Why you should take the threat to West Hartford's Neighborhood School System very seriously.

Our neighborhood school configuration is at peril, and is clearly at odds with an outdated racial imbalance law. An objective look at the facts, our town's recent history, and at the many pages of written correspondence between the State Dept of Education and the West Hartford Board of Education validates that beyond the shadow of a doubt. (Posts on this website contain all of that documentation, as well as candidate profiles for both parties.)

Perhaps the best question that I received following our presentation at Town Hall on Monday was along these lines: "I understand and agree with nearly everything you said this evening, but what makes you think that any action [i.e. a major redistricting] plan is imminent?"

My response to this young woman: "It's not just the fact that we have been unable to comply with this statute through [mostly] voluntary means for 15 years, the State's on-going pressure to do so, and growing racial imbalance at Charter Oak and Smith Schools, and impending racial balance at Bugbee, Duffy, and Smith. ** The real variable in this equation is how the majority party on the Board of Education chooses to react to all of the above." When a Democrat controlled Board of Education voted to dismantle our neighborhood school system in 1994, the State had not put chains and padlocks on the doors of our schools or threatened to cut-off the financial aid [relatively small] they provide to fund education in West Hartford. The then board majority led by Nancy Rion and Pat Genser simply used the statute as a "mandate" (convenient opportunity) to socially re-engineer West Hartford to reflect their vision of what our town and its schools "should" look like. With chairman in waiting Putterman (should the Democrats maintain majority on the Board) having publicly stated that we have "a moral obligation" to comply with this statute (that would have us treat children differently based on their race), and current chairman Reverend Terry Schmitt having supported the "K-2/3-5" plan of 1994, (alluded to above and in earlier postings on this site) we have essentially the same situation that existed in 1994. It is not a stretch by any means to conclude that Democrats (if they maintain their majority on the Board) will offer up their plan -- which does not have a "reasonable likelihood" [the State's standard] of eliminating racial imbalance -- and then wring their hands, claim they don't really want to do so, but have no choice but to undertake a major redistricting that would effectively eliminate our neighborhood school system. There are at least two thoughts that come to mind here: (1) History often repeats itself, and (2) past behavior is the best indicator for future behavior.

On Tuesday November 3rd, West Hartford voters will go to the polls to elect four members to the Board of Education. I would urge you to review all the posts on this site, and give serious thought to who you can trust to take a stand for neighborhood schools, and to not treat children differently based on the color of their skin. I am confident that if you do so, you will conclude that Lib Spinella, Ellen Brassil, and Andrew Bannon-Guasp are deserving of both your vote and your trust on this issue of enormous magnitude.

I would be happy to discuss any of the above - or any other post on this site - with you. You can either e-mail me at JFDeLucco@AOL.com or phone me at (860) 305-9572.

Oct 26th presentation at Town Hall - slide deck and commentary

Thanks again to all of those who attended our presentation on Monday night. To view the PowerPoint presentation (including some of the documents obtained through FOIA request,) please click on the attached link: http://www.medpartners.net/http://www.etrustbusiness.com/WHCQE/Oct%2026th%20presentation.ppt
Note: After the above powerpoint presentation is opened, use the "page down" button to scroll through the presentation.

Please click on the attached link to view speaker's notes that accompanied the above Oct 26th PowerPoint presentation: http://www.medpartners.net/ http://www.etrustbusiness.com/WHCQE/Speakers%20notes%20for%20Oct%2026th%20presentation.pdf
Note: Printing out or reviewing the above speaker's notes will help put the above slide deck in context.

West Hartford's CMT Scores at Rock Bottom. Is it any wonder?

I took some time earlier this fall to visit the Connecticut Department of Education website to review and analyze the Connecticut Mastery Test ("CMT") scores for the towns in West Hartford's "DRG." DRG is an acronym for District Reference Group. According to the Dept of Education's detailed analysis, "the district reference group is a classification system in which districts that have public school students with similar socioeconomic status and need are grouped together. Grouping like districts together is useful in order to make legitimate comparisons across districts." (this is verbatim quote from a Research Bulletin issued by the State Dept of Education in June of 2006.)

For purposes of this exercise, I looked only at 2009 CMT scores for our "DRG" and looked solely at the percentage of students who performed at the proficient level -- which is the middle level of the 5 different levels of performance: (below basic, basic, proficient, goal, and advanced.)

