A look back on the language restricting who may attend Windham’s new STEM Magnet School

Feb 11

jonpeltoCharles H. Barrows STEM Academy, Steven Adamowski, Windham , , 40 Comments

Wait, What? readers have patiently read through no less than three long posts about Windham’s new STEM Magnet and what appeared to be restriction limiting students from transferring into the new school if they were not reading at grade level by the 3rd grade.

Yesterday, the chairman of the Windham Board of Education wrote to clarify and wrap up the issue that I had raised.  He wrote:

“You are referring to an earlier draft of the Charles H. Barrows STEM Academy’s operations plan than the one currently on file with the State Department of Education. It happens, that until you raised the issue, I did not have a copy of the latest operations plan. A copy of the plan on file with the SDE has been placed on the Barrows Academy website <http://www.windham.k12.ct.us/downloads/schools/chbsa/STEMOperations_Plan20120616.pdf>.”

The Chairmen went on to note, “You’ll note that the language on the qualifications of transfer students has been removed from plan.”

The language was gone.

The unfair and inappropriate restriction on transferring into Windham’s new STEM Magnet school was no longer in place.

Although a bit chagrined that I hadn’t realized the final document had been changed, the fact that the issue was resolved was good news.

But…

And this is a BIG BUT…

When reviewing and packaging up the various documents, it became clear that it may very well be the Board itself that was being misled about the Operations Agreement.

Despite what the Chairman wrote yesterday, the copy of the Windham STEM Magnet School Operations Agreement on the website IS NOT the latest copy of the Operations Agreement.

In fact, it’s not even close to being the latest copy.  It is an old copy, with one change – the offensive language dealing with transfer students having to read at grade has been miraculously deleted.

The “final” copy was provided to the Windham Board of Education as part of a 45 page Board packet for their November 28, 2012 Board of Education Meeting.  The material related to their Agenda item III, entitled “Workshop Session, A. STEM Magnet School Operating Plan.”

In that packet, the title page of the Operations Plan for the STEM Magnet School included, in red ink, the words “Proposed Changes and BOE Approval:  November 2012.”  (Read Board Packet Here)

1)      Those comfortable with Microsoft Word will discover that if you right click on the document it reveals the document properties and this document was crated on 11/27/2012, the day before Board of Education Meeting.

2)      The changes, marked in red, are numerous and are throughout the document.  For example, the word “Laboratory” is removed from the description of the school in multiple locations.  Other modifications include changing the term Assistant Principal to Academic Dean of Students, Lead Teachers to Team Leaders, and a variety of other changes applying to what was to become the final terminology of for the Operations Plan.

3)      Finally, on Page 16 under Section 7, subsection B, subsection 2, it read.

“Enrollment will end on September 30th of the school year.  New Students Entering beyond grade 3 must be reading on or above grade level.”

There were no changes to that section listed.   That was the language before the November 28, 2013 Board of Education meeting AND the language after the November 28, 2013 Board of Education Meeting.  The restriction on transferring into the Windham STEM Magnet remained part of the Operations Plan.

So now we turn to the Operations Plan that the Board Chairman was told is the FINAL language of the Operations Agreement and is the language on file with the State Board of Education.  As noted above, to find the Operations Plan, start at http://www.windham.k12.ct.us/.  Click Schools – Charles H Barrows STEM Academy for http://www.windham.k12.ct.us/schools/chbsa/index.html, then resources http://www.windham.k12.ct.us/schools/chbsa/resources.html and then the Operations Plan: http://www.windham.k12.ct.us/downloads/schools/chbsa/STEMOperations_Plan20120616.pdf

1)      For starters note the Title of the Document is the STEM Laboratory Magnet School, despite the fact that the Board had already voted to remove the world “Laboratory” from the title.

2)       In fact, none of the other changes the Board approved on November 28, 2012 are included in the document that the administration is now claiming is the final Operations Plan.

3)      And now right click on the document and notice that this version of the Operations Agreement was crated on 6/20/2012,  months before the version the Board voted on.  Even more telling, this document was modified on 2/10/2013.  That is, the document was changed after I had raised the reading requirement issue with the Board.

Is the document on the website really the “FINAL” version of the Windham STEM Magnet Operations Agreement?

