What is the “education reform” group Excel Bridgeport Inc. thinking?

10 Comments

Excel Bridgeport Inc. is back in the news and their activities remind us of a few unanswered questions that still must be addressed:

Do they believe that they are above the law?  Are they so ignorant that they don’t know the law?  Or are they so naive that they think that even if they violate the law, no one will notice?

Recently, Carmen L. Lopez, a retired Superior Court judge, raised a series of concerns about Excel Bridgeport, a corporate funded education advocacy group that has been actively pushing an “education reform” agenda.

Over the last eighteen months, Excel Bridgeport and its leaders worked hard to promote the State’s illegal takeover of the Bridgeport Schools.  They actively supported Governor Malloy’s “education reform” bill.  And since its inception, Excel Bridgeport has been particularly busy organizing on behalf of Mayor Finch’s proposal to dramatically enhance his powerbase and authority by transferring control of Bridgeport’s education system to the Mayor’s Office, rather than have it run by a locally elected Board of Education.

Judge Lopez’s letter to the editor in the Connecticut Post traced Excel Bridgeport’s history and the individuals behind its operation.  See http://www.ctpost.com/opinion/article/Removing-the-mask-from-Bridgeport-education-3717349.php#ixzz210wuutVX

Agree or disagree with Excel’s positions, there is no question that Judge Lopez was factually correct and her description of Excel Bridgeport as a politically motivated advocacy group is, in fact, exactly what it is.

In a defensive response to Judge Lopez’s letter, Maria Zambrano, Excel Bridgeport’s executive director completely failed to respond to the issues Judge Lopez raised.  See http://onlyinbridgeport.com/wordpress/excel-bridgeport-responds-to-lopez-action-for-the-betterment-of-schools/

Instead, the executive director fell back on the traditional rhetoric, claiming that Excel Bridgeport “partners with parents, youth and community members to create a movement of people who are committed to improving the quality of education for all Bridgeport students.”

The response could not have been more gratuitous.  No one questions that Excel Bridgeport is working to create a “movement to change Bridgeport,” the question is whether they are following Connecticut law and have they properly revealed any conflicts of interest that the group or its leader’s may have.

As background, Excel was incorporated on Dec. 15, 2010 by Meghan Lowney (Zoom Foundation), Nathan Snow (Teach for America) and Lee Bollert (who works for Mayor Finch and advises him on education policy).

Today, in addition to Lowney and Snow, Excel’s Board of Directors includes Jonathan Hayes, Joel Green, Robert Francis, Carl Horton Jr. and Joseph McGee.

Although Meghan Lowney, Nathan Snow and Excel Bridgeport were very active in the effort to persuade state officials to take over Bridgeport’s schools and then in support of Governor Malloy’s “education reform” bill, none of them registered to lobby with the Office of State Ethics.  Lobbying is defined as spending at least $2,000 in time or money communicating or urging others to communicate with state officials about a particular policy or action.

Excel Bridgeport can claim its goal is to help Bridgeport’s parents, but to date, they continue to duck the fact that Lowney, Snow and the organization itself appear to have spent more than $2,000 in time or money engaged in lobbying and should have registered with the appropriate state agency.  For an example see http://www.youtube.com/user/excelbridgeport.  Lobbying without being registered is punishable by fines of up to $10,000 per incident.

One of the other most important questions surrounding Excel Bridgeport is whether anyone associated with the organization has a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest that has not been properly revealed.

For example, according to official Bridgeport documents, Excel Director Robert Francis, who also serves as the executive director of RYASAP Inc., and Paul Vallas, Bridgeport’s part-time Superintendent of Schools, signed a contract about a month ago, on June 21, 2012, for $206,250.

In return for that money, RYASAP Inc. will “create, staff and manage ‘The Student Space’ student support and leadership centers” at Bridgeport’s high schools.

Those centers may very well be a vital asset and RYASAP may be the best entity to run them, but nowhere on Excel Bridgeport’s website or in their public materials do they reveal that one of their Directors is directly involved in a contract that will move $200,000 in taxpayer funds to that Director’s organization.

Second, Nathan Snow, Excel Bridgeport’s President readily identifies himself as the Director of the Connecticut Chapter of Teach for America. However, nowhere does Excel Bridgeport reveal that Snow and Teach for America have signed an $87,000 contract between the City of Bridgeport and Snow’s organization.

