Wait, What?

Layoffs for Connecticut Residents, Retainers for out-of-state consultants: The Malloy-Pryor-Mass Insight Contract

May 24

jonpeltoMalloy, Mass Insight company, Stefan Pryor Malloy, Mass Insight Company, Stefan Pryor, Unemployment 13 Comments

Despite a FOI request to do so, the Connecticut State Department of Education has failed to turn over their contract with Mass Insight, an education reform company that was hired to provide services to Connecticut communities struggling to meet the mandates under Governor Malloy’s “Education Reform” law.

While more will be known once the contract is finally released, what is known is that despite the professional talent left in Connecticut’s State Department of Education and the outstanding work that was being done by Connecticut’s Regional Service Centers (RESCs), Commissioner of Education, Stefan Pryor, saw fit to turn his back on Connecticut’s existing expertise and hire an out-of-state “education reform” company to provide consultants to help Connecticut’s poorest towns get access to the funds provided in the new Commissioner’s Network program.

The cost of this arrogant decision is not only the fact that hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars will be flowing out-of-state, but at least two of the Regional Service Centers have already been forced to lay off staff who had been working with these school districts before Commissioner Pryor decided to give the work to Mass Insight.

The other reality is that Alliance Districts, and especially those working with the Commissioner’s Network Program are being forced to work with people who have little to no experience with Connecticut and our schools.  Instead, they are products of a “reform” mindset that fails to take into account the complex challenges that face our poorest communities.

Prior to Pryor’s decision, the State Department of Education and the Regional Service Centers were providing Alliance Districts with technical support staff who had direct experience with these communities they were sent in to help.

Now, however, a band of  “true believers” are being brought in to tell local, democratically-elected officials, local school administrators, teachers and parents what they must do to gain the Commissioner’s approval so their districts can access a paltry sum of additional state taxpayer funds to help balance their local budgets.

Since the State Department of Education hasn’t released the contract, despite their requirement to do just that under Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Law, it is hard to determine who exactly Mass Insight has sent to Connecticut to staff this lucrative contract.

As best as we can tell, leading the Mass Insight Team is Senior Program Manager, Ron Sandlin, who recently joined Mass Insight after serving as the School Turnaround Manager at the Indiana Department of Education.  With a BA in Political Science and an MA in Teaching, he apparently only has three years of teaching experience.  Interestingly, Paul Vallas’, The Vallas Group signed a multi-million dollar contract in Indiana last year.

The Mass Insight Program Manager for the new contract appears to be MaryAnn Holland, who “supports district-level fieldwork.”  Before joining Mass Insight, Holland served as College Office Director at Achievement First’s Amistad High School in New Haven; she has a B.A. from Colorado College and will be getting an M.A. this summer in Organizational Leadership from Columbia University.  She did two years of teaching with TFA and one year with Achievement First, Inc.

Michelle Arader is a Project Coordinator with the Mass Insight School Turnaround Group in Connecticut.  She also works with or worked on the contract Mass Insight has with the Providence Public School District.  Before that she worked for Uncommon Schools, a charter school management company that provided “enrichment program and supporting operations” at Brownsville Collegiate Charter School in Brooklyn, NY.  Arader has a B.A. from Princeton University.  She apparently has  no teaching experience.

Dipa Desai is also a Project Coordinator, having worked with Mass Insight’s Rhode Island operation including a contract the company has in Central Falls.  Prior to joining Mass Insight she served as a Guidance intern at the Classical High School in Providence, RI and a Research Assistant at Hasbro Children’s Hospital. Desai recently finished her M.Ed. in School Counseling from Providence College.  She appears to have no teaching experience.

Emily Pallin serves as the Mass Insight Engagement Manager.  She is also being shifted from the Mass Insight contract with the Providence Public School District.   Prior to joining Mass Insight she was a research associate at New Visions for Public Schools, a corporate reform consulting organization that supports turnaround services in New York City. Pallin received a B.A. in public policy from Hamilton College and an M.P.A. at NYU’s Graduate School of Public Service. She appears to have no teaching experience.

Faced with the task of helping to develop real and lasting solutions for Connecticut’s schools, rather than use Connecticut’s home-grown talent and expertise, Malloy’s Commissioner of Education turned to a corporate entity that is based outside of Connecticut.  With our districts being asked to rely on people with little to no teaching or real school administrative experience, Connecticut residents who do have that expertise are losing their jobs and joining the unemployment line.

Despite all this, the response from Malloy and the General Assembly’s Education Committee is nothing but silence.

Teacher-led organization that gives teachers a meaningful voice in policy is expanding in CT!