It doesn’t include any of the changes approved by the Windham Board of Education, but it does make ONE change since it was created last summer.

On Page 16, Section 7, subsection B; subsection 2, where it once read, “Enrollment will end on September 30th of the school year.  New Students entering beyond grade 3 must be reading on or above grade level…

It now reads “Enrollment will end on September 30th of the school year.”  Period, no second sentence.

Interestingly that the ONLY CHANGE MADE IN THE WHOLE OPERATIONS AGREEMENT,  despite the numerous changes approved by the Board of Education, is the removal of the inappropriate effort to prevent a large segment of our children from transferring to this new magnet school.

Be Sociable, Share!

  • chris

    Thank you again Jon. This is just beyond belief. Terribly sad, but will the honest members of the board call someone to task on this?

    • Apartheid First

      I truly hope there are honest members of the Board of Ed. They are certainly not vigilant–or even responsible. They made changes to a document, especially to the labor agreements, and yet they did not notice that a version without these labor changes had been posted.
      And we know that they did not “notice” or care about the language of transfer students reading at grade level.

      • Linda174

        Can you say more about the labor agreements and their changes?

      • Apartheid First

        Jonathan linked a BoE “packet” above (in his post: it says Read Board packet here)–click on that link, go to page 40 of the pdf (page 20 of the STEM doc), and you’ll see that the BoE crossed out a section giving EASTCONN power to negotiate human resources or something like that; the BoE redlined this and typed in a new section to keep new hires within the province of the Windham School District Human Resources.
        I think that we are witnessing the high-handed tactics of the State. The agreement was clearly created by Adamowski, Pryor, and their Broad Residents to maximize the ability of the state to run this school. They sent the document to the Windham BoE, who had the brains to change that labor nonsense–probably the union noticed that though. If this is not proof of the fact that Windham has been taken over by the state, I don’t know what is.
        BoE–have some guts and embrace your powerlessness! at least that’s more honest.

      • http://www.facebook.com/melanie.savage.1610 Melanie Savage

        Like I mentioned in another post–the board that was in control at the time that Coleman announced the “takeover” (I can’t remember, off the top of my head, how many members have changed since then)–they were positively BEGGING to be “rescued” by the state. They lacked the resources and the knowledge to “fix” what was wrong and they welcomed the help. They ARE embracing their powerlessness. They’re just in denial about it. But isn’t this all part of the plan–starve local districts and swamp them with so many unfunded mandates that the poorest of the poor have no choice but to welcome the EduVampires with open arms.

      • former BoE

        Melanie, I was on the Windham BoE (Mark Doyle) and your timeline is off. It wasn’t Coleman who announced the “Takeover” that was already begun by then State Education Commissioner Mark K. McQuillan, Who was a major disaster for the state. At that time the Windham BoE had not received any additional ECS funds over several years, & we hadn’t received any additional local tax funds. We had lived through the “Cambridge Study” years: Dorren Fuller was the Superintendent after being one of two candidates the State selected for us to chose from. And yet McQuillan still blamed us even after three years of “intensive” State intervention. While it maybe easy for people to blame everything on the BoE current or former, it should be known that of all the participants in CT education system BoEs have the least amount of power and control.Your comments about “starving local districts…” seems about true. For clarification I am attaching the letter I drafted and the BoE at the time sent to McQuillan after he attacked the Board.

        10/28/2010 Windham BoE Letter copy;

        Mark K. McQuillan

        Commissioner of Education

        P.O. Box 2219

        Hartford, CT 06106

        Dear Dr.McQuillan:

        The members of the Windham Board of Education wish to respond to your letter of September 17th.
        We deeply appreciate the assistance that your office and the State Department
        of Education have provided our school district in the past. This includes the
        pre screening and State selection of two candidates as finalists for the
        replacement of Paul Perzanoski from which we agreed to hire Doreen Fuller. The
        State’s assistance extended to the involvement from members of the SDE staff
        working as coaches and mentors with Doreen, our principals and many of our
        teachers. So we are pleased to be
        continuing the relationship, in particular we are looking forward to the
        forthcoming Lighthouse training program.

