Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

by Jon Pelto from Wait, What

Forget about the concept that our schools need to devote more time to learning;

Paul Vallas, “education reformer extraordinaire,” and Bridgeport’s, $229,000, part-time, interim superintendent of schools, has announced an unprecedented standardized testing assault on Bridgeport’s student and their teachers.

In an announcement yesterday, Team Vallas informed administrators that in addition to the two weeks of Connecticut Mastery testing that is required by the Connecticut State Department of Education, Vallas is ordering that all students in grades 3-11 complete three additional rounds of standardized testing.

While “Education Reformers” are fond of claiming that they support extending the school year and the school day, Vallas’ absurd action will significantly reduce the number of hours students have to actually learn.

Instead, even more teaching to the test will take place.

According to Vallas’ directive, Bridgeport’s standardized testing program will include a round of Fall Testing that will take place from October 1st through October 10th, Winter Testing, which will run from January 7th through January 16th and Spring Testing which will go from May 28th through June 6th This is in addition to the Connecticut Mastery Tests which run for two weeks in March.

It is not clear how much the massive standardized testing effort will cost, but if history is any guide, we can assume that the company providing and grading these standardized tests got their contract through a no-bid process.

Ironically, Vallas provided Bridgeport’s outgoing illegal Board of Education with a budget update earlier this week, but he somehow forgot or failed to mention this massive new “initiative” that will undoubtedly cost “big bucks.”

However, what is clear is that when it comes to standardized testing, Team Vallas is not only on the wrong path but headed in the wrong direction. There is growing recognition that standardized testing is not a good measure of student abilities and can actually be detrimental to the learning process.

In Texas, the birthplace of George W. Bush’, No Child Left Behind Act, which introduced massive standardized testing, school districts, parents and even the business community are demanding less testing and more learning. To date, 593 Texas school districts, representing 70% of all Texas’ students, have endorsed a resolution demanding that state officials, “reexamine public school accountability systems” and “develop a system based on multiple forms of assessment which does not require extensive standardized testing” and “more accurately reflects the broad range of student learning.” The Texas PTA, various chambers of commerce, and principals associations have also signed onto the Texas anti-testing movement.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

The report is on the CT Voices website:

State of Working CT Report Warns Job Sector Shifts and Opportunity Gaps Point to Troubling Future

A Labor Day weekend report on wages and jobs in Connecticut finds that the wage gap between the wealthy and others has grown over the recent economic recession and recovery, with the highest wage workers enjoying wage growth four times that of median wage workers, while wages stagnated for low wage workers. Given these wage trends and related demographic changes and disparities, the report concludes that Connecticut is increasingly becoming a state of “haves” and “have-nots,” and if current trends continue, the have-nots will make up an increasing share of the state’s population.

“The recession and recovery have worsened opportunity gaps and set us on an economically devastating course,” said Orlando Rodriguez, Senior Policy Fellow at Connecticut Voices and co-author of the report. “We can no longer afford to delay action.”

Among the key findings of the report, which looked at wage, unemployment, and job sector trends over the course of the recession and recovery, from 2006 to 2011:

The gap between Connecticut’s wealthy residents and everyone else has continued to widen. Connecticut’s median wage grew by only 2.4 percent (after adjusting for inflation) over the period from 2006 to 2011. However, a select group of workers did enjoy sizable wage growth – for those workers earning wages above the 90th percentile, wages grew by 11 percent over this period. In contrast, those Connecticut workers with wages below the 10th percentile saw their wages fall slightly by 0.2 percent.