May 23

jonpeltoEducation Reform, Educators 4 Excellence E4E, Education Reform, Educators 4 Excellence 8 Comments

Now here is some good news for Connecticut teachers… (For those of you who like irony).

A relatively new organization dedicated to giving YOU (teachers) a voice is expanding in Connecticut.

Just take a look.

They call themselves Educators 4 Excellence.

Their statement of purpose is based on their belief that, “For far too long, education policy has been created without a critical voice at the table: the voice of classroom teachers.”

So a group of dedicated individuals formed a new, “teacher-led” advocacy organization that “elevates the profession by giving teachers a meaningful voice in the policies that shape our careers and classrooms.”

According to their website, “E4E teachers come together to learn about policy-making. We bridge the gap between those who make and implement policy by sharing our ideas with policy makers and influencers. E4E teachers take action in three different ways—we advocate for more teacher leadership and collaboration at our schools, push for district and state policies that include our ideas and get involved within our union and district to ensure that decisions elevate student achievement and the teaching profession.”

And now Educators 4 Excellence (E4E) is dramatically expanding their operation here in Connecticut where they are hiring a Managing Director of Policy, Connecticut, a Managing Director of Outreach, Connecticut and an Outreach Director, Connecticut.

Of course, those who have heard of E4E know they tend to skip over a few details about their history and their relationships.

Formed as a not-for-profit corporation under Delaware law in 2010, the group went from having a revenue stream of $339,000 in their first year to $1.9 million in their second.  Their rent went from $5,800 to $56,000, you can now find them just off Times Square in New York City and their use of consultants went from 0 to over $200,000.

As explained in a December 2011 Wait, What? blog post, although Educators 4 Excellence is silent on the issue, their primary funding comes from the Gates Foundation and other national education reform groups.  E4E was set up by the corporate education reform trifecta of Education Reform Now (ERN), Education Reform Now Advocacy (ERNA) and Democrats for Education Reform (DFER).

Interestingly, those same groups were the primary funders behind the multi-million-dollar, anti-teacher, anti-union television advertising campaign that ran during the Chicago teacher’s strike.

Educators 4 Excellence is also headed by…

Wait for it…Two former Teach for America (TFA) recruits.

As a “teacher-led” advocacy group, their stated goals are to end seniority, institute merit pay and replace tenure with what the group calls “earned tenure,” in which teachers who are able to push up standardized test scores are provided with greater job security and financial bonuses.

In addition to their headquarters in New York City, Educators 4 Excellence has already created chapters in Los Angeles and over the past year have been targeting Minnesota and Connecticut.

In their first year, Educators 4 Excellence primarily focused on supporting Mayor Bloomberg’s effort to destroy tenure in the New York City Schools.  They wrote, “We applaud Mayor Bloomberg’s efforts to make tenure decisions more meaningful.”    Last year, the group was one of the most vocal supporters of New York’s ill-fated teacher evaluation system.

As noted in last year’s Wait, What? post — and perhaps it is only an uncanny coincidence — but during the major education reform battle in New York, the groups that created Educators 4 Excellence ran television ads that included one parent saying, “Albany’s listening much too much to the teachers union,” while a second parent, looking to the camera, followed up by saying, “Stop listening to the teachers union.”

The company that produced those anti-teacher, anti-union ads was SKD Knickerbocker.

SKD Knickerbocker is the same company the produced the most offensive, anti-teacher ads that were run in support of Governor Malloy’s education reform bill and is the same company that was hired to do ads in Bridgeport in support of Mayor Bill Finch’s effort to eliminate a democratically elected Board of Education and replace it with one appointed by him.

SKD Knickerbocker was also the company created the advertising that used in the two extremely expensive “independent expenditure” campaigns that took place during last year’s Connecticut legislative elections and that sought to elect two candidates that education reform lobbyists thought would be the most supportive of Malloy’s education reform efforts.

Meanwhile, if Connecticut isn’t your state of choice, Educators 4 Excellent are also filling or have recently filled positions for a Founding Executive Director, Minnesota,  Outreach Director, Minnesota, Managing Director of Outreach, New York, Outreach Director, New York, Outreach Director, Los Angeles and Managing Director of Policy, Los Angeles.

So, the good news for all you teachers out there that feel our elected officials have turned their backs on the teaching profession, (other than at times of extreme crisis when there are cameras around), don’t worry because E4E will be changing all that.

How could a real challenge to Governor Malloy develop?

May 23

jonpeltoGubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy, State Politics 4 Comments

Questions about whether a serious challenge to Governor Malloy could develop during next year’s gubernatorial election have been coming in on an almost a daily basis.