        We are puzzled by both the tone and substance of your letter of the 17th. At no

        time did the Board resist hearing your reasons for recommending Dr. Marion
        Martinez for the position of Windham Superintendent of Schools; in fact we had
        scheduled a special Board of Education meeting which was to include the Mayor
        of Windham. This meeting was set to allow us the opportunity to meet and get to
        know Dr. Martinez and to listen to your position in greater detail. We had
        already voted at the August 18th meeting to move forward considering
        all your recommendations. Dr. Martinez withdrew her application before this
        scheduled meeting. The only explanation given was your displeasure that the
        Board chairman could not provide you with the assurance that the vote to hire
        Dr. Martinez would be unanimous. The
        Windham Board of Education never refused to consider Dr. Martinez for the
        position as Superintendent. The special meeting was cancelled after your
        office informed us that you would be unable to attend.

        We really do not understand the basis for the assertion at the top of your second page that
        the Windham Board of Education has been unwilling to listen to proposals for a
        strategic plan to move our system forward. The only such plan that we are aware
        of is the district improvement plan which has been previously submitted to the
        Sate Department of Education. We also must point out that it was the Windham
        Board of Education that contacted your office for assistance both initially two
        years ago when Superintendent Perzanoski was leaving and again this summer when
        Doreen resigned because we understand Windham’s need for assistance.

        We have consistently done everything asked of us as part of the improvement plan
        process outlined by your office over the last three years. We have been
        actively engaged in the implementation of that plan. What adds to our confusion
        is we received no indication of any misgivings from your office regarding a
        lack of leadership or cooperation by the Board of Education or our staff during
        the years of Doreen’s tenure. If we had
        been notified we surely would have acted upon your concerns. We really would
        appreciate specific instances of proposals we have not heard or acted upon.

        Finally we need to stress our commitment to the education of all the children in the
        Windham system and our desire to work closely with the SDE to accomplish this
        feat. We have volunteered our time to serve as members of the Windham Board of
        Education because of our commitment. Windham is a small town with very limited
        financial resources and we recognize our need for assistance from the State. It
        is our sincere desire that the Windham Board of Education, Administration and
        staff along with your office can move forward in a positive, non–accusatory
        manner for the benefit Windham’s students.

        Sincerely
        Yours,
        Ken Folan,
        Chairman Windham Board of Education

        On behalf of and in agreement with
        the members of the Windham Board of Education

        CC, Ernie Eldridge, Neal Beets, Rep.
        Susan Johnson, Rep. Andrew Fleischmann, Senator Don Williams, Allan Taylor,
        chairman State BoE, members of the State BoE, members of the Windham Town
        Council, William Skoog, WFT President, members of Windham Board of Finance,
        Windham Administrator Union

      • Apartheid First

        If you were still on the BoE, Mr. Doyle, would you pretend that you had some power and autonomy? It would be much easier to fight the State’s imperious takeover if the BoE were not so lily-livered. Some of them will leave next fall and say, it all went downhill in the last year or so… I am taking my children/grandchildren etc. out of the schools because they are failing but I did my best for x number of years–yet they are not doing the best, they are letting Steven Adamowski get his way on everything.
        Even if the BoE cannot stop Adamowski’s nonsense (and you are in favor of some of it), they can at least say at every step of the way, this is not in the best interests of the children. Put that in the minutes. Take a stand. Don’t allow every “intern” and consultant to step in and tell you how you should be running the Windham Schools.

      • former BOE

        First, this is a hard format for any type of detailed discussion. Second yes I supported the TFA program. Third before I am willing to discuss the quality of anyone else’s liver I have to ask why you use a pseudonym? Finally I believe we all have to find a way to work with the State on this issue; they are holding all the cards. The BoE openly fighting the Sp. Master will not make for a better education. But while you are asking- where is the WFT on this issue?

      • Apartheid First

        I am not an elected person, but a private parent who has suffered and who does not want her children to bear the brunt of certain issues. I would take a stand and entertain the beliefs and opinions of anyone if I were elected, but I would try to limit the over-exposure of opinions that derive from a tiny minority of nay-sayers. This has been very damaging to the entire town.
        You cannot support a strong and healthy school district by bringing in a temporary missionary labor force that is practicing teaching on vulnerable children. That is idiocy. The BoE should have fought harder for teacher salaries, because no district can attract and retain a solid workforce by paying a pittance. The TFA solution damages the teaching force and exposes children to the patronizing attitudes of those who think that any attention from an “elite college graduate” is better than that from a trained teacher. Children are smarter than you give them credit for, and they can feel the condescension. They also perceive the disrespect accorded to the rest of the teaching force.
        Lastly, before you feel superior toward private citizen who wishes to preserve some semblance of anonymity in some forums (I go public when it counts, you know), why don’t you ask your fellow board members and councilmen and women to explain their positions and to stop grandstanding at meetings and wasting everyone’s time?