There are 21 school districts within our DRG. I reviewed the following CMT scores / content areas: Reading, Writing, Math and Science for grades 5 and 8, and Reading, Writing, and Math for grades 3, 4, 6, and 7. What I saw when reviewing West Hartford's 2009 CMT scores (% of students who performed at the proficient level) vs. the other towns in our "DRG" was disheartening to say the least, and appalling at worst:

In 10 of the 20 (50%) content areas, our scores were the lowest in the DRG.
In 6 of the 20 (30%) content areas, our scores were second lowest in the DRG.
In 2 0f the 20 (10%) content areas, our scores were third lowest in the DRG.
In 2 of the 20 (10%) of content areas, our scores were fourth lowest in the DRG.

Test scores are not everything, but they are the single best assessment tool we have to determine whether our students are learning the things they need to know, whether the curriculum is appropriate or not, and whether the Board of Education is making measurable academic achievement THE top priority for the Superintendent and the district - or whether they are focused more on a social / social re-engineering agenda. With the current Democrat Board majority spending their time on block scheduling, sleep studies, whether or not Twinkies should be allowed in the vending machines, and spending an inordinate amount of their time (and the administration's) trying to comply with a racial imbalance statute that can never truly be satisfied by West Hartford without a major redistricting, is it any wonder that our CMT scores are the lowest among comparable towns?

Great turnout at Town Hall. Thank you!

I wanted to thank all of those who attended our presentation on Racial Imbalance and the Future of West Hartford's Neighborhood Schools in Town Hall on Monday night, October 26th. A great audience, and some great questions. Under separate post (later this week) I will list some of those questions submitted by those in attendance. I am also working on Candidate Profiles, getting the contents of our PowerPoint presentation (mostly the correspondence between State Dept of Ed and West Hartford Public Schools obtained through a Freedom of Information Act reqeust) into PDF files and out onto this website. Stay tuned. There will be a number of additional posts to the website between now and Election Day.

CQE presentation on Monday, October 26th @ 7:30 PM in the West Hartford Town Hall Auditorium.

"Racial Imbalance and the future of West Hartford’s Neighborhood Schools."

Citizens for Quality Education (CQE) will be hosting an informative and revealing presentation on this issue of enormous magnitude

Where are we going, where have we been?

Charter Oak and Smith Schools have an existing racial imbalance. Bugbee, Duffy and Morley schools have an impending racial imbalance.

Recent newspaper articles haven’t told you everything you need to know about the impact that the state’s Racial Imbalance law is likely to have on our neighborhood school system. The West Hartford Board of Education certainly has not told you everything you should know about this issue.

West Hartford’s neighborhood schools are the bedrock of our school system, help distinguish us from neighboring towns, and have a positive impact on property values. Whether or not you have children in our public schools, everyone has a vested interest in the future of our neighborhood schools.

Date: Monday, October 26th

Time: 7:30 P.M.

Place: West Hartford Town Hall Auditorium

Admission is free. However, please consider bringing a non-perishable food item(s) that will be donated to the West Hartford Food Pantry.

Dems side-step racial imbalance issue. Will not be aggressive advocates for neighborhood schools.

At this evening's board of education meeting, Lib Spinella introduced a motion to retain legal counsel to mount a challenge to the state's racial imbalance statute. Her motion went on to call for the qualifications of said attorney / law firm to include having argued a 14th amendment case before the U.S Supreme Court, and for said attorney to be retained by the end of this month. Finally, there was a call for action - and in a public meeting that the public could witness.

Unfortunately (but to no one's surprise) the Democrats on the board refused to address the motion and to take any action on this critical issue. Following their party's well established M.O., the Democrats refused to vote on Ms. Spinella's motion. Instead, they introduced a "substitute motion" calling for Democrat appointed Corporation Counsel Joe O'Brien to review this matter and get back to the board with a list of their options - with of course no stated time frame.

Chairperson Schmitt demonstrated his complete lack of regard (and/or understanding) of the board's own bylaws, Robert's Rules and parliamentary procedure by never calling for a vote on (and disposing of one way or another) Ms. Spinella's original motion. It was amateur hour at Town Hall. To have such incompetents in the majority role on this Board of Education (the board of directors of a $ 125M per year entity) is an embarrassment.

How much longer will this Board of Education continue to violate the pubic trust they hold by refusing to publicly address this issue of such magnitude? They appear to be inclined to do so at least until the upcoming town elections are over. In the meantime, they will continue to pay lip-service to maintaining our neighborhood school system - but when push comes to shove, they refuse to be proactive, aggressive advocates for those same neighborhood schools.