Readers have asked for some additional background on Connecticut’s election law.

When it comes to a potential challenge, there are two key issues.  One is the law related to getting on the election ballot.  The other is the law related to public financing of campaigns.  Here is a quick response to the ballot question.

Running for governor in 2014;

One possibility is that a challenger takes on Governor Malloy for the nomination of the Democratic Party.  That candidate would need to receive the support of 15 percent of the delegates to next spring’s Democratic State Convention or collect a sufficient number of petition signatures (of registered Democrats) to force an August primary.  Considering the power of incumbency, it is difficult to imagine that such a challenge would be successful.  That said, since Governor Malloy and his Administration have consistently alienated many of the most important constituencies within the Democratic Party, a successful challenge for the Democratic nomination is not inconceivable.

The second possibility is that a challenger seeks to get the support of one of the existing minor parties.  Each minor party has its own nomination rules.  Assuming the challenger comes from the more liberal or progressive side of the political spectrum, the most likely existing vehicle for a challenger would be to try and utilize the Connecticut Working Families Party.  The Working Families Party is closely associated with the leadership of a number of unions in Connecticut, a reality that might facilitate or serve as a barrier to a serious effort to challenge Governor Malloy.

Finally, a challenger to Governor Malloy could seek to petition onto the 2014 gubernatorial ballot.  Such a challenger could not begin collecting signatures until January 1, 2014 and would need to submit a complete petition no later than 90 days before the election.  The number of signatures needed to run for governor in Connecticut would be (1) One percent of the votes cast for the same office at the last preceding election, or (2) seven thousand five hundred, whichever is less.  In this case, the 1% figure would amount to about 11,600 so the lower number of 7,500 would be needed.

Considering past voting patterns, we’d expect around $1.2 million voters to participate in the 2014 election meaning a candidate would need in the range of 450,000 votes +/- win.  Of course, both Lowell Weicker (A CT Party) and John Rowland (Republican Party) were elected in three-way races for governor.

What do readers think would be the best course of action for Connecticut voters?

• Run a candidate to challenge Governor Malloy for the Democratic nomination
• Run a candidate on an existing minor party line such as the Working Families Party
• Run a candidate as a “petitioning candidate” by collecting 7,500 signatures
• Vote Republican
• Stick with Governor Malloy
• Don’t Know

If you’d like to register your opinion about these options – just click on the following link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/7R8F53Y

Who could possibly oppose School Governance Councils? Paul Vallas put your hand down!

May 22

jonpeltoBridgeport, Connecticut Education Assocation, Malloy, New London, Paul Vallas, Stefan Pryor, Steven Adamowski, Windham Bridgeport, CEA, Malloy, New London, Paul Vallas, Stefan Pryor, Steven Adamowski, Windham 3 Comments

For one thing, properly utilizing School Governance Councils is the law in Connecticut!

In addition, even Governor Malloy, at least when he was a candidate, supported the creation of School Governance Councils.  In fact, he promised to expand their use.

In support of the federal government’s Race to the Top program, candidate Dan Malloy backed a 2010 Connecticut law saying that it sought to “engage parents in a meaningful way.”

In a response on the website On the Issues, Dan Malloy wrote, “The bill establishes local school governance councils that include parents and help create a sense of community that can make schooling more relevant to kids, and kids more connected to their community.  However, these councils are only required for low-achieving schools.  We should not stop there…  While governance councils are one tool for improving achievement, they are still a top-down approach to decision-making that limit involvement to only a few engaged parents.  My administration will create opportunities for all parents to be involved.”

Apparently the memo concerning his commitment to “create opportunities for all parents to be involved” didn’t make it to the desk of Paul Vallas, Bridgeport’s “Superintendent of Schools.”

In fact, Paul Vallas’ unwillingness to follow the law and properly include parents, teachers and community leaders in the decision-making process has become so severe that the Connecticut Education Association has taken the unprecedented step of filing a complaint with the State Department of Education.

Although Connecticut law requires that School Governance Councils be utilized in school districts that are facing the greatest challenges, in Bridgeport, Paul Vallas appears either unwilling or unable to meet his obligation to include the community, parents, and teachers in the educational decision-making process.

The complaint against Vallas cites numerous situations in which Vallas violated the law.

In particular, the complaint charges that Vallas failed to provide Bridgeport’s School Governance Councils the opportunity to; (1) to review the fiscal objectives of the draft budget for the school and provide advice before it was submitted, (2) participate, as required, in the hiring process of administrators, (3) work with school administration to develop and approve a school compact, (4) be involved in developing and approving a written parent involvement policy outlining the role of parents in the school, (5) participate in analyzing school achievement data and school needs relative to the improvement plan for the school, (6) assist the principal in making programmatic and operational changes for improving the school’s achievement and the list goes on.