      • former BOE

        Interesting comment; “The BoE should have fought harder for teacher salaries,” Its true that our salaries are low but the BoE fought very hard for better wages. I remember fighting at every budget presentation for increased funds only to have our budget requests cut by the Bd of Finance and many times rejected by the voters; you’ll recall many years where there were multiply referendums before the Ed budget passed. By the way I do not feel superior to anyone, please stop projecting your feelngs on me. Also are you saying it’s OK for the BoE to grandstand aganist the State but not about things you disagree with? But this forum shouldn’t be about me, it should be about the issues so I’ll try to be less defensive M.Doyle

      • Linda174

        Certainly there is a middle ground between fighting publicly and serving as a rubber stamper for the special master….creepy title by the way.

        What would a female version if this position be called?

        Why does Windham need an elected board at all if one guy and the SDE/Pryor pull all the strings. See comments at the very top from SDE insiders.

      • http://www.facebook.com/melanie.savage.1610 Melanie Savage

        Special Master–the moment I heard this title, it made my skin crawl. Who came up with this creepy and ridiculous title? Coleman? Pryor? Can we publicly flog them and put them in the stocks for a day or two?

      • Apartheid First

        By the way, what is an appropriate format? A town meeting where the public get 3 minutes and the board and councilmembers get all the time they want? Where the local paper is so biased they have stopped quoting or acknowledging the presence of dissenting voices?
        Work with the State? How can that happen when it is an absolute dictatorship, and they NEVER answer questions? How does one “work with” someone who holds all the cards? You must realize that there is no collaboration in this case.
        Why didn’t Rosa Parks just look out the window?
        Plenty of people lost their jobs under Adamowski in Hartford–or were driven out after devoting their lives to that district. Plenty of people are still in fear for their jobs because–you said it–the state holds all the cards in this school reform business.
        They can “just” make me miserable and my children ill from anxiety-related sicknesses–they can’t fire me or starve me.

      • http://www.facebook.com/melanie.savage.1610 Melanie Savage

        “The BoE openly fighting the Sp. Master will not make for a better education.” I’d have to disagree with this one. Look at the Special Master’s reputation in Hartford. And I’m not talking about his reputation as spun and polished by his personal PR firm, The Hartford Courant. I’m talking about his true reputation, when you pull back the shiny veneer and look at the ugliness underneath. This man is not bringing anything good to Windham. Look at how much of the original $1 million went to the kids–any of it? Most of it was sucked up by Adamowski and his extended cadre of “assistants” and “consultants.” Do you expect the children to take up their swords/pens and fight him? It is up to the board, the superintendent, the principals, other administrators, parents, and teachers to fight this battle for the children.

        And I’ve gotta ask–what is WFT?

      • Apartheid First

        WFT is the Windham Federation of Teachers. I guess former BoE members think that the WFT should be cleaning up the mess–and trying to keep teachers in the district, despite the lowest wages in the state.
        Melanie, you should link to the Reminder expose on Adamowski, since as you say the Hartford Courant is Adamowski’s PR firm.

      • msavage

        Thanks for explaining the WFT thing. And here’s a link to the article: http://www.remindernews.com/article/2012/08/26/parents-teachers-oppose-special-master-methods. Just a brief glimpse beneath that shiny veneer created by the likes of the Hartford Courant.

        And reading this over again, I’d have to agree with your criticism of Mr. Sewall.