For those of you who did not see the debacle that ensued earlier this evening, I would encourage you to watch the replays on Channel 5 (WHCTV) or visit their website at http://www.whctv.org/ and use the Video on Demand option to view the meeting. You will see Ms. Spinella and Ms. Mudge win the debate, but the Chairman never call for a vote on the motion. You'll also see Democrats who when they couldn't credibly speak against Ms. Spinella's motion, revert to their stock and trade: name calling and deflecting attention away from their own mishandling of this hugely important issue.

There will continue to be regular posts / updates made to this site in the coming weeks. Please stay tuned. If anyone wishes to speak to me directly, don't hesitate to give me a call at (860) 305-9572, or send an e-mail to JFDeLucco@AOL.com

Statement from CQE co-founder to Board of Ed at 10/6 meeting. (Regarding motion to retain legal counsel to challenge state's racial imbalance statute)

For the record, my name is Joe DeLucco. I had the privilege of serving on the Board of Education for 7 years, and the honor of serving as Chairman for 2 of those years. Before being elected to the board, I co-founded “Citizens for Quality Education” in 1994 in response to the board’s plans to dismantle our neighborhood schools – in their attempt to comply with the racial imbalance statute. After dragging the town through a year of hell, the board finally respected the wishes of the overwhelming majority of residents and voted to eliminate the K-2/3-5 plan and replace it with a more reasonable alternative.

The racial imbalance statute is an inherently racist one, as it would have us treat children differently based on their race. Concerned about the potential impact of this statute, I filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act for all correspondence on this topic between the State Department of Ed and our school district. Three minutes is not nearly enough time to detail all the troubling components of that correspondence. I would be happy to share all of the correspondence with anyone who might be interested, but in the meantime I would cite the following:

1. There is virtually no mention of improving the quality of education for our the public school students. Instead, there is a constant, repeated focus on race, and racial statistics.

2. The correspondence is filled with commitments on how our board will attempt to comply with this mandate. However, the board has never established it’s position on this through a vote in a public meeting. On whose direction were these commitments and promises made?

3. The district’s May 1st letter outlines the board’s plan to address this issue in December 2009 – one month after the town elections.

4. This statute is virtually impossible to comply with without essentially mandating housing choices. Charter Oak and Smith schools have a racial imbalance, and Bugbee, Duffy and Morley schools have impending racial imbalance.

5. Dr. Sklarz’ June 11th 2005 letter recognized the very real possibility of major redistricting. He wrote, and I quote: “…. We would have to deprive parents of their choice to have their children attend these model schools because concerns over racial balance that would require that we reorganize our schools and redistrict most of the elementary schools in the district."

In conclusion:

The Board's plan in their May 1st letter to the State is not likely to eliminate racial imbalance at Smith or Charter Oak -- or stem the impending racial imbalance at Bugbee, Duffy, and Morley.

Mayor Slifka has said there is no money to build a newer/larger Charter Oak School. With the building remaining at its current size, the ONLY way that racial imbalance could be eliminated at Charter Oak and Smith (and impending racial imbalance at Bugbee, Duffy and Morley could be addressed) would be via the MASSIVE redistricting that Dr. Sklarz's cited in his letter to the State.

It is incumbent upon this board to FINALLY take ownership of this issue, and be pro-active, aggressive advocates of our neighborhood schools. The district’s focus must be placed on what is in the best educational interest of the children who attend our public schools. Their best educational interests would clearly NOT be served by being forced out of their neighborhood schools and put on busses for a ride across town. To avoid tearing apart our town and our neighborhood schools, we have a moral obligation to challenge this law that would have us treat children differently based on the color of their skin. This motion is a call for action, and the time for action is now.

GOP calls for end to illegal School Board Meetings

West Hartford Republicans are calling for an end to board of education “retreats” like the one held in July and one planned for November.

“These so-called ‘retreats’ are a disturbing violation of the public trust. They violate the spirit and letter of the Sunshine Laws which require public boards to hold public meetings,” said Lib Spinella, a Republican board member seeking her second term. “Seeing how the Democrats on the board have been operating in the shadows on issues that the public has a right to know about, it’s clear why there is such a lack of trust in government in general. Elected officials need to have their conversations out in the open for the public to see, not behind closed doors.”

The lengthy Meeting Notes from the July retreat include plans to discuss the following at the next retreat:

“Very important for this group [retreat] to have an in-depth conversation about racial imbalance”

“Demographics and their meanings for the schools”

“Expansion of the [school] year, day, number of hours in the [school] day”

Andrew Bannon-Guasp and Ellen Brassil, Republican board candidates, are outraged by the board’s plans to discuss racial imbalance at the next retreat.