As CEA President, Sheila Cohen explained, “These are just some of the examples of the flagrant disregard Bridgeport Public Schools Superintendent Vallas has shown for School Governance Councils and state law.”

“School Governance Councils have a successful track record of engaging parents, teachers, and community members in important school activities and providing collaborative support to improve student achievement. These opportunities and the benefit of state laws must be afforded members of the Bridgeport school community.”  Cohen Added.

In addition to his pattern of failing to appropriately include School Governance Councils, the CEA’s complaint actually cites a school board meeting at which Vallas said that there were priorities more important than governance councils.

After the CEA issued their complaint, the Hartford Courant wrote that, “Vallas, reached at his office late Tuesday afternoon, said: ‘We are really busy and we don’t have time to deal with this type of nonsense because that’s what it is. No one has reached out more than my team — to parents, the teachers, faith-based organizations, even the non-teachers..’”

Vallas made a similar claim to the CT Post saying, “We are in full compliance,” Vallas said, adding, “I don’t have time for this nonsense.”

How Malloy’s Commissioner of Education, Stefan Pryor, handles the complaint will be interesting to watch since Vallas brags that he came to Connecticut because Pryor asked him to take over the Bridgeport School System.

Pryor’s action will also be closely watched because there has also been widespread discussion that Steven Adamowski, the Department of Education’s Special Master for the Windham and New London School Systems has also failed to properly include School Governance Councils in those two school districts.

You can read more about the issue at: http://www.courant.com/news/education/hc-teachers-union-complaint-0522-20130521,0,5097870.story and http://www.ctmirror.org/story/union-files-complaint-against-bridgeports-superintendent and http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Union-Vallas-snubbed-governance-councils-4536210.php and http://blogcea.org/2013/05/21/complaint-cites-violations-of-law/

Doing to Bridgeport what he did to New Orleans

May 22

jonpeltoAchievement First/ConnCAN, Bridgeport, Education Reform, Malloy, Nate Snow, Paul Vallas, Stefan Pryor Achievement First, Bridgeport, Charter Schools, Malloy, Paul Vallas, Stefan Pryor 7 Comments

Paul Vallas has pledged to do to Bridgeport what he did to New Orleans.  However, there is still time to stop him.

Paul Vallas was the CEO of the New Orleans Recovery School District of Louisiana from 2007 to 2011…

According to his resume, Vallas says he was responsible for “developing, implementing and managing reform measures” for post-Katrina New Orleans.  In that capacity Vallas says, among other things, that he:

(1)   “raised test scores three consecutive years, at a growth rate that greatly exceeded that of the state” and

(2)    “Implemented Response to Intervention (RTI) model, a three-tiered approach to ensuring the academic success of all students.”

So how is New Orleans doing today?

As Diane Ravitch recently noted on her blog, as a result of Vallas’ strategies, “New Orleans has a higher proportion of students in privately managed charters than any other district in the nation.”

Eighty-three percent (83%) of the schools in the New Orleans Recovery School District are now charter schools. According to the state’s school performance index, the Recovery School District of New Orleans is less than 2 points above getting a grade of F.

In fact, six years after Vallas began to promote his “Vallas Turnaround Model,” a Louisiana Education Research Group called Research on Reforms, determined that 79% of the charter schools in the Recovery School District were graded D or F by the state.

Meanwhile, another research group, The Cowen Institute of Tulane University, which has traditionally been a major supporter of charter schools, reported that 66% of the Recovery School District Charter Schools rated D or F.

The failing grades that hound Vallas’ charter school model is just the tip of a much larger record of failure when it comes to the broader “reforms” that Vallas implemented in New Orleans and now seeks to recreate in Bridgeport.

Teacher and Education Blogger, Mercedes Schneider, has written extensively on the real situation surrounding the “Vallas Miracle.”  You can read her blog at: Mercedes Schneider’s EduBlog

In one recent example she explored a favorite claim of the education reformers, who are fond of saying that their efforts dramatically improve the number of poor children who attend college.

