April 22, 2008
From: Susan Kniep, Real Estate Agent
CENTURY 21 CLASSIC HOMES
531 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06108
2239 Main Street, Glastonbury, CT 06033
Tel: 841-8032
E-mail: susansoldmyhouse@aol.com
Website: susansoldmyhouse.com
TAXPAYERS JUST INCURRED A $600 MILLION PLUS PRICE TAG TO INCLUDE BUSING
STUDENTS OUT OF HARTFORD
TO THE SUBURBS!!!
Taxpayers be prepared
to dig down deep, way deep into your pockets to support the $600 million plus
plan passed today by the legislature’s Education Committee to include busing Hartford students to
towns which encompass the Sheff Region. The Sheff Region includes Avon, Bloomfield, Canton, E.
Granby, East Hartford, East Windsor, Ellington, Farmington,
Glastonbury, Granby,
Manchester, Newington,
Rocky Hill, Simsbury, South Windsor, Suffield, Vernon, West Hartford, Wethersfield,
Windsor and Windsor Locks. This plan was passed even
though in June of 2007, the Supreme Court limited the use of race in
assigning students to schools in Louisville, Kentucky and Seattle. Is it possible, therefore, that towns and
taxpayers in Connecticut who oppose the legislature’s plan could bring a class
action lawsuit based on the Supreme
Court ruling?!? But, taxpayers also have
another recourse in November. They can vote out of office those who voted
for this plan.
It is also interesting to note that as Hartford schools are
failing, the Courant reported in February of this year that ..... State
criminal investigators probing possible political corruption at Hartford city hall have
asked for payment records related to the city's $1 billion school construction program ....
And what Connecticut
city could be next?
Could we see a similar plan to bus students out of the larger cities
into the suburbs in other areas of the State?
Below is the April 15 presentation submitted by FCTO
to the Education Committee before the vote was taken on April 22. Also provided is
the Hartford Courant article on the vote and
more information on education in Connecticut.
************************
FCTO’s Comments to the Education Committee
PUBLIC HEARING
April 15, 2008, 2 PM, LOB, Rm 2C
Sponsored by the Education Committee on the
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT IN
SHEFF V. O'NEILL.
House Resolution [pdf]
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HR00016&which_year=2008
My name is Susan Kniep. I am the former Mayor of East Hartford, and
currently, the President of The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer
Organizations.
I question if the Resolution before you is to
address racial imbalance in the Hartford school
system or to improve educational opportunities for students who live in Hartford.
In June of 2007, the Supreme Court limited
the use of race in assigning students to schools in Louisville,
Kentucky and Seattle. In November of 2007, Connecticut’s State Education Commissioner said he would
like the legal authority in the form of legislation to force suburban districts
to accept students of color from Hartford. Although the Resolution before you speaks to
Voluntary Interdistrict Programs, the Resolution appears open ended in that
there is no guarantee that the State legislature will not pass legislation in
the future forcing suburban towns to open their school systems to students from
other towns or to force the construction of Magnet Schools.
The Sheff Region encompasses many towns and involves many
taxpayers. It includes Avon, Bloomfield, Canton, E.
Granby, East Hartford, East Windsor, Ellington, Farmington,
Glastonbury, Granby,
Manchester, Newington,
Rocky Hill, Simsbury, South Windsor, Suffield, Vernon, West Hartford, Wethersfield,
Windsor and Windsor Locks. Yet, there is nothing offered in the
Resolution detailing the costs involved or the anticipated generator of the
dollars needed.
But let’s review the failures of the State regarding the
first Sheff out-of-court settlement and look at the problems which
surfaced.
The Courant reported that CREC in November, 2007 testified
that students were traveling two hours one way to reach suburban schools, that
each school year CREC projects a multimillion dollar deficit for its eight
interdistrict magnet schools and must lobby for funding, that there is a lack
of transportation funding for buses to transport out of Hartford to the
suburbs, that Hartford parents cannot travel to the suburban schools for
teacher conferences or to develop a relationship with that suburban school, and
that funding was needed for social workers and behavioral specialists who can
help students make the transition from Hartford to Suburban schools. CREC also testified that their plea for more
funding frequently went unanswered. CREC
also testified that an impoverished student in the sixth grade transferring
from Hartford to a suburban school could be reading at the second grade level,
and there should not be an expectation that the student will function at the
appropriate grade level for at least four years. CREC suggested those students need individual
education plans and that tutors were needed to help students catch up with
their suburban peers. And now you want
to implement an expanded program requiring a greater number of resources and
again you fail to address the funding issue.
