Dear Stamford Friends,
Please find my endorsements for this year’s Board of Education election below. As many of you know I am actively involved in the school community and want to keep you up to date on what is at stake this year. I realize this is a long letter, but I felt it is necessary to keep you informed. The fact is that the issues are not simple, and they go beyond any one hot button issue. Feel free to forward this along to other if you desire.
This year's election stands as a mandate on the job Dr. Joshua Starr is doing as superintendent of the Stamford Public Schools and the overall direction we are going as a district. This year it is important to vote for a Board of Education that will allow his programs to continue moving forward, improving our schools, and preparing all of our students, our children, for the 21st century. This means voting for:
Angela Lorenti and Bob King on November 2.
Overall, the district is moving in the right direction. We are closing the achievement gap, and we are leading other CT urban schools. In fact, other superintendents come to our schools to look at where we are succeeding in closing the gap, with the goal of implementing those plans in their own districts. Dr. Starr is chairing CAUS, the Ct Association of Urban Superintendents, and there are individual success stories coming out of our schools every day. Unfortunately we don’t have the dollars to pay staff to publicize all these great things that are happening, but we are leading the way for others and making significant improvements across the board, which runs counter-intuitive to the common perception of the Stamford Public Schools. The reality is Stamford is an anomaly in the North East, our population is still growing and people are still interested in moving here. There is a lot of talk regarding a mass migration out of Stamford. But the fact is that people are not fleeing, because Stamford offers more options, and more diversity, than any of the surrounding towns, and that makes for a more well-rounded educational experience for our children.
Dr. Starr has also made large strides in putting programs into the school that are uniform throughout the district. There are no longer over 100 reading programs; the new math program is one that spirals back to reinforce the lesson, letting students learn and succeed even if it does not register the first time. The Science Times has published articles saying this is in fact the best way for students to learn. Science and Social Studies are much more hands on now than ever before. I believe that Dr. Starr does have a vision and that Stamford schools are becoming more successful because of that vision.
I don't believe that Stamford needs to keep turning over superintendents left and right, continually changing programs and direction based upon the whims of the political winds that are blowing each election season. We need a long term strategic plan that moves beyond each year and is absent of political turmoil. I think that the children need Dr. Starr to stay where he is and complete his vision, as this would lead to the continued success of all of our children. Students and schools need the consistency of a standard curriculum across the district and the only way to achieve this is to keep the superintendent. Any changes at the top will take almost five years to reverse current policy and/or implement any new policies.
There is a very passionate vocal minority that has been actively campaigning against Middle School Reform (MSR) and would like us to believe that Dr. Starr is driving the district towards mediocrity. This group, led by Stamford Residents for Excellence in Education has done an amazing job of organizing and aligning their issues with the major political parties here in Stamford. They would like to see Dr. Starr removed (endorsing candidates that could make this option a reality) and have Stamford return to our old system, a system where political patronage drove educational policy, a time when more of our schools were failing to meet state and federal standards and running the risk of our schools being taken over by Hartford. This is a potential future where no qualified superintendent would want to work in Stamford. The next superintendent will not have the ability to implement an educational policy to improve our all our schools, to give every student in Stamford an opportunity to succeed. We would only be able to attract sub-standard candidates who are simply willing to do whatever they are told. This is not a system I wish to return to, nor is it a place where I want my children learning.
It has been discussed and debated that the Middle School Reform (MSR) process has been flawed from the start, but Dr. Starr has compromised and crafted a plan that has been accepted by Hartford, since their mandate was no grouping at all. The GE Foundation has generously donated an additional $10.4 million based upon the continuation of de-tracking strategies. This money is being used for teacher training and other professional development; if that money was removed because we changed the direction of MSR it would be devastating to the city from both a fiscal and teacher morale perspective.
The reality is this is the first year that the plan has been in place, and it does require some modifications, just as you would expect any other initiative in the business world. There is a Middle School Advisory Council that is made up of parents and administrators who are responsible for shepherding these changes in a controlled and rational manner, discussing the necessary changes and making the modifications. Course corrections need to be the mantra here, not a complete reversal to the old system. I encourage you to read Dr. Starr’s response to the SREE letter regarding the initial results of MSR here and then decide for yourself:
http://stamfordpublicschools.org/filestorage/68/109/741/Response_to_Stockman_JPS_10_21_10.pdf
I also ask you to let all the facts speak for themselves and not allow distorted and skewed statistics to paint an incomplete picture of what has actually been accomplished.