Other Excel Bridgeport Directors also have personal ties to Mayor Finch, the City of Bridgeport or other Excel Directors.

For example, the spouse of Excel Director Carl Horton Jr. was appointed Bridgeport’s Health Director by Mayor Bill Finch in 2010.  Although she may not be presently serving in that capacity, it would have been appropriate for Excel Bridgeport to reveal the connection.

Furthermore, in addition to serving as an Excel Bridgeport Director, Joel Green is the Chairman of Operation Hope’s Board of Directors.  Meghan Lowney, the founder of Excel Bridgeport, worked at Operation Hope for 16 years, including serving as that organization’s executive director for a decade.

While some of these connections may be important and others may not be, any group involved in public advocacy, especially one associated with promoting an agenda that directly impacts children, has a special obligation to reveal real or perceived conflicts of  interest.

As Judge Lopez notes in her letter to the editor, time and time again, Excel Bridgeport as failed to do so.

The entire situation resurrects that question as to why Excel Bridgeport Inc. and its leadership seem unable or unwilling to abide by some of the most basic rules and regulations associated with advocating on behalf of their agenda?

Be Sociable, Share!

  • Linda174

    And Bridgeport beware. Read how New Orleans is performing now after the Vallas turnaround model from years ago…could this be your future? Remember, he will be long gone…posted on the Ravitch blog.

    The New Orleans Imperative says:
    July 22, 2012 at 4:54 pm
    While the New York story played out differently because of the players. local and state politics the script for the wrong-headed school reformers is basically the same. In New Orleans post Hurricane Katrina we changed the criteria for failing schools thus declaring more than 100 public schools as failing and turned it over to the free market (charters). Just like New York the reforms created a failure, seven years later the New Orleans reformed school district ranked 69 out of 70 of all the school districts in the state taking mandated standardized tests last spring. Equally as disturbing, the high poverty schools in the reformed school district in New Orleans scored lower than the high poverty schools in several cities across Louisiana in 11 of 12 areas tested. The bottom line is that despite the billions of dollars from the federal government and foundations, firing of all those old bad teachers, no teacher union and no local elected school board the New Orleans reforms failed miserably.
    But despite their failure, the Governor and the state department of education is taking its failed model to school districts across the state and have recently passed a ill fated voucher program that will take put more state funds in the private sector and fail more children.
    Unbelievable but True!!!

    • guest

      Scary.

  • guest

    They are busy peddling their privatizing reforms and politicizing boards of education in poor and stressed districts in Connecticut, too.  Besides Bridgeport, as covered in recent blogs by Jonathan Pelto and by Carmen Lopez in the CT Post, Hartford has been ill-used by Adamowski, who is now bringing his snake oil to Windham and New London.
    Adamowski and Councilmen in Windham, along with some suspicious “observers”, would like to rewrite Windham’s town charter so as to make the Board of Ed. subject to mayoral appointments.  The mayor currently has few functions, and an unsuccessful candidate for mayor in the last election, Dawn Niles, has been enthralled by Adamowski’s hints at what a “stronger” mayor would look like.
    Susan Johnson, state rep for Windham, proudly declares her 100% support of the Special Master–even though it has resulted in removing all power from the voters.  The impotent Board of Ed has little to defend at the moment–and maybe they think being appointed would be easier than running for re-election.
    Adamowski’s incursions into local politics are decidedly dictatorial, and he should be removed from the Special Mastership immediately.  The State Board of Ed should all be fired, too, for allowing the abuses in Bridgeport, Hartford, Windham and elsewhere.

    • Linda174

      De-throne the special master ASAP. The more power he gets the more power he takes. Maybe Dannel’s job is next.

  • Dam478

    This is from the Sunday July 22 Rutland Herald.  Thought it is well thought out and written

     

    Editor’s note: The following essay was prepared by the principals,
    associate principals and superintendent of the Orange Southwest
    Supervisory Union. They are David Barnett, T. Elijah Hawkes, Susan
    McKelvie, Erica McLaughlin, Patricia Miller and Brent Kay.

    We
    appreciate the recent discussion of the trust and accountability
    challenges that school communities are facing today — challenges that
    lead, too frequently, to many of our colleagues leaving the profession.