“The fact that the Democrats who set the agenda have yet to have an in-depth conversation, debate and vote on this topic in a public meeting, but instead are planning to do so behind closed doors is outrageous,” said Bannon-Guasp. “This [racial imbalance statute] is the single biggest issue facing the board and town. Not only are they planning to discuss this issue behind closed doors in November, but they do not have plans to publicly address this issue until December - after the municipal elections.”

Ms. Brassil, elected to the board in 1997 and 2001, had this to say: “The actions of this board majority are unacceptable. Public information and dialogue help to keep our public officials accountable. The lack of a complete, open and public debate and vote on how, or if, to comply with this antiquated statute shows a lack of regard for the public they were elected to serve. Public officials need to be open in their conversations and show the thought processes that they're basing their decisions on.”

Republicans are also troubled by the apparent use of taxpayer dollars to pay a facilitator for these retreats, the disregard for the board’s bylaws and lack of a transparent process. “The board as a whole should be deciding how to spend their time, how the administration is going to spend their time and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” said Diane Mudge, Republican board member elected in 2007. “The board has never voted to hold these retreats, who would facilitate them or what would be discussed. The nature of the topics under discussion makes these “retreats” problematic, and I believe illegal. There must be a stop to these immediately.”

Complete meeting notes from the July 2009 "retreat" can be viewed by clicking on the attached link. http://www.medpartners.net/retreatnotes.pdf
As noted above, CQE views these "retreats" as little more than illegal meetings. As such, we find most of the content of the meeting notes to be inappropriate and/or not focusing on what's in the best interest of the children who attend our public schools. The board's focus on their own "legacy," and on dimestore marketing ploys litter most of the meeting notes. Some (but clearly not all) of the content viewed as problematic by this writer is highlighted in yellow.

May 2009 letter from W.Htfd Board to the State Dept of Education

Before I get into the contents of the May 1, 2009 letter to the State Dept of Education (http://www.medpartners.net/whpsltr.pdf), I’d like to mention a couple of points of interest / concern:

• I read through dozens and dozens of pages of correspondence, and I did not see a single section or statement that focused on improving the quality of education that our students - regardless of race - are receiving. Instead, virtually all of the correspondence focuses on counting noses, and outlines plans to treat children differently based on race.
• The letters I received from my FOIA request spanned a 9-year period, and totaled more than 50 pages. These letters were filled with statements about the West Hartford school district working diligently to identify issues and options with respect to racial imbalance at certain of West Hartford’s elementary schools, plans and timelines to address these issues, etc. There is one HUGE problem with all of this correspondence: Under whose direction were Superintendent Sklarz or List operating under when sending this correspondence? The West Hartford Board of Education certainly has never formally (i.e. via a vote at a public meeting) established their position on how (or if) to try to comply with this out-dated statute. Are we left to conclude that David Sklarz or Karen List (or any other Superintendent of schools) would make commitments to the State without receiving any direction from the board majority? Having served on the board for 7 years (including 2 as chairman, and 2 as vice chairman) I can tell you unequivocally that would never happen. A reasonable (and informed) person is left only to conclude that the board chairman – acting without benefit of a public discussion, debate, and vote on how /if to comply with this statute – simply directed - behind closed doors - the Superintendent to respond in the manner in which they did. This is a violation of not only the board’s own by-laws, but also of the Sunshine Laws that require public boards to hold their meetings (and their discussions) in the light of day for the public to hear. Moreover, this violates the public trust held by every elected official.
• There is a widely-held misconception that racial imbalance issues exist “only” at Charter Oak and Smith schools. However, correspondence between town and state references impending racial imbalance at Bugbee, Duffy, and Morley schools.

Now, onto the May 1, 2009 letter. This blog isn't long enough to list all the things that wrong and/or offensive about this letter. At the bottom of this post is a link that will allow you to read that letter in its entirety, but in the meantime I would call your attention to a number of sections of this letter that this writer (and a number of others) were troubled by:

Pg. 2: Our own administration makes the following statement: "Too many of the magnet students are minority students." (Can they get any more blatantly racist than that?)