Dr. Starr is certainly not perfect, and has his flaws, but what person doesn’t? I don’t believe one person is capable of pleasing everyone in an organization or community as large as our city schools. However, he is now more dedicated to Stamford, having just relocated his family from Brooklyn, NY to Stamford, and enrolled his own children in the Stamford Public Schools. This sends a message loud and clear, that he has enough faith in what he is doing to put his own children in our schools and believes that the schools are going in the right direction. This is a difficult decision for all parents, and knowing that he has chosen our district speaks volumes.
The fact remains that he has not done anything egregious that would justify the Board of Education terminating his contract. The actual costs of this process to the taxpayers of this city are going to be quite significant and during a time of economic distress and limited tax base, this just does not seem to be a prudent decision. Some of the costs include: paying him severance of almost $250,000 for him not to work for one year while he looks for another position; the cost of an interim superintendent while we search for a replacement; the cost of a consultant to search and place suitable candidates to be interviewed; the cost of paying candidates to come to Stamford, etc.. These are probably just the tip of the iceberg in additional costs that will be siphoned out of the classrooms and need to be spent on activities that will not see any return for years to come, assuming the new person is even allowed to stay long enough to implement their vision.
For these reasons I am supporting Angela Lorenti and Bob King on November 2 as they will support these initiatives and continue to be advocates for our children, not political puppets who are more interested in establishing power downtown.
With regards to the 3rd opening on the Board of Education, I feel Geoff Alswanger is a very
smart person, who has spent a great amount of time speaking with parents and coming up to speed on the issues that the district is currently facing. Geoff has described himself as a frustrated parent of school age children, and having another voice on the board would certainly be helpful. Geoff has said he is willing to listen to the community, work collaboratively with the other members of Board of Education and the other city boards. He also says he is open to working with Dr. Starr as long as Dr. Starr is willing to listen to Geoff’s concerns. He has come to the table with a strong opposition to MSR, and claims he wants to make some minor tweaks, though adding more groups is not considered minor by the people working on the MSAC. However, without knowing exactly the details of his plan and the changes he wishes to implement, and how these could impact the ongoing reforms, it is difficult to know exactly how his election will affect the MSR train, which has already left the station. Although it is unclear to us how he will vote with regards to the other issues currently in front of the Board of Education, Geoff appears to be a good candidate, given his willingness to work with Dr. Starr other city officials, and his dedication to improving the educational system for all of our children.
Rich Lyons is also a parent of school age children and has made a strong push over the last few days to reach out to various members of the community and listen to their concerns. He seems to have heard over the past few weeks that there are many issues and voices that are impacted by the above issues. He recognized the division with the community and within the current Board, and he says he is willing to work to find compromise with the new Board of Education. As a former member of the Stamford Board of Representatives, he knows how to work with this system and get things done. Rich also appears to me to be a good candidate.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I know it is long, but I feel it is important to present the facts so you can make an educated decision when you go to the polls on Tuesday.
Sincerely,
Jeff Herz
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Letter to the Advocate: School image - Oct 26, 2010
Stamford schools suffer more from a public relations crisis than a real crisis of education.
We have numerous success stories every day across the district in every school. Speak to most parents and they will tell you how they love their teachers and love their building administrators.
Of course there will be exceptions, but I am always amazed at how happy most parents I speak with are about their schools. This says that we are doing something right. This is what we should be promoting in order to improve the overall image of our district.
Jeff Herz
Stamford
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Keep Dr. Starr for the children
Dr. Joshua Starr has made large strides in putting programs into the school that are uniform throughout the district. There are no longer over 100 reading programs, the new math program is one that repeats information letting students succeed even if it does not register the first time. Science and Social Studies are much more hands on now than ever before. We believe that he does have a vision and that Stamford schools are becoming more successful because of that vision.
What we don't believe in is that Stamford needs to keeps turning over Superintendents left and right and therefore continually changing these types of programs. We think that the children need Dr. Starr to stay where he is and complete his vision and hopefully this would lead to more continued success of our students. Children and schools needs the consistency of a standard curriculum across the district and the only way to achieve this is to keep the superintendent. Any changes at the top will take almost 5 years to reverse current policy and/or implement any new policy's.