According to the latest numbers, the percentage of children who qualified for the Louisiana TOPS program, which provides funds to academically proficient students who want to attend 4 or 2 year colleges stands at 42%;

TOPS eligibility for students in New Orleans is as follows:

Recovery School District state-run schools: 14%

Recovery School district Charter Schools: 29%

Orleans Parish direct-run schools: 38%

Orleans Parish Charter Schools 54%

All New Orleans schools: 37%

Louisiana schools overall: 42%

As Schneider explains, “Prior to Katrina in 2005, all New Orleans schools in the subcategories above belonged to Orleans Parish Public Schools. Now, one can see that in general, charter schools fare better than their corresponding non-charter counterparts regarding percentages of students eligible for TOPS. This is hardly surprising since students can be deselected from charters and returned to traditional public schools…The traditional public school must accept all students– this is both the glory and the burden of traditional public schooling.”

So, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars,  Vallas’ turnaround model has created a system in which the charter schools of New Orleans have “improved” TOPS eligibility while completely undermining the traditional public school system.

When the data is analyzed, the Vallas Turnaround Model is not a tribute to improving public education, but a lesson in privatization by replacing failing public schools with failing charter schools and creating a two-tiered education system where certain students get access to higher performing institutions, while leaving all the other students behind.

Vallas is moving forward with a similar strategy in Bridgeport.  In just the last few weeks we’ve seen aggressive efforts to expand charter schools in Bridgeport including a new charter elementary school, a plan to turn over another elementary school to the FUSE/Jumoke Academy of Hartford and a proposal by the Chairman of the Bridgeport Board of Education, Kenneth Moales, Jr. to create a boys-only charter school that would augment his present church affiliated school.

For the latest Bridgeport’s new charter school proposal see: http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Charter-plan-draws-impassioned-arguments-4534361.php and http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Against-proposed-new-charter-school-4535321.php.

Of course, this all comes on top of continued expansion of the Achievement First Charter School in Bridgeport.

Education reformers are busy trying to replicate the New Orleans model around the country.   Here in Connecticut, Paul Vallas has the strong backing of Governor Malloy and Malloy’s Commissioner of Education, Stefan Pryor.

But unlike in New Orleans, and places like Chicago and Philadelphia, here in Connecticut there is still time to stop them before it is too late.

ESPN announces layoffs as part of Malloy’s “Jive Five” Economic Development Program

May 21

jonpeltoBudget Cuts, Corporate Welfare, Economic Development, ESPN, Malloy Budget cuts, Corporate Welfare, Economic Development, ESPN, Malloy 2 Comments

The Urban Dictionary defines “jive” as a “colorful form of speaking” that is “sometimes hard to follow.”

In the real world here is how it works;

On August 2, 2011 Governor Dannel P. Malloy announced that, in return for creating 200 new jobs over the next five years, the taxpayers of Connecticut would give ESPN $17.5 million toward the construction of a new building and at least $300,000 to train the new workers.  Malloy explained, “ESPN’s needs are not going to be ignored.”

That corporate welfare package brought the total Connecticut taxpayer support for ESPN to over $100 million in state tax breaks and grants over the past twelve years.

Then yesterday, May 20, 2013, The Wall Street Journal reported that ESPN, “was in the process of laying off a few hundred workers… a sign that the hugely profitable sports cable-TV powerhouse is responding to the rising fees it pays to air games as well as other changes in the media industry…ESPN said some of the job cuts are coming through attrition, or unfilled open positions, and didn’t disclose the precise number or types of workers who are being let go.”

Associated Press added, “ESPN is cutting its workforce, the latest Disney division to reduce staff…’We are implementing changes across the company to enhance our continued growth while smartly managing costs,’ the sports media giant said in a statement Tuesday. ‘While difficult, we are confident that it will make us more competitive, innovative and productive.’”

The AP explained that the ESPN layoffs follow 300 layoffs that occurred at LucasArts and LucasFilms after Disney acquired the companies for $4.1 billion.

As AP noted, “Still, Disney has been on a roll financially, beating or matching earnings per share estimates for the last eight quarters. After it reported a 32 percent gain in net income for its fiscal second-quarter earnings two weeks ago, more than a dozen Wall Street analysts raised their price targets on Disney stock to an average of nearly $72.”

So in essence, despite being an extraordinarily financially successful subsidiarity of an extraordinarily, financially successful company that is doing extraordinarily financially well in this extraordinarily financially successful Wall Street market, ESPN accepted almost $20 million in scarce taxpayer funds and promised to create 200 jobs but is now intentionally keeping vacancies open and laying off Connecticut residents, so that it can appear even more extraordinarily financially successful.

Despite this development, according to the Hartford Courant, when asked about it, a spokesman for the Malloy administration said that ESPN will not be forced out of the First Five program as a result of its layoff plan because it is still intending to add at least 200 jobs during the period starting in August, 2011 when the Governor gave them the public funds.