      • formerBoE

        You would be better served by stating your own motivations not making snarky comments abut mine. I did not say or even imply that the WFT “Should be cleaning up the mess” What I did was suggest that there are other groups that could/should be part of the discussion

      • http://www.facebook.com/melanie.savage.1610 Melanie Savage

        Hey Mark,

        I remember the timeline regarding McQuillan. I remember the whole issue with Doreen Fuller and Dr. Martinez. I was referring to the meeting where Coleman physically came to Windham and addressed residents re the upcoming changes. I guess you could refer to it as a ramping-up of the takeover by the state. At that point in time, my impression is that, partially due to the situation that you refer to above, the BOE was out of steam, out of ideas, out of money, and welcomed the assistance of the state. And, I would suggest that this starving of the district was part of a plan–a plan for the state to gain control and carry out experiments such as those that Windham is now being subjected to–and that New Orleans, Hartford, New London, and other poor districts across the country are undergoing/have undergone as well. Starve the “poor” communities, blame the resulting “failures” on them, then swoop in as a hero and take over. Send in one of the EduVampires/EduCelebrities that demoralized and exhausted Boards of Ed are unlikely to question and let them have their way with the district.

      • former BoE

        would have to agree with most of this Melanie

  • Linda174

    Edleadershipcrisis…..where are you? Care to comment?

    I agree with you in one area….your moniker. We do have a crisis in terms of education leadership for sure.

    When dedicated, knowledgeable, compassionate, experienced life long educators are lead by lawyers, political hacks, shills for the privatizers and policy wonks we definitely have a crisis.

    Funny how the lowly unionized teacher is the greatest contributing factor to a child’s success in life (according to the reformy talking points), however, we are simultaneously an economic drain on society while ruining the country. Ironic, eh?

  • Apartheid First

    More breaking news!!! Extra, Extra. Tomorrow is supposed to be the Town Meeting in Windham to vote on funds for the Natchaug roof. John French of the BoE and Tom White of the Board of Finance have been selflessly giving up work and leisure time to collect signatures to send this to a referendum… they are going to ask the Town Council at 5:45 to accept their petition and to cancel the Town Meeting which is supposed to take place at 6:00.
    I’m sure that the two (with some out-of-town landlord help, no doubt) have all the signatures verified by the Town Clerk and that each page has been notarized as having been signed in the presence of the person who had the petition (no asking your wife to moonlight on her job to collect signatures for you guys! then it wouldn’t be valid). See provision #6 here: http://www.ehow.com/how_7622343_file-petition-permissive-referendum.html

  • MarMar

    Any commenrts from the State Department of Education?

    • Linda174

      Methinks Edleadershipcrisis is their virtual pit bull.

      No guts to pony up I suppose.

      The wizards are hiding behind the curtain figuring out the next Pelto expose.

      • EdLeadershipcrisis

        Hardly. I just want jon to be accurate. He used a version of the operations plan given to him by a distant third party, and owed his readership more paatience on this issue.

        This Malloy bunch has no clue what children need from the system of service delivery to become the very best, mostly because the last time any of them interacted with children was when they themselves were children. Not only do they not know the business of education, but virtually none of them are parents, putting them at a severe disadvantage in doing their jobs in this highly human develpment field.

        But this the latest in a string of ineffective commissioners and state leadership teams dating back to the early 90s. Pryor arrived to a pre-existing mess, largely because of gross mismanagement of the entire public education sector, from legislatures, governors, commissioners and senior managers at SDE, clueless school boards, schools of education (particularly leadership training programs), superintendents, principals, and yes, some arguable percentage of the teaching force. The criticism needs to be spread across all of these entities in an insightful way. Here in this space, the imbalance is not very becoming nor helpful. Can we rail against teacher/leader preparation? Can we hold school board accountable for doing their jobs too? Geez.

      • http://www.facebook.com/melanie.savage.1610 Melanie Savage

        “Here in this space, the imbalance is not very becoming nor helpful.
        Can we rail against teacher/leader preparation? Can we hold school
        board accountable for doing their jobs too?”

        Imbalance–I’m not sure what you mean by that. Please explain. You think Jon should investigate teacher/leader preparation for you? School board accountability–that issue is being discussed in this very thread.