Finally, that Stamford Schools suffer more from a public relations crisis rather than a real crisis of education. We have numerous success stories every day across the district in every school. Speak to most parents and they will tell you how they love their teachers and love their building administrators. Of course there will be exceptions, but I am always amazed at how happy most parents I speak with are about their schools. This says that we are doing something right. This is what we should be promoting in order to improve the overall image of our district
Nancy and Jeff Herz
What we don't believe in is that Stamford needs to keeps turning over Superintendents left and right and therefore continually changing these types of programs. We think that the children need Dr. Starr to stay where he is and complete his vision and hopefully this would lead to more continued success of our students. Children and schools needs the consistency of a standard curriculum across the district and the only way to achieve this is to keep the superintendent. Any changes at the top will take almost 5 years to reverse current policy and/or implement any new policy's.
Finally, that Stamford Schools suffer more from a public relations crisis rather than a real crisis of education. We have numerous success stories every day across the district in every school. Speak to most parents and they will tell you how they love their teachers and love their building administrators. Of course there will be exceptions, but I am always amazed at how happy most parents I speak with are about their schools. This says that we are doing something right. This is what we should be promoting in order to improve the overall image of our district
Nancy and Jeff Herz
Principals: Parents like middle school reform
Principals: Parents like mid-school reform
Published: 08:08 p.m., Friday, October 22, 2010
To the editor:
At the Board of Education Candidate Forum at Roxbury Elementary School on Oct. 19, several candidates claimed that there were widespread complaints from our community regarding Stamford's Middle School Transformation -- in particular the grouping practices -- now entering its second year, having extended from just sixth grade to sixth and seventh grade.
We were curious about this claim, so we called and asked the middle school principals at Cloonan, Dolan, Rippowam and Turn of River how many complaints they have received from parents regarding the new grouping practices. The number of complaints ranged from zero to a handful.
We asked how that number compared to complaints about placement and grouping under the old four-to-five-group grouping system. Unanimously, the principals answered that there were far fewer complaints under the new system than under the old system; which one principal described as "voluminous." One principal reports that parents have thanked him for giving their children a fair shake now.
So, are the claims made by these candidates based on facts or the desire to inflame public opinion against Middle School Transformation? They were clearly not based on facts in the schools actually undergoing the change.
The silent majority of parents in Stamford are clearly more satisfied with the new grouping system than they were with the old system. It is unfortunate that the candidates didn't take the time to speak with the administrators in our schools before making such inflammatory statements.
People can torture and cherry pick data in an effort to contradict the promising test scores that emanated from last year's sixth graders, which were higher in every category than the scores of sixth graders the year before under the old system. They can try to fear monger, claiming that people are moving out of Stamford, and out of our public schools, despite the fact that enrollment is up and consistent with the district's predictions.
The truth is, if they bothered to speak to those working in the middle schools, they would know that the new grouping system, admittedly a work in progress, has not resulted in disaster. It is working. Just ask the principals.
Wendy Lecker
Cindy Grafstein
Stamford
The writers are co-presidents of the Stamford Parent Teacher Council. This letter represents their own opinions. They did not write this on behalf of the council.
Published: 08:08 p.m., Friday, October 22, 2010
To the editor:
At the Board of Education Candidate Forum at Roxbury Elementary School on Oct. 19, several candidates claimed that there were widespread complaints from our community regarding Stamford's Middle School Transformation -- in particular the grouping practices -- now entering its second year, having extended from just sixth grade to sixth and seventh grade.
We were curious about this claim, so we called and asked the middle school principals at Cloonan, Dolan, Rippowam and Turn of River how many complaints they have received from parents regarding the new grouping practices. The number of complaints ranged from zero to a handful.
We asked how that number compared to complaints about placement and grouping under the old four-to-five-group grouping system. Unanimously, the principals answered that there were far fewer complaints under the new system than under the old system; which one principal described as "voluminous." One principal reports that parents have thanked him for giving their children a fair shake now.
So, are the claims made by these candidates based on facts or the desire to inflame public opinion against Middle School Transformation? They were clearly not based on facts in the schools actually undergoing the change.
The silent majority of parents in Stamford are clearly more satisfied with the new grouping system than they were with the old system. It is unfortunate that the candidates didn't take the time to speak with the administrators in our schools before making such inflammatory statements.