In April of 2007, the Hartford
Courant disclosed that since the 2003 Sheff settlement nine schools were
created in Hartford
and that the population of white students ranged from a low of 4% to a high of
19% who enrolled in these new schools from suburban towns. The reasons for the low ratio and I quote
“the city’s struggle with crime, including a spate of shootings along with Hartford’s troubled
history of subpar public schools.” And most importantly, all of the city’s new
magnet schools with the exception of one failed to meet the standards of the federal No Child Left
Behind Act.
I would suggest that you table this plan until you present
a detailed expense and revenue report intended to facilitate your proposals as
noted within this resolution.
Further, if your goal is to improve the educational
opportunities for Hartford
students than do it! Determine why Hartford has a high drop
out rate. Why test scores are so low and
Hartford
schools are deemed to be “subpar”.
Determine who is failing the students in Hartford; i.e. the teachers, the
administrators, their parents, etc.
Determine why students in the sixth grade are reading at a second grade
level. Ask where all the money has gone
that state and local taxpayers have poured into the Hartford school system. And more importantly, with nine new Hartford schools
determine why only one has met the standards of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Give Hartford’s
Superintendent of Schools Mr. Adamowski the money and the resources to improve Hartford’s school system
under strict audit guidelines. This
would include police intervention to provide a safe learning environment and to
get tough on teenage crime. Provide
social workers to address family related issues and encourage parent
participation in the Hartford
schools. Give parents whose children
academically qualify a voucher to access a school of their choice - public or
private. Interview every teacher within
the Hartford School system to determine if they
themselves need to improve their academic standing and provide the
resources. Interview the faculty of
successful Charter/Magnet Schools in other towns and states and incorporate
their best practices standards. And finally,
hold an open forum with parents, corporate leaders, teachers, administrators,
and elected officials to define the problems and seek remedies to make Hartford’s school system
one which everyone can be proud of.
In summary, Hartford
students deserve a school system within their community which will provide them
with an exemplary education.
In conclusion, the ultimate question of the State
legislature is could the basis of the Supreme Court decision in 2007 serve as a
catalyst by Connecticut suburban towns to challenge the Resolution before you
in court.
*************************************
Sheff
Plan Passes Legislative Committee Test
By COLIN POITRAS And ARIELLE-LEVIN BECKER | Courant Staff
Writers
A key legislative committee Tuesday approved the latest
plan to reduce racial isolation in Hartford
schools, with some lawmakers grudgingly throwing their support behind a
regional approach that could cost taxpayers more than $600 million over the
next five years.
The desegregation plan laid out in the latest settlement offer in the Sheff v.
O'Neill case was endorsed by members of the General Assembly's education
committee in separate House and Senate votes.
The approvals all but guarantee that the new plan will take effect when the
legislative session ends May 7, because a three-fifths supermajority in both
houses is needed to overturn the resolution. If no vote is taken, the measure
is deemed adopted and will be forwarded to a state judge for ratification.
House committee members, who voted 15-9 for the settlement, expressed
reservations about the plan, which calls for a new level of cooperation between
urban and suburban school districts to meet specific benchmarks annually
through 2013.
"I believe this agreement is fatally flawed because
it is based on desegregation rather than quality education," state Rep.
Debralee Hovey, R-Monroe, said before reluctantly casting a vote in favor of
the plan. "To me, every parent has the right to expect their children will
get the best education they can regardless of where they live."
Sen. Thomas Gaffey, the committee's
co-chairman, defended the settlement as better than any previous version, while
acknowledging that state Education Commissioner
Mark McQuillan ultimately may have to be empowered to force suburban towns to
participate, if financial incentives for
voluntary participation fail.
"This is going to take some work. It is going to take more than cajoling
and a marketing effort and may take the force of
law," said Gaffey, a Meriden Democrat.
Supporters said the agreement represents the best chance yet to desegregate and
improve the performance of Hartford's
racially isolated schools by forcing officials to come up with a comprehensive,
plan of action by Nov. 30.
Components would include the construction of new magnet schools in
Hartford-area suburbs; expanding the number of slots available to Hartford students in
suburban public schools and technical and agricultural schools through the Open
Choice program; and establishing racially integrated preschools.
The proposed settlement also calls for standardizing the magnet school
application process, improving regional transportation and support for Hartford
students attending schools in other districts, and allowing representatives of
the Sheff v. O'Neill plaintiffs a more active role in overseeing the
desegregation efforts.
Officials from the legislature's bipartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis released
new cost estimates for the initiative Tuesday that show the proposed
construction of five new magnet schools over the next five years in Greater
Hartford would cost about $483 million, including debt payments ($316.5 million
in principal and $166.1 million in interest over 20 years.)
The analysis also showed that potential school operating costs under the
desegregation plan could total at least $125 million over the five years.
The legislature has set aside $9.9 million to deal with Sheff demands in the
proposed budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year. Operating
costs are expected to nearly double in 2009-10 to $18.6 million and then cost
another $96.5 million over the remaining three years.