Meanwhile, the Connecticut General Assembly continues to consider major cuts to some of the most significant and vital human and healthcare services.

Now if that jive is not a “colorful form of speaking” that is “sometimes hard to follow,” I don’t know what is.

Commissioner Pryor issues bullying report without recommendations, despite law…

May 20

jonpeltoMalloy, School Safety, Stefan Pryor Bullying, Malloy, School Safety, Stefan Pryor 6 Comments

The law required the State Department of Education to issue its report on Safe School Climate Plans in Connecticut no later than February 2012…

Commissioner Pryor issued his report 14 months late, in April 2013, after his failure to follow Connecticut law was reported on here at Wait, What?

The law also mandated that the report include recommendations for reducing school bullying and improving school safety.  In fact, the law actually reads that the Commissioner and the State Department of Education provide recommendations “… regarding additional activities or funding to prevent bullying in schools and improve school climate.”

Now that Pryor’s report is finally out, it turns out that his report FAILS TO MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS for reducing bullying or improving school safety.

One of the most important issues of our time and Commissioner of Education Stefan Pryor didn’t have a single recommendation for making our schools safer?

With much fanfare and press releases, the law in question was signed on July 13, 2011 by Governor Dannel Malloy.

It was called An Act Concerning the Strengthening of School Bullying laws.  According to the Malloy Administration, “This legislation takes comprehensive steps to ensure every child’s right to learn in Connecticut public schools without fear of teasing, humiliation, or assault.”

The 2011 law built on an earlier 2008 legislative action that required then Commissioner of Education, Mark McQuillan, to also make recommendation in a report to the legislature.  That report included four major recommendations for making schools safer.

But this time, Malloy’s Commissioner failed to even produce the report in a timely manner and then didn’t have a single recommendation on this vital education and public safety issue.

Commissioner Pryor explained the lateness of the report by writing, “This report is being filed late due in part to personnel changes that occurred in the course of the agency review process.”

Wait, What?  Commissioner Stefan Pryor took office in September 2011, five months before the report was even supposed to be issued and now he wants us to believe that it took him and his personal staff 14 more months to review a 6 page report?  (17 pages if you count the appendices).

And during these past 14 months we witnessed the Newtown nightmare…and he still couldn’t come up with a single recommendation to make schools safer?

Instead he wrote, “Given recent legislative activity, including PA 13-3 and a new survey that will be distributed in the Spring of 2013, the CSDE plans to issue recommendations in the January 2014 report so that such recommendations address the current conditions in  Connecticut.”

You mean we need another survey and another year before he can come up with a recommendation?

The issue is school safety and bullying.

The Connecticut Legislature passed a bill.

Governor Malloy signed that bill into law.

And Malloy’s Commissioner of Education produces a report on the issue 14 months late and then has the gall to say he will get around to providing some recommendations on the issue next year.

Any place else but in the Malloy Administration and the person would be shown the door.

Oh, and PS…the new law he is referring to PA 13-3 is the gun control bill.  As part of that legislation the Connecticut General Assembly made this school safety report due every year instead of every other year.  So now the report that Commissioner Pryor was 14 months late on is required to be produced every 12 months.  It will be interesting to see if he decides to follow the law this time around.

Update: Connecticut Charter Schools outperform public schools…in suspending kindergarten students!

May 20

jonpeltoAchievement First/ConnCAN, Charter Schools, Malloy, Stefan Pryor Achievement First, Charter Schools, Malloy, Stefan Pryor, suspensions 36 Comments

Evidence reveals that it is a common practice for Achievement First Schools in Connecticut to suspend children 6 and under.

Well, we’ve finally found proof that charter schools do outperform their public school counterparts…In the percentage of children 6 and under who get suspended from school.

When Achievement First Hartford’s “suspension rate” for children 6 and under is 63.7% it is time for an investigation [Compare that to 6.8% in the Hartford School System].

When Achievement First Bridgeport’s “suspension rate” for children 6 and under is 55.6% it is time for an investigation [Compare that to  7.9% in the Bridgeport School System].

When Achievement First New Haven’s “suspension rate” for children 6 and under is 29.3% it is time for an investigation [Compare that to 2.7% in the New Haven School System].

Why schools would suspend children 6 and under on a regular basis is bad enough, but a new report reveals that suspension of 6 year olds is an extremely common practice in the kindergarten and first grades at Achievement First schools in Connecticut.

In a stunning story that was posted on the CT Mirror website Friday, the CT Mirror’s Jacqueline Rabe examines a new report that revealed that, “at least 1,967 students age 6 and under were suspended last school year – almost all of them black or Hispanic.”

