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