Connecticut’s higher paying manufacturing jobs are disappearing and being replaced by lower paying jobs in healthcare, hotels, and restaurants. The Manufacturing sector lost 14 percent of its jobs between 2006 and 2011. The only major Connecticut industries to add jobs were Healthcare and Social Assistance, which grew by 11 percent, and Accommodation and Food Services, which grew by 4 percent. In 2011, workers in Healthcare and Social Assistance earned only 78 percent of the statewide average weekly wage, and workers in Accommodation and Food Service earned only 30 percent. Whereas manufacturing employs primarily men, Healthcare and Social Assistance employ primarily women. Therefore, Connecticut’s economy is also becoming increasingly dependent on female labor, even as the median hour wage for women in Connecticut was only 81 percent of men’s in 2011. Taken together, this suggests that Connecticut’s workers are becoming increasingly employed in sectors with lower pay.

Connecticut’s Black and Hispanic workers have not experienced an economic recovery. Between 2006 and 2011, the unemployment rates for Black and Hispanic workers rose every single year, reaching 17.3 percent for Blacks and 17.8 percent for Hispanics, in 2011. In contrast, the white unemployment rate fell in 2011, to 7.1 percent. The wages of Black and Hispanic workers in Connecticut were also lower in 2011 than those of whites; the median hourly wage for Blacks was 72 percent of White wages, and Hispanics wages were at 59 percent. Connecticut Voices described the economic prospects for Hispanic workers in the state as particularly troubling, given that they are the fastest growing ethnic group in the state.

Connecticut’s youngest workers are most likely to be unemployed, but Connecticut’s oldest workers are most likely to face long-term unemployment. In 2011, the unemployment rate for those age 16 to 24 seeking employment was 18.2 percent, more than double the statewide rate of 8.9 percent. Long-term unemployment – the share of the unemployed who have been out of work for more than 26 weeks – is particularly high among older workers. Among workers age 55 and older, who were unemployed and wanted to work, long-term unemployment was on the rise in 2011, reaching 61.8 percent.

To begin to reverse these trends and broaden economic opportunities, Connecticut Voices urged the Governor and state legislators to focus on:

· Strengthening the state’s education system from pre-k through college.
· Investing in initiatives that broaden career opportunities, raise wages, such as raising the minimum wage and investing in job training in growth industries.

“We must commit to the challenging work of investing in future generations,” said Kenny Feder, co-author and Policy Fellow at Connecticut Voices. “Only with strong commitments to our youth, our middle class, and our future can we ensure Connecticut’s future generations will prosper.”

The State of Working Connecticut is released each year in partnership with the Economic Policy Institute (www.epi.org), an economic think tank based in Washington, DC. Connecticut Voices for Children is a research-based policy think tank that works to advance policies that benefit the state’s children, youth and families. For more information on Connecticut Voices, or to read the Voices’ report, see www.ctvoices.org.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

by Jon Pelto from Wait, What

Following up on Wait, What?’s earlier post today about Bridgeport’s massive cuts to special education services;

When it comes to special education services, the State Board of Education’s mission statement could not be clearer. According to that statement, the State Board “believes each student is unique and needs an educational environment that provides for, and accommodates, his or her strengths and areas of needed improvement. The Board also believes that a unified and coordinated continuum of educational opportunities and supports serves and benefits all students.”

The State Board is aided in this task by the State Advisory Council (SAC) on Special Education, a group of dedicated professionals and advocates who work throughout the year to make sure stakeholder concerns are heard and addressed.

While the laws and regulations related to special education are complex, the Connecticut Department of Education’s Parents Guide to Special Education in Connecticut, begins with a fundamental introduction to the issues.

The guide notes that, “education laws and regulations are meant to protect a student with a disability to ensure that he or she receives the services and assistance that may be necessary to make meaningful progress in his or her education program. In Connecticut, the special education system is based on the federal special education law, Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004) and it’s implementing regulations, in combination with the state’s special education law, Connecticut General Statutes Section 10-76a to 10-76h, inclusive and the implementing regulations.”

One need only go to the website for the State Department of Education’s Bureau of Special Education (BSE) Resources to see that Connecticut’s special education programs are guided by an extensive set of standards that are based on a number of federal and state laws. Furthermore, it is the state that has the primary responsibility to ensure that special education services are properly provided. (See http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2678&Q=320730)

Bridgeport’s Assault on Special Education:

As we now know, Bridgeport’s $229,000, part-time, interim, superintendent of schools and Bridgeport’s illegal Board of Education have adopted a $225.2 million operating budget for FY 2013. The budget details were finally released August 27, 2012.