Rabe writes, “According to a report from the Connecticut Department of Education, the number of students suspended is actually higher, but privacy issues restrict the state agency from releasing information that could identify unique student information.”

The CT Mirror goes on to write that after unearthing the data, Connecticut’s new Child Advocate explained, ’That’s a lot of kids… I do not think that [suspension] is an appropriate response’ to students behaving poorly at school.”

Jamey Bell added that, “Excluding such young children from the classroom ‘seems to me a non-educational, non-therapeutic response for those who are way too young to be culpable.”

Most disturbing of all is where the suspensions were taking place.  Not only were nearly all the suspensions targeted to low income, minority children, but there was an extraordinary difference between how district schools handle the behavioral problems of little children and how charter schools handle those problems.

While the CT Mirror included a chart listing the total number of suspensions by town, for purposes of comparison, I’ve added the total number of students in the grade range for 6 year olds (kindergarten and first grade), which allows for a more appropriate apples to apples comparison to be made.   The percentages are actually higher since some 1st graders are 7 years old.

While data does not reveal whether it is the same children being suspended multiple times, what is clear is that suspension is used far more often in Connecticut’s charter schools.

Readers will recall that Achievement First, Inc. is the charter school management company that was co-founded by Malloy’s Commissioner of Education, Stefan Pryor.

The CT Mirror story is an absolute must read.

The story includes quotes from Joette Katz, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families and Governor Malloy’s criminal justice policy advisory, Michael Lawlor.

Katz tells the CT Mirror, “I was shocked…Clearly when children are being suspended, something else is not being attended to.”

Lawlor said, “These high suspension rates are an indicator of weak leadership…It has to do with the culture in a school…It’s not about the kids at that school. It’s about the policies in those schools.”

The most important conclusion is that something is very, very wrong with the way discipline is being handled at Connecticut’s charter schools.

The Department of Children and Families, the State’s Child Advocate and the State Department of Education must begin an immediate investigation into these practices and they would do well to bring in Connecticut’s Attorney General to determine whether Connecticut laws are being violated.

You can read the full CT Mirror Story here:  http://www.ctmirror.org/story/hundreds-kindergarten-students-suspended-school

Corporate Education Reform Industry spends nearly $4.7 million on Connecticut lobbying, little of it telling the truth.

May 19

jonpeltoA Better Connecticut Education Reform Lobbying Group, Achievement First/ConnCAN, Charter Schools, Connecticut Council for Education Reform (CCER), Ethics, Excel Bridgeport Inc., Malloy, Michelle Rhee, Stefan Pryor, StudentsFirst, Teach for America, Wendy Lecker A Better Connecticut, Achievement First, ConnCAN, Ethics, Malloy, Michelle Rhee, Stefan Pryor, StudentsFirst, Wendy Lecker 6 Comments

Pro-public education commentator Wendy Lecker has written another “must read” piece, this time pointing out the fact that corporate education reformers are either unwilling or unable to tell the truth as the spin their political stories to try and convince elected officials and the public to support their “education reform” agenda.

Lecker, like many of us, has heard the latest round of ads that side-step the truth in a politically self-righteous attempt to convince us that we can improve out public education system by handing it over to private corporations and charter schools.

This new $1.5 million advertising campaign by a front organization called, ironically enough, A Better Connecticut, is just one more step in the most expensive lobbying effort in Connecticut history.

Here are the latest numbers;

To date, since Governor Malloy took office, the corporate education reform industry has spent at least $4,650,721.54 on lobbying, breaking all Connecticut records for the most expensive effort in history to buy up Connecticut Public Policy.

The following chart reveals the players in this scheme.

Following the chart is a link to Wendy Lecker’s latest piece in the Stamford Advocate, Bridgeport Post and other Hearst media outlets.

Wendy Lecker: Imagining where all that money could have gone

“Proponents of corporate-driven education reforms seem to believe that the notion of telling the truth is a low priority. Take for example the false claims being made by charter school advocates about the size of waiting lists for charter schools.

In as diverse locations as Massachusetts and Chicago, charter lobbyists having been pushing charter school expansion by claiming lengthy waiting lists. In both locations, investigations by journalists at the Boston Globe and WBEZ revealed that the waiting list numbers were grossly exaggerated, often counting the same students multiple times. As a Massachusetts legislator noted, raising the charter cap based on artificial numbers “doesn’t make sense.” Unless, of course, your main goal is charter expansion rather than sound educational policy

Another common theme promoted by charter schools is the questionable claim of amazing success. Recently, Geoffrey Canada of the famed Harlem Children’s Zone gave an online seminar in which he boasted a 100 percent graduation rate at his schools. However, if one looks at HCZ’s attrition rate, the true graduation rate is 64 percent. Many have also noted that Canada kicked out two entire grades of children because of sub-par test scores.