Pg. 3: "If the magnet student demographics better reflected the district average" AND "we get 20 neighborhood students to leave for other schools in the district." Not sure what we "get" 20 neighborhood students to leave means. It is CQE's belief that every child - regardless of their race - should be able to attend their neighborhood school. To treat one child differently than another (i.e. one can attend their neighborhood school but the other cannot) based on their race is not only inherently racist, but a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Have any of these folks heard of the 14th amendment??

Pgs.3-4: Discusses the possibility of constructing a new facility that would allow for the significant expansion of the number of magnet seats available. Goes on to cite two possibilities: One where magnet students would come from other school attendance zones within the district. The other where a new Charter Oak facility would operate as an inter-district host magnet school (with other towns outside of West Hartford.)

I don't know where to begin pointing out the problems with these theories, but I will try: (1) The district has tried theme after theme at Charter Oak in the hopes of attracting significant numbers of students (non-minority) to leave their neighborhood schools and come to Charter Oak. Those multiple attempts have failed - due to the fact that the vast majority of parents are happy with the neighborhood school their children attend. (2) If I am not mistaken, Mayor Slifka is on record as saying that the town cannot afford to build a new facility at Charter Oak. (3) If the board has been unable to attract / "convince" students to leave their neighborhood schools to attend Charter Oak magnet school, what makes them think that there will be a compelling case for parents/families who live south or west of West Hartford to leave their towns to come to Charter Oak magnet school?

Pg.6 - Makes statements like "encouraging neighborhood students at Smith and Charter Oak to attend schools in other parts of the district," "providing both "free" (someone is going to be paying for this) preschool and wraparound care", and "once we get the students away from the neighborhood..." Enough said.

Pg. 6 - States that "the administration will explore and report to the Board of Education..." As noted earlier in this post, who is directing the administration to do so, and what vehicle / process was used to provide that direction?

Pg. 7 - Outlines planned timeline for board to finally publicly address this issue in detail - in December 2009. For those of you keeping score, that just coincidentally is one month after the municipal elections. Nice.

Pg. 7 - Ends with the following statement: "We are optimistic that these steps will ultimately be the first of several stages that will result in the elimination of racial imbalance at Charter Oak and Smith over the long term through the use of primarily voluntary measures....." Again, I have to ask the question: When did the board make a decision to take this direction, and what process did they use to do so? Also, citing "primarily" voluntary measures more than implies there will be involuntary measures as well. Naturally, these involuntary measures will grow in scope when voluntary measures fail. And naturally, neither the Board nor Karen List has uttered one word in a public setting about what these involuntary measures (major redistricting ) that would reflect a "comprehensive plan" to eliminate racial imbalance.

What does CQE believe our school board should be doing in response to the racial imbalance mandate being enforced by the state? That will be addressed in a future post entitled "What should the board be doing about the racial imbalance law?" on this website.

In the meantime, to see the May 2009 letter from the West Hartford Public Schools to the State Department of Education re: racial imbalance in West Hartford Schools in its entirety, please click on the attached link:
http://www.medpartners.net/whpsltr.pdf

History of CQE

Citizens for Quality Education ("CQE") was founded in 1994 in response to the then Board of Education's "K-2/3-5" plan. This ill-advised and controversial plan would have completely dismantled West Hartford's neighborhood school system. It would have redistricted every elementary school student in town by busing them out of their neighborhood school and to another school across town for half of their elementary school years, separated siblings, and disrupted families -- all for no educational benefit (and at an increased cost to tax payers to pay for the forced busing.) This disaster of a plan kept families with school aged children away from West Hartford in droves, negatively impacted property values, and seriously eroded public confidence in those who held public office - and a public trust - at that time. It was only after a nearly a year of pitting neighbor against neighbor, and driving the town to the brink of the abyss that the Democrat controlled board of education reverse it's vote on the K-2/3-5 plan and then seek other more reasoned and appropriate alternatives.

The board's K-2/3-5 plan was in response to the State of Connecticut's Racial Imbalance Law. This statute mandates that no school in a given school district (town) can have a minority population that is 25 percentage points higher or lower than the town wide average of minority students.

Now, more than a decade later we once again have a board of education with a super majority (5-2) of Democrats - and the State of Connecticut is once again attempting to enforce the racial imbalance law (a statute which we believe to be inherently racist as it would have us treat children differently based on their race.) It is this very real potential for history to repeat itself that has CQE reaching out to West Hartford parents and taxpayers to shine full light on this issue that the current Board of Education has largely operated in the shadows on in recent years. For more information on what has recently transpired (and more importantly, where the Board of Education appears to be heading with this issue) please read the post entitled "What's Happening Now?" on this website.