People can torture and cherry pick data in an effort to contradict the promising test scores that emanated from last year's sixth graders, which were higher in every category than the scores of sixth graders the year before under the old system. They can try to fear monger, claiming that people are moving out of Stamford, and out of our public schools, despite the fact that enrollment is up and consistent with the district's predictions.
The truth is, if they bothered to speak to those working in the middle schools, they would know that the new grouping system, admittedly a work in progress, has not resulted in disaster. It is working. Just ask the principals.
Wendy Lecker
Cindy Grafstein
Stamford
The writers are co-presidents of the Stamford Parent Teacher Council. This letter represents their own opinions. They did not write this on behalf of the council.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Recap of BOE Candidates Forum Oct 14, 2010 - Rippowam Middle School
Here is my recap
Bob King spoke the most eloquently and completely about the issues without pandering to any specific group. Clearly he understands the depth of the issues, since he has been involved for so long.
Geoff Alswanger spoke the most passionately and clearly has a good grasp of some of the issues. I do believe he is too focused on MS reform and needs to understand there are many other issues that too need to be addressed. I think if what he says is true he will be a good member, I just worry he is saying the right things just to get elected and then his sole goal will be to try to derail the MS train, which has already left the station (right wrong or indifferent). (btw/ I am not well versed on this issue, so I cannot and will not comment on the merits either way) We will see.
I thought Rich Lyon was a dunce during the forum, not paying attention, asking for the question to be repeated each time he came to speak. Then I spoke to him afterwards and got a much different impression. I doubt I will vote for him, but at least he showed me he was not as idiotic as he looked on the stage.
Bayonne did not say anything substantial or relevant, leaving no impression on my other than the he has put on weight since he bought his suit as his jacket was clearly too small
Limone is a complete idiot and was belching incomprehensible facts and contradictory statements that made no statements. Almost always leaving us saying "huh" or "what"
Leydon struck me as a complete nothing. He grew up in Stamford, his parents grew up in Stamford, his wife grew up in Stamford, he has 4 kids, he was on the board in the 1990s and has been on the board of reps. His delivery and style was not dynamic, I have no idea how he has won elections previously. I have no idea why he is running ,except people are leaving Stamford because of our schools.
Angela Lorenti was not able to attend as she was attending her daughters induction into National Honor Society at St. Johns University last night. I know, as an Independent, she is focused on being an advocate for the students, and not letting city politics influence how money is allocated or the priorities of the school board.
This was a recurring theme throughout the night, but no one said if the issue was real or perceived. Bob King did bring up that we have a lot of students who go onto higher education and are incredibly successful and those stories need to be better articulated and promoted. Someone also mentioned (after the forum) about further engaging the business (outside of GE) to engage them to invest in the schools and the community to encourage their employees to live and stay in Stamford. This was the best idea I heard all night and it took place in a small conversation not on the dais. As you know I think all our schools are great in there own way, and we need to spend more time promoting them, rather than just allowing the negative perception to continue (off my soap box now).
There was also a ground swell to support the teachers and not impact the classroom with any changes or budgetary constraints on the horizon. However, none of them touched upon my major concern is that the union is not necessarily in line with their rank and file in how things are being run and managed.
Finally the support around Starr was mixed. King supported him, calling him an innovator. Lyon said he needs to play the politics game better, probably a true statement but it came across kind of crass. Limone and Leydon complained he does not compromise and does not listen to the public and Bayonne was upset because he interviewed for another position. Alswanger took the middle ground on this, saying they all need to work together
I hope to get at least one more so I can hear more from everyone.
Bob King spoke the most eloquently and completely about the issues without pandering to any specific group. Clearly he understands the depth of the issues, since he has been involved for so long.
Geoff Alswanger spoke the most passionately and clearly has a good grasp of some of the issues. I do believe he is too focused on MS reform and needs to understand there are many other issues that too need to be addressed. I think if what he says is true he will be a good member, I just worry he is saying the right things just to get elected and then his sole goal will be to try to derail the MS train, which has already left the station (right wrong or indifferent). (btw/ I am not well versed on this issue, so I cannot and will not comment on the merits either way) We will see.
I thought Rich Lyon was a dunce during the forum, not paying attention, asking for the question to be repeated each time he came to speak. Then I spoke to him afterwards and got a much different impression. I doubt I will vote for him, but at least he showed me he was not as idiotic as he looked on the stage.