The single biggest cut in this year’s school budget is for programs intended to support students who need special education services.

The two part cut includes; a $1 million cut that eliminates 14 special education teachers from Bridgeport’s school-based special education programs and a cut of more than $2.6 million dollars (or almost 20%) in the funds that are used to place those students with the greatest needs in appropriate settings, outside of the district.

To achieve these savings, Vallas will significantly increase the teacher to student ratio for those students with disabilities who are getting services in the Bridgeport School System.

In addition, Team Vallas must be assuming that approximately 20%, or one out of every five students, who have been placed in a specialized setting, will be moved back into Bridgeport school system.

After speaking with special education experts around the state, and reviewing various reports on the State Department of Education’s website, it seems apparent that no school district has ever attempted to make such a dramatic reduction in their special education budget, especially over such a short period of time.

By cutting $1 million from school based special education programs and $2.6 million in tuition payments for students who have been placed in alternative settings, the impact on student’s IEPs (Individualized Education Programs) will be extraordinary.

There is simply no way that Bridgeport has held the requisite PPTs or receive parental permission to modify the number of IEPs that would be needed to allow such a massive cut in services.

As parents of students with disabilities know, IEPs must not only be extremely specific but must include appropriate monitoring, as well as, reporting on each student’s progress.

It is absurd to think that the budget cuts that Vallas and the illegal Board of Education have made will not negatively impact existing IEPs. At the very least, new PPTs would be needed to identify whether the steps contained in the IEPs can still be achieved in an environment with 14 fewer special education teachers and 20% of the outplaced students returning to the school system.

The lack of communication and transparency that Vallas and the illegal board have engaged in makes it clear that they are unwilling to fulfill their legal and moral obligation to Bridgeport’s special education students.

That leaves no option but for Governor Malloy’s Commissioner of Education, Stefan Pryor, and the State Board of Education to immediately move to put the Bridgeport changes on hold and investigate whether the changes will lead to a violation of federal and state laws.

Anything short of immediate action not only places students needing special education services at risk, but leaves the state open to a variety of major lawsuits that could cost Connecticut taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

Commissioner Pryor, your intervention is needed, before it is too late.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

A must read, as reported here:

Despite its critics on the left (it should have been bigger) and the right (it should never have been done, Solyndra) parts of the Stimulus were front and center in former Republican Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s recent endorsement of President Obama:

“Many have already forgotten how deep and daunting our shared crisis was in the winter of 2009, as President Obama was inaugurated. It was no ordinary challenge, and the president served as the nation’s calm through a historically turbulent storm.

The president’s response was swift, smart and farsighted. …

He knew we had to get people back to work as quickly as possible — but he also knew that the value of a recovery lies in its durability. Short-term healing had to be paired with an economy that would stay healthy over the long run. And he knew that happens best by investing in the right places.

President Obama invested in our children’s schools because he believes a good education is a necessity, not a luxury, if we’re going to create an economy built to last. He supported more than 400,000 K-12 teachers’ jobs, and he is making college more affordable and making student loans … easier to pay back.

He invested in our runways, railways and roads. President Obama knows a reliable infrastructure that helps move people to work and helps businesses move goods to market is a foundation of growth.

And the president invested in our retirement security by strengthening Medicare. The $716 billion in savings his opponents decry today extended the life of the program by nearly a decade and are making sure taxpayer dollars aren’t wasted in excessive payments to insurance companies or fraud and abuse. His opponents would end the Medicare guarantee by creating a voucher that would raise seniors’ costs by thousands of dollars and bankrupt the program.”

h/t: Liam Burke

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

This weekend, Chris Murphy’s campaign for Senate will launch a new television ad to expose wrestling boss Linda McMahon’s miserable record at the WWE and her so-called economic plan, which would give the McMahons a $7 million tax break on the backs of middle class families in Connecticut.