      • EdLeadershipcrisis

        Yes, the board is being held accountable in the Windham case , but my comment is the broader ineptitude of school boards that often yield the agendas to the Superintendents rather thatn dictating the content of the meetings with the appropriate balance of support and accountability. Too many boards are apologists for the lack of systemic accountability of the service delivery. My point is that there is a lot of blame to go around, and rather than framing the fight for better schools against a few johnny come lately money mongers, a more systematic approach is essential to be helpful. I don’t see it in this blog. How is it that Supers get renewed year after year despite declining schools? How is it that boards that do this get re-elected? How is it that the teaching field is largely populated by 30th to 60th percentile high school grads, rather than top quartile talent like in most countries? How is it that leadership training programs are so woeful at preparing administrators? How is it that UCONN uses so called expert retired administrataors from largely wealthy districts to consult on analyses of urban education? When did they ever lead urban education to sustained positive results, surely not by staying in wealthy suburban communities for the bulk of their careers? How is it that the school funding formula is so badly beaten down, even in surplus years like from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s -(yes Jon covers this with support for the CCJEF folks, but there are specfic people still relevent in media and on ed-related committees who are largely to blame). These are more systemic problems that plague the system, that are the antecedent issues that enable people like Adamowski and Vallas to swoop in. If those things get corrected, there is no Vallas or Adamowski. Yes, privatization is cause for great concern, but greater analysis of root causes is essential to have a useful dialogue.

      • http://www.facebook.com/melanie.savage.1610 Melanie Savage

        Great, then by all means–start your own blog and write about some of these issues. But I would suggest losing sentences such as this one: “Too many boards are apologists for the lack of systemic accountability of the service delivery.” Huh? Is this some kind of edu-speak?

        These are all very good questions that you bring up. I have another one for you–How is it that a person graduating at the top of her graduating class at UConn (Summa Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa), completing an MA with a 3.8 average, then receiving a certificate of commendation for the Praxis test for performing better than 85% of all prospective English teachers who have taken it–how is it that this person (yes–talking about myself) cannot even get an interview for a secondary English teaching position in the state of CT? Do they want the best and the brightest teaching the next generation of kids, or don’t they? Are they concerned that the teaching field is largely populated by 30th to 60th percentile high school grads, or aren’t they? If “they” are concerned with these things, “they” need to inform the administrators who are doing the hiring. Hello? Here I am. I have the knowledge in my field, I have the passion for my subject. I am an excellent student. I even have (limited) experience in the classroom. Clearly intelligence and knowledge of subject area are NOT at the top of the list for administrators looking to hire in this state.

        But all that aside, these are all great questions: “How is it that leadership training programs are so woeful at preparing administrators? How is it that UCONN uses so called expert retired administrators from largely wealthy districts to consult on analyses of urban education? How is it that Supers get renewed year after year despite declining schools?”

        I would love to see these questions discussed by some of the intelligent folks who are (genuinely) concerned with improving public education in this country. But I don’t think it’s fair to criticize Jon for a perceived narrowness of viewpoint. Pretty sure Jon isn’t getting rich from producing this blog. Pretty sure he is attempting to make a living in other ways. It’s really not fair to expect him to cover EVERY subject plaguing public education in CT. These edu-vultures are a clear and present danger–the immediate battle that needs to be fought. Thank god SOMEONE is addressing the subject. Don’t expect Jon to solve the entire public education crisis single-handedly. Start your own blog–you sound like you have plenty of good ideas and some insider knowledge. But please–no edu-speak!

      • Apartheid First

        All docs and agreements posted are in the public domain. I am not sure who the distant third party is–the Windham BoE website, or the STEM magnet school web? The CT SDE? The marked-up copy is not someone’s personal meeting version and it contains important revisions to the hiring procedures for the magnet school–it is on the Windham Public Schools webpage.
        Does it matter that on the newly updated STEM webpage the Operating Plan is from June, has one crucial line missing as of Friday, and does not contain changes made at a public BoE meeting in November? I think so.

      • EdLeadershipcrisis

        Some third stringer at EASTCONN gave him the copy with the obsolete language. Indeed a distant third party, and not one to have been assumed to have the document of record between the state and windham

      • jonpelto

        Edleadershipcrisis, I’m a bit confused at what you are getting at. The version of the STEM Operations Plan that I referenced in my posts was part of the packet given to the Windham BOE members for their November 28 2012 Board Packet.

        It turns out that, in fact, the version I used is actually the official copy – and that the copy that is presently on the STEM Academy website is not only not the latest copy, it is a copy that was never approved by the BOE at all.

        The offensive sentence was, however, removed from the copy on the STEM website – which means someone changed the document without Board approval.