Bayonne did not say anything substantial or relevant, leaving no impression on my other than the he has put on weight since he bought his suit as his jacket was clearly too small
Limone is a complete idiot and was belching incomprehensible facts and contradictory statements that made no statements. Almost always leaving us saying "huh" or "what"
Leydon struck me as a complete nothing. He grew up in Stamford, his parents grew up in Stamford, his wife grew up in Stamford, he has 4 kids, he was on the board in the 1990s and has been on the board of reps. His delivery and style was not dynamic, I have no idea how he has won elections previously. I have no idea why he is running ,except people are leaving Stamford because of our schools.
Angela Lorenti was not able to attend as she was attending her daughters induction into National Honor Society at St. Johns University last night. I know, as an Independent, she is focused on being an advocate for the students, and not letting city politics influence how money is allocated or the priorities of the school board.
This was a recurring theme throughout the night, but no one said if the issue was real or perceived. Bob King did bring up that we have a lot of students who go onto higher education and are incredibly successful and those stories need to be better articulated and promoted. Someone also mentioned (after the forum) about further engaging the business (outside of GE) to engage them to invest in the schools and the community to encourage their employees to live and stay in Stamford. This was the best idea I heard all night and it took place in a small conversation not on the dais. As you know I think all our schools are great in there own way, and we need to spend more time promoting them, rather than just allowing the negative perception to continue (off my soap box now).
There was also a ground swell to support the teachers and not impact the classroom with any changes or budgetary constraints on the horizon. However, none of them touched upon my major concern is that the union is not necessarily in line with their rank and file in how things are being run and managed.
Finally the support around Starr was mixed. King supported him, calling him an innovator. Lyon said he needs to play the politics game better, probably a true statement but it came across kind of crass. Limone and Leydon complained he does not compromise and does not listen to the public and Bayonne was upset because he interviewed for another position. Alswanger took the middle ground on this, saying they all need to work together
I hope to get at least one more so I can hear more from everyone.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Letter to the Advocate: BoE Candidates Targeting Starr
To the Stamford Advoate editor (published Oct 14, 2010):
Do the Board of Education candidates who oppose Superintendent Starr and plan to vote to terminate his contract upon election understand the fiscal ramifications of this path?
There is speculation in the community that that is exactly what the prospective board members who are opposed to Dr. Starr are planning to do if they are elected.
Some of these extraneous costs associated with this plan include buying out of his current contract, hiring a consultant to find a replacement, the possible need for an interim superintendent, and then the time a new person will need to become acclimated and implement a new direction.
These unnecessary costs will further remove resources from the classroom and prevent us from moving our schools forward in a positive manner until this change is completed.
Let's be careful for what we wish, and ask what is the cost of rash, politically motivated decision-making. Where are the fiscal watchdogs on this issue?
Jeff Herz
Stamford
Do the Board of Education candidates who oppose Superintendent Starr and plan to vote to terminate his contract upon election understand the fiscal ramifications of this path?
There is speculation in the community that that is exactly what the prospective board members who are opposed to Dr. Starr are planning to do if they are elected.
Some of these extraneous costs associated with this plan include buying out of his current contract, hiring a consultant to find a replacement, the possible need for an interim superintendent, and then the time a new person will need to become acclimated and implement a new direction.
These unnecessary costs will further remove resources from the classroom and prevent us from moving our schools forward in a positive manner until this change is completed.
Let's be careful for what we wish, and ask what is the cost of rash, politically motivated decision-making. Where are the fiscal watchdogs on this issue?
Jeff Herz
Stamford
Friday, October 08, 2010
Letter to the Advocate: Fiscal irresponsibility of BOE candidates
Do the BOE candidates that oppose Dr. Starr and plan to vote to terminate his contract upon election understand the fiscal ramifications of this path? Some of these extraneous costs associated with this plan include buying out of his current contract, hiring a consultant to find a replacement, the possible need for an interim superintendent, and then the time for a new person to become acclimated and implement a new direction. These unnecessary costs will further remove resources from the classroom and prevent us from moving our schools forward in a positive manner until this change is completed. Lets be careful for what we wish, and asking what is the cost of rash, politically motivated decision making. Where are the fiscal watch dogs on this issue?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