    We
    are writing, however, from a district where there’s relative leadership
    stability, and where the relationship we have with our School Board is
    one that empowers us to focus on what matters most, in the areas where
    we have qualifications to act.

    From our perspective, there are
    two things we must do to address the current trust and accountability
    troubles in our school communities:

    1. Resist the myth that America’s schools are failures.

    2. Redefine the roles of school boards and administrators.

    Resist the myth

    Research
    polls consistently reveal that most Americans think their own schools
    are solid but that other public schools are in crisis. Why do we tell
    one story about our own community but believe a different story about
    others?

    We believe it because there are powerful forces in
    America actively selling the narrative of school disaster. Their intent
    is to dismantle and privatize public schools and turn them into sources
    of personal profit.

    During the last 30 years, a coordinated
    public relations attack has been levied on public schools, including
    reports and slogans like “A Nation at Risk,” documentaries like “2
    Million Minutes,” propaganda films like “Waiting for Superman,” and a
    chorus of “We’re bad in math compared to Finland” headlines.

    This
    attack in the media works in concert with public policy measures that
    destabilize public schools. No Child Left Behind, as this newspaper’s
    editors noted, is a potent example.

    Yes, there are ample areas
    for improvement in schools. We know this acutely, because our work —
    every day — is about driving the change that’s needed. But America’s
    schools are not the disaster that many would want us to believe. In
    terms of childhood poverty, infant mortality, teenage pregnancy,
    prescription drug abuse and teen suicide, we do have a crisis in
    America, and we look bad compared to other industrialized democracies.
    But apples to apples, if you compare test scores of students in the U.S.
    to Finland, and you control for poverty, our students are world
    leaders.

    Much of the reason there is confusion and distrust in
    our public school system — and why school leaders are so demoralized and
    defeated — is because of the national school disaster myth. So we must
    get past the slogans and recognize it as a highly politicized effort to
    funnel huge sums of taxpayer dollars into the private sector. As Vermont
    elects a governor this November, who will then appoint a state
    secretary of education, let us carefully listen for hints of this
    disaster myth in their framing of the issues, for what’s at stake is the
    erosion of the Vermont Strong public sphere and our commitment to the
    common good.

    Redefine roles

    At the same time as
    we work to tell a truer story about public schools in America, here in
    the public sphere in Vermont, we must more carefully define the roles
    and responsibilities of school boards and administrators — and their
    relationship with the general public.

    The role of school boards
    must flow from sound governance practice: a primary focus on
    establishing desired outcomes for schools and students, followed by
    rigorous monitoring to ensure the desired outcomes are achieved. This is
    essential to the future success of Vermont schools.

    In
    comparison, administration must focus on achieving the board-determined
    outcomes and report on progress at appropriate intervals. The school
    board tells you where to go; the administrators determine how to get
    there. Further, we need to focus the role of the principal so it centers
    on educational leadership — not roof leaks, snow plowing, food services
    and the like.

    If we carefully define the roles of all members of
    the system, and act according to sound governance procedures, the work
    will get done, and students will graduate with the character, skills and
    knowledge they need to contribute to the fulfillment of their dreams
    and to the welfare of all. Moreover, it will allow school boards and
    administration to better engage their communities in dialogue about what
    students need to know and be able to do in order to succeed in the 21st
    century.

    Universal access to a free, high-quality education is a
    commitment our country has made that we must never let fade. Let us
    safeguard this public enshrinement of the rights of all, and always meet
    the challenge of this mandate with the passion, compassion,
    self-discipline and professionalism that it demands.

    David Barnett, principal

    T. Elijah Hawkes, associate principal

    Susan McKelvie, principal

    Erica McLaughlin, principal

    Patricia Miller, associate principal

    Brent Kay, superintendent

    Orange Southwest Supervisory Union

    • Linda174

      Yes, and Vermont told Duncan to take his waiver and shove it! Let’s all move to Vermont.

    • guest

      Yes, we need some sanity–and reality–to be infused into the debate.

  • Pingback: CT Essential Politics – Tuesday 07.24.12 - CT Devil's Advocate

  • Pingback: The Connecticut Watchdog for the Public Interest « Diane Ravitch's blog

  • Pingback: BLUSHING… - Wait, What?