Here in Connecticut, ConnCAN, the charter school lobby, is the prominent peddler of shaky claims and half-truths about charter schools.

Recently, in an effort to promote the expansion of charter schools in Bridgeport, Jennifer Alexander, the CEO of ConnCAN, Inc. declared that nearly 80 percent of charters outperform their host districts. However, data from the State Department of Education reveals that about 90 percent of Connecticut’s charters serve a less needy population than their host districts: fewer poor children, fewer English Language Learners or fewer students with disabilities, with most having a combination of two or three of these categories.

Considering poverty, language barriers and special education needs are the prominent factors influencing standardized test scores, it is not much a feat to have higher test scores with a less challenging population. ConnCAN’s claim is hardly an indication of success or innovation.”

Read the rest of Lecker’s commentary piece here: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Wendy-Lecker-Imagining-where-all-that-money-4526450.php#ixzz2TlStOU64

The Malloy/Pryor Education Reform Consultant Full Employment Gravy Train

May 17

jonpeltoMalloy, Mass Insight company, State Board of Education, State Deficit, Stefan Pryor Education Reform, Malloy, Mass Insight Company, State Board of Education, State Budget, Stefan Pryor 13 Comments

While it’s true that Malloy’s Commissioner of Education, Stefan Pryor, has failed to fill some of the most critically important administrative positions in his agency that actually serve Connecticut’s schools and children, such as a Bureau Chief for the Special Education Division, Pryor’s dedication to retaining corporate education reform consulting companies and corporate education consultants is impressive.

Yesterday Wait, What? explored a $123,930.00 taxpayer-funded payment to Mass Insight Education, an education reform consulting company that has been retained to help develop Commissioner Pryor’s “Turnaround Network.”

Although the total magnitude of the consulting contract with Mass Insight hasn’t been reported, that initial six figure payment is chump change compared to the amount of taxpayer money that is being spent on the salaries and benefits of the consultants and education reformers who have been hired to surround Pryor at the Department of Education.

Leading the way is Chief Turnaround Officer, Debra Kurshan, who is pulling down $149,000 plus benefits.   The former head of School Portfolio Development for Mayor Bloomberg’s school privatization efforts also served as a consultant to the superintendent of the Louisiana Recovery School District in New Orleans.

Meanwhile, another hire, Talent Officer, Shannon Marimon, is collecting $110,000 plus benefits.  She joined Pryor’s operation after working for the TNTP, an education reform group.  As the TNTP website explains, the majority of TNTP’s revenue comes from its work with clients on a fee-for-service basis. This approach incentivizes TNTP to meet the needs of its clients while continually assessing the value and cost-effectiveness of its services. The fee-for-service model also encourages TNTP’s clients to be motivated, active collaborators by literally “investing” them in the success of their partnerships with the organization.”

Then there is the growing list of Pryor’s “education staff assistants,” beginning with his chief of staff, Adam Goldfarb who followed him from New Jersey.  Hired at $75,000, Goldfarb is now making $106,000 despite the fact that he has no professional education experience other than serving on the Board of a Charter School in Newark.

There is also Mark Day, the Director of Performance Management, who is getting $105,000.  He joined the state payroll after working as an employee of McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm that advertises that it is “the trusted advisor to the world’s leading businesses, governments, and institutions. “

Add to that the two $95,000 education staff assistants who are interns from the Broad Foundation’s Residency Program, Gabrielle Ramos and Katina Grays.  The Broad Foundation is one of the three largest pro-education reform foundations in the nation. Their motto is that they are “Transforming K-12 urban public education through better governance, management, labor relations and competition.”

Despite the fact that the Broad Foundation has assets of $2.1 billion, the state of Connecticut is paying these two so they can work on Pryor’s education reform agenda while they are doing their Broad Foundation Residency.

And then there are the two law school students/TFA graduates, Andrew Ferguson and Collin Moore.  One of whom is working as another one of Pryor’s education staff assistants, while the other is working in Pryor’s “Turnaround Office.”  Thanks to Commissioner Pryor, both are enjoying $80,000 incomes.

The list goes on and on…

While there are a record number of essential unfilled vacancies and the core work of the State Department of Education isn’t getting done in a timely manner, the sign on the door reads:

Only education consultants and those have taken the corporate education reform pledge need apply.