“It’s time for the people of Connecticut to be re-introduced to the real Linda McMahon. She offshored profits and mistreated workers to make herself rich at the WWE, and now she’s running for Senate to pad her pockets even further by proposing a $7 million tax cut for her and Vince,” said Murphy spokeswoman Taylor Lavender. “It sure takes some guts for Linda McMahon to tell voters that if elected, she’ll give herself a $7 million tax cut as a reward. But it’s nothing new, because McMahon has one rule – do anything, say anything, run over anybody, to get ahead. That’s how she ran the WWE, and that’s how she’s running for Senate.”

Comments(2)

|

E-mail

|

Print

by Jon Pelto from Wait, What

One of the more incredible comments at a recent debate among the candidates running in Bridgeport’s September 4th special election to select a democratically elected board of education came from Democrat Kenneth Moales, who is also an incumbent on the Bridgeport’s illegal Board of Education.

According to the Connecticut Post, Moales “supports school vouchers, and said they are neither anti-union nor anti-public schools.”

Ah…. False on both points Mr. Moales.

People support vouchers for a number of reasons. In fact, many people support vouchers exactly because they are anti-public schools (and anti-union).

As Diane Ravitch, the nation’s leading voice on behalf of public education recently wrote, “bear in mind that public education is level-funded, so all these millions for vouchers and charters and online schooling and tutoring will come right out of the public school budget, making classes more overcrowded, closing libraries, shutting down services for students that need them.”

And the evidence is increasingly clear; Vouchers do not create different outcomes.

A recent study of the privately funded voucher program in New York City found that it had “no significant impacts”

Studies of the voucher programs in Washington D.C., Cleveland and Milwaukee also found that there was “no evidence of gains in test scores.”

The official DC study determined that, “there is no conclusive evidence that the [vouchers] affected student achievement.” After four years, the students who used the voucher program, “had reading and math test scores that were statistically similar to those who were not offered scholarships.”

But the facts haven’t gotten in the way of Republican Mitt Romney.

When he released his position paper on education, “A Chance for Every Child: Mitt Romney’s Plan for Restoring the Promise of American Education,” the number one provision was “subsidizing parents who want to send their child to a private or religious school and encouraging the private sector to operate schools.”

In fact, Romney promised to expand the Washington DC school voucher program even though the evidence shows it didn’t raise test scores.

In covering a speech Romney gave about education policy, the Washington Times wrote, that Romney believes “unions are the chief impediment to education reform.”

Romney understands that vouchers are, in fact, anti-public schools and anti-union. That is the very reason he is going to use vouchers to try to get conservatives to vote for him.

Why on earth would the Bridgeport Democrats nominate a candidate who supports vouchers?

In the meantime, Bridgeport’s Democratic voters will have to look elsewhere for people who actually support the true principles of the Democratic Party.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

by Jon Pelto from Wait, What

Yesterday afternoon, Paul Vallas’ Chief of Staff released a statement refuting the numbers that I had posted about the City’s special education budget.

On Tuesday, I wrote, “Bridgeport’s new city budget eliminates 90 percent of the money needed to pay the tuition costs for the placement of special education students in what has been determined as the most appropriate environment for these children.

Last year, Bridgeport spent $39.8 million on costs associated with educating and supporting its special education students. This year, Bridgeport’s approved school budget reduces that number to $18.9 million

That is a cut of $14 million dollars, and almost all of it comes from ending the placement of special education students who need services beyond what the school system can provide.

Vallas and the board cut the funds appropriated for out-of-district tuition and support services from $15.0 million to $1.4 million (see this year’s budget – link below).”

In response, Team Vallas responded with the following memo to staff and released to the public;

“It was recently brought to our attention that there is a budget document that has been posted on the City of Bridgeport website that shows a reduction of special education costs by $13,922,510 in the 2012-2013 school year. This information is incorrect.”

