This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

Suspect LRPC Proposal

Concerned Parent, Neighbor

I want to use this forum to the share the below email sent to the School Board after the Feb. 24th MBOE meeting.  

I was in attendance at the Feb 11th LRPC meeting and it was clear that the board is being led by proposals framed by the consultants. The email below speaks to the Feb 11 minutes, the 2/14 Supplemental Materials, and the presentation for Building Toward Milford's Preferred Future Powerpoint provided to the LPRC During this meeting.  Before reading, I want everyone to keep in mind, I have no criticism of the parents involved in this assessment, but believe they are being guided by a group of so-called experts to decide on an option that supports an already pre-determined design. 

So far, I've sent multiple emails expressing concerns to the School Board with only one boiler plate response from the Chair thanking me for my interest.  Interest?  

I've already clearly communicated that I'm going to be a thorn in the side of the MBOE and throughout the process.  Perhaps I may be viewed as overzealous by those who visit this website.  But at the end of the day, I'm a parent who is GREATLY concerned about what is happening in our town.  Apathy and Apprehension are the two factors that exist in our town.  I appeal to anyone reading this blog to speak up before it is too late.

At the end of the day, it is not about me or you, or even the school board, it's about our kids.  Don't make them a casualty of an overzealous district.

------- Good Afternoon, I've attached the documents which were provided, on record, during last evening's board meeting.  Just to re-iterate, I had indicated during the meeting that the information provided was to be disseminated to Mrs. Jagoe, Mayor Blake, the Board of Alderman, Mr. Richitelli, Dr. Feser, Mr. Cummings, and the Board of Education.  As I do not have Mrs. Jagoe's and the Mayor's email, I would respectfully request this email be forwarded to them both. Last night, my intent was to speak to both these documents to illustrate both the failures of each option proposed as well as flaws in the supplemental material provided. My intent was not to make a case for K-8 but to show that the options being presented by Milone & MacBrown have failed in those municipalities which they have been implemented. Regarding the "Building Toward Milford's Preferred Future": I'd like to begin on page "16" of the presentation (DRG D Elem. School Configuration).  The slide references "3" CT schools which are similar in size and configuration (Milford, Wallingford, Southington).  Of those schools listed:

  • Southington (which has a Pre-K to 5) Met AYP for the state of CT.  They outperformed both Milford and Wallingford.  Of the 11 schools indentified on the state website (http://ctayp.emetric.net) 9 met the state standards.
  • Milford (which has K-2 / 3-5) failed and did not Meet AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) for the state of CT.  Of the 9 schools listed, only 2 Met AYP.
  • Walllingford (which has PK-2  / 3-5) Meet AYP for the state of CT.  However, of the 8 schools listed, only 3 Met AYP.
Next, please refer to page "18" of the presentation (Connecticut's K-8 Public Schools).  The slides depicts several configurations which public input has expressed interest.  They are listed below, with comments.
  • Regional Magnet Schools - Hartford & New Haven - Both these cities failed meeting State AYP miserably
Next, please refer to page "37" of the presentation (1.5 High Schools in 1 Building)
  • Both Districts identified with this configuration (New London & Norwalk) both have not Met AYP for the state.
Next, please refer to page "38" of the presentation (1-2 High Schools + 1 Theme/Specialty) This slide depicts districts that run both Magnet and HS programs.
  •     Both Districts identified with have this configuration (Stamford & Bloomfielf) both have not Met AYP for the state.
My main concern is why are we being presented options for consideration that have clearly failed in other districts? 
Regarding the "2/11/14 Supplemental Materials": After reading this supplement, it was clear there were inaccuracies and misrepresentations in its content.  Allow me to show you. On the first page, regarding Grade Configuration.  They state the "Empirical evidence supporting one grade configuration over another is sparse and generally lack the to reach reasonable conclusions".  This is a very interesting comment based upon the below;
  • On page "3" of the supplement, the consultants reference a study by Charlene Tucker and Gilbert Andrada (Accountability Works:Analysis of Performance by Grade Span of Schoo) comparing the Connecticut Mastery Test results for three types of school organizations (Type I schools = K-5, and 6-8; Type II schools K-6 and 7-8; Type III schools = K-8). It attempted to discern whether students attending schools with a K-5 span performed as well as their K-6 counterparts.  The results found that 6th graders in Type II schools outperformed those in Type I.  I found this comment quite interesting as it actually makes a case to implement a K-6 configuration  over the K-5 configuration being proposed.  Remember 6th graders are people too. Another point I would like to make is that the study was limited to K-5 and K-6 and nowhere was a K-8 configuration referenced.  Attached is a copy of this study.
  • Stepping Back to page "2" of the supplement, the consultants reference a table "Factors Affecting School Acheivement".  Once again, the consultants failed put the attention required in their analysis.  They reference this table to a document published by McRel Internation (www.mcrel.org), however this information actually came for a book published by Robert Marzano (What Works in Schools Translating Research into Action).  This information was taken from the Chapter 1, which is actually a basic introduction to the framework of the book.  It states no information regarding school configuration and limits it's discussion to improving performance within the school.
This lack of attention to detail concerns me greatly as it does not reflect the best interest of our children's future. Just so you all know, as a parent, I was able to find this information in less than an hour.  It actually took me more time to print it than find it.  Based upon the above, I have serious reservations in the quality of the assessments taking place.  It is clear from the resumes of these consultants, there is no one person with the subject matter expertise to provide a true analysis and recommendation.  So I ask all of you, why would you even consider options that have obviously failed in other districts.  During the Feb. 11th Long Range Planning Committee meeting, Mrs. Jagoe made mention of the negative public feedback and her concern over their harsh criticism of the consultants.  She also made comment of those who believe that a decision has already been made.  To be completely honest with all of you, I am one of those people.  If the board wonders why this perception exists, it is for a very good reason.  There is a huge credibility issue with the Board of Education and the school district leadership in general.  This is due to poor policy decisions made in the past.  It also has to do with the dismissive and patronizing feelings parents and residents perceive from the school board.  You can actually compare yourselves to the the boy who cried wolf. Perception is 99.9% law in this country and a strong driver for change.  However, it can also be a significant obstacle to overcome, even for those with the noblest of intentions.  I caution all of you in the manner in which you review these options.  There are already concerns surrounding conflict of interest due to the fact there are 3 sitting committee members on the Long Range Planning Commission who are members of CAPSS.  It is no mystery to anyone that their 2014 public policy agenda proposes and I quote "That the CSDE (CT Stat Dept of Education) develop with meaningful participation by all relevant parties a state wide plan for magnet schools".  My concern is only increased due to the fact that Stefan Pryor (Commissioner of CSDE), who is a proponent, and is also on the Board of Directors of CAPSS. 

My intent is to continue a dialogue with all necessary parties and expect to speak once again at the next board meeting. 

See you on March 10th.
We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?

More from Milford