      • EdLeadershipcrisis

        The only operation plan that counts is the one that is last submitted to the state. Since the state issues the approval, other versions are meaningless unless they are submitted to the state for approval. It doesn’t matter what is on the school’s website or what the board may have seen as part of its discourse after the latest version on file at the state. The offensive sentence, I understand from extremely dependable sources around town, is not a part of any version on file with the state. Shamefully, the state ignores your requests for the truth, which would have made much of this conversation moot, because there is no 3rd grade reading standard as part of any version submitted to the state since as early as May 2012. If there were such a provision in the plan, the state surely would not approve it, so the point again is moot. If such a standard was then applied after the fact without the state’s approval, then they would jeopardize their sizeable state support. That is unlikely, although anything is possbile in this rush for short term wins by these profiteers.
        On another note, to CT’s credit we don’t allow for STEM magnets to morph into competitive-entry, elite schools. Most states indeed create conscious, policy driven, dual systems as they indeed apply entry standards, especially in the midwest and west. Here in CT, it is more subtle, as to what the baseline learning is for students entering these programs of choice. Obvoiusly, choosing to go is an advantaging factor. UCONN did at least two studies in the mid and late 2000s that addressed these types of issues, but they should be updated to reflect today’s conditions.

      • jonpelto

        I was with you until you said the only version that matters is the one with the state – the town can’t file a plan that hasn’t been approved by the board correct? The only one approved by the board is the one with the changes made on Novembe 28th – marked in red – there were numerous changes – the prohibition on transfers isn’t one of them.

        If they filed an unapproved plan – then it is an unauthorized plan – you can’t have a operation plan that doesn’t meet the statutory requirement – which in this case – the board is the only statutory authority with the power to approve or authorize a plan.

        You may be right – the plan at SDE may not have the prohibition – but THAT PLAN HAS NOT LEGAL STANDING TO BE FILED.

        Even now that can’t get their story straight.

        They either need to file the plant the Board approved – which has the prohibition OR they need to approve a new plan.

        In either case – whatever is filed at the State Department is irrelevant.

      • EdLeadershipcrisis

        We will agree to disagree. The version the state approves is the document of record. Yes, it ought to be approved by the local board before submission. Other versions are meaningless because they aren’t being blessed for the grant, which is the lifeline for any interdistrict magnet school.

  • Quest

    After reading these postings, I think a lot of questions could be answered if Mr.Stephan Pryor, Commissioner of Education responded to the legimate questions that have been raised. In stead acting like a leader he hides in the shadow. His generic response is to have people contact Ms. Donnelly, Director of the Office of Communication and Community Partnerships. One of his recent hires who knows absolutely nothing about this subject matter. I would at least understand if he had people contact Mr. Mark Linabury, Bureau Chief, Choice Program. Of course Mr. Linabury probably would not want to respond since we havent heard anything from him on this matter. Jonathen have you tried to contact Ms. Deborah Kurshan, Chief, for the Turnaround Office?

    • Apartheid First

      You are so right! Pryor is an absolute monarch, he never deigns to answer mere mortals or parents.
      Time to call him on this.

      • http://www.facebook.com/melanie.savage.1610 Melanie Savage

        There is no recall provision in CT for governor–how about recall provisions for commissioners? Pryor needs to go–it all starts with him. Well, it starts higher up than him but getting him out of that office and replaced by someone with an actual background in education would go a long way toward helping Conn. schools.

    • Linda174

      Time to turnaround the CT SDE including Pryor…is there a Chief for that job?

  • Doc

    The Commissioner has created a culture within the State Department of Education, that being responsive to request from the public is not acceptable. He doesn’t like Staff to respond to question(s) unless the information has been washed and sanatized by someone from his management team. People who know absoulutely nothing about education. It is insulting to the Staff who collectively have over 25 years of experience. This is why unprecedented number of Staff our leaving since he became Commissioner. It is why my friend left.

    • Apartheid First

      Testify!
      We need a Day of Venting. And Exposing. There are a lot of petty despots in State Government.

      • http://www.facebook.com/melanie.savage.1610 Melanie Savage

        Agreed–it’s time to start talking about these things. Get over fears and think about the common good. Your community NEEDS YOU to talk about these things. The silence of decent folks is one of the ingredients that is leading to the decay and eventual destruction of our society!