The announcement continued, “Upon contacting the City we have determined that this document was produced as part of the City’s internal budget process and not meant in any way to accurately reflect the district’s spending allocation for next year.”

According to Vallas’ operation, the information I cited is wrong and the document I linked to was from “the City’s internal budget process.”

Just to be clear, here are links to the actual information I posted, and all cases, included the numbers that I utilized;

* Mayor Finch’s proposed 2012-1013 budget, including the proposed Board of Education’s budget. (Office of Policy and Management) http://www.bridgeportct.gov/OfficeofPolicyMgmt/Pages/2012-2013ProposedBudget.aspx

* A detailed Breakdown of the proposed Board of Education Budget as attached to Mayor Finch’s proposed 2012-2013 city budget. http://www.bridgeportct.gov/OfficeofPolicyMgmt/Documents/2013%20Proposed/Miscellaneous%20Divisions%20and%20Library.pdf

* The Mayor’s proposed budget, as officially transmitted to the City Council, including the proposed Board of Education budget. http://www.scribd.com/doc/87865635/2013-Mayor-s-Proposed-Budget

* And the City of Bridgeport’s official budget, following its adoption by the City Council, and including the Board of Education budget. http://www.bridgeportct.gov/OfficeofPolicyMgmt/Pages/2012-2013AdoptedBudget.aspx

Yesterday’s Team Vallas communication went on to read, “attached, please find the 2012-13 special education budget, generated from MUNIS, which is reflective of our 2012-13 financial plan. The 2012-13 special education budget is reduced by approximately $3.6M, in comparison to 2011-12, due to the following factors…”

And added, “While we were unaware of the production of this budget document by the City, we appreciate the opportunity to clarify our plan for delivering full and effective services to our students next year while maintaining a balanced budget. As stated previously, we look forward to publicly releasing our complete line-item budget on Monday, August 27th, at the final Board of Education meeting of the summer. This will be the first time that the district has released its full and complete budget independent from the City, and we look forward to discussing it in full and continuing to maintain a balanced budget that keep our district financially sound for years to come.”

So, in summary, the Vallas defense is that they were unaware of the budget document produced by the City and that during Monday’s meeting, the Superintendent will be releasing, for the first time, their complete budget.

Their commitment to setting the record straight is appreciated.

There are just a few follow-up questions for Team Vallas and Bridgeport’s illegal Board of Education;

(1) Just to be clear, is Team Vallas saying that neither the Superintendent nor his office reviewed the budget that Mayor Finch proposed? That neither the Superintendent nor his office reviewed the budget that was officially transmitted to the City Council? that neither the Superintendent nor his office reviewed the budget that the City Council approved? And that neither the Superintendent nor his office reviewed Bridgeport’s Official 2012-2013 budget, a document that has been posted on the City’s website for more than three months?

(2) Team Vallas is saying that a detailed budget for Bridgeport’s schools will be unveiled, for the first time next Monday. Does that mean that the members of the Board of Education reviewed and adopted a 2012-2013 budget without ever seeing a proposed line-item budget?

(3) And finally, as evidence that a “correct budget” does exist, Team Vallas provided a print- out dated 8/22/2012 (Time 1:50 p.m.) The document includes the following categories: The “ORIGINAL Budget; TRANFRS/Adjustments to the budget; REVISED Budget; YTD EXPENDED, ENCUMBRANCES; etc.

And those numbers are officially as follows:

55540 BOE Tuition:

Original Budget $1,474,206

Transfers/Adjustments $9,425,794

Revised Budget $10,900,000

For those who haven’t had an opportunity to work with public agency budgets before, the print out Team Vallas provided means that the approved budget for Account 55540 BOE Tuition was for $1.4 million and that $9.4 million was transferred into the account AFTER the budget was approved. Which raises the questions, when did this transfer took place, and by whose authority, considering there is no record that the Board of Education ever took up the matter?