. Parents can do this by staying in frequent touch with their
student’s teachers, and if necessary, their student’s PPT members. When parents are perceived
as allies, not as potential litigators, parents will have much greater access to potentially
productive information.  

Finally, I feel compelled to make it abundantly clear that I am not familiar with the administrative
polices of the Berlin Public School District. By reputation, Berlin is an outstanding school district
that implements progressive, ethical, and effective instructional strategies. So, while I would be
surprised if the Berlin Public School District has been immune to the issue I’ve delineated, I am
also quite sure that the quality of education in Berlin, along with the degree of administrative
support residents do and will receive, is nothing less than what the residents of Berlin demand. As
an aside, I am a product of the Berlin Schools and believe I was given all the tools necessary for
professional success.

For parents wishing to keep apprised of current educational trends and discussion, you may
contact the Connecticut Education Association (cea.org), or the Connecticut Association of
School Psychologists (casp.org).

Published in the ‘Berlin Citizen’ by Seth W. Wallace, Ph.D., LPC
Helpful Resources