Those kinds of costs concerned lawmakers like state Rep. Gail K. Hamm, D-East Hampton. "I just fundamentally don't think this is the right
remedy," she said before casting her "no" vote.
"It's just too much money and I think it siphons the focus away from the
achievement issue."
State Rep. Antonietta Boucher, R-Wilton, said the state should focus on fixing Hartford schools rather than make suburban towns bail Hartford out.
"What I see in this bill is us throwing our hands up," Boucher said.
"We're saying we can't fix it; we're going to decentralize rather than fix
the Hartford
school system."
Parties in the Sheff litigation sued the state in 1989. A Superior Court judge
in 1996 ordered the state to desegregate Hartford
schools. A 2003 settlement called for increasing racial integration through
voluntary enrollment in city and regional magnet schools and allowing Hartford students to
enroll in suburban schools. The settlement expired last year, far short of its
intended goals, opening negotiations for a new settlement offer.
Dennis Parker, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union and one of
the plaintiff attorneys in the Sheff case, praised lawmakers for taking a step
in the right direction Tuesday. He said the latest plan — with its proposed new
magnet schools and use of Open Choice — benefits students far beyond Hartford.
Susan Kniep, the former mayor of East Hartford and president of the Federation of
Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, said lawmakers are throwing their support
behind a plan with no certainty that it will work and no assurance that the
costs won't climb down the road.
She said the $600 million estimate "is being pulled out of the sky. In
this economy, we have no way of knowing, once the ball gets rolling, how much
this is going to cost taxpayers."
Contact Colin Poitras at cpoitras@courant.com.
*******************************
Education funding gets day in
court
Coalition's appeal set to be
heard Tuesday
By Eileen FitzGerald Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 04/20/2008 07:43:05 AM EDT
http://www.newstimes.com/ci_8992861
DANBURY -- A coalition of town leaders will take a
big step in a lawsuit against the state to garner more education funding with
an appeal of a lower court ruling Tuesday before the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The ruling
decided that students don't have a right to an adequate education, according to
the state constitution.
Appellate
courts in more than 20 states, including those from New
Jersey, New York and Massachusetts, have
recognized the existence of such a right.
It's the
new theory in education funding -- that states should adequately fund schools
to meet the needs of children so they can reach the goals expected of them
rather than satisfy the more familiar -- but less encompassing -- requirement
to provide an equitable education.
The lawsuit
was filed more than two years ago by 15 students and their families and the Connecticut Coalition
for Justice in Education Funding. The coalition wants to lessen the reliance on
local property taxes and substantially shift the school funding burden to the
state.
The
plaintiffs charged that the state's failure to suitably fund its public schools
has irreparably harmed thousands of children. Three of the complaints address
adequacy of funding and one is on equity in funding.
Danbury
Mayor Mark Boughton was president of the coalition last year and continues to
serve on its steering committee.
He said
Tuesday's arguments are important, but just part of a bigger message.
"It's
a big step in a long process. It's the only way the state is going to step up
to the plate and fund education adequately," Boughton said Friday.
"The
state put up a significant increase last year but this year they didn't follow
through. This is the only way the state will increase funding," Boughton
said. "Danbury
and every other city will not be able to sustain this level of spending. We
don't have any more money to give schools."
Boughton
said legislators need to feel the heat.
"This
year, I am giving the (Danbury) schools a $5.7 million increase but there is no
way they will get close to that next year," Boughton said, adding that
future shortfalls could mean layoffs, bigger class sizes and a stop to
important programs.
"The
state is going to have to recognize its responsibility here," Boughton
said.
The state
makes requirements of educators but doesn't fund them and fails to give the towns adequate money to meet the needs of the students, he
said.
"Adequacy
affects all students," said Dianne Kaplan deVries, the coalition's project
director. "You need resources from the state, and leadership. It's not
just about the money. An adequate system is also an equitable one, so the kids
in Danbury would have the right to the same
high-quality education as those in Greenwich."
Regardless
of the outcome of the hearing, which is expected to be decided by the fall, the
coalition will continue to trial.
"We
are unique in Connecticut.
We get a lot of attention," deVries said. "Connecticut is always known for our fine
schools. We have some of the best public schools in the nation but we also have
some of the worst public schools in the nation and we are a system with only
500,000 students."
Judge Simon
Bernstein, who served as a delegate to the Connecticut
Constitutional Convention of 1965 and was the principal proponent and drafter
of the education clause of the Connecticut
constitution, will attend the hearing.
The
95-year-old, who will travel from his home in Florida, is among about a dozen individuals
and groups who have filed friend of the court briefs in support of the
coalition. Others include the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, the
Workforce Alliance, the Connecticut State Conference of the NAACP, the Center
for Children's Advocacy and the Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund.
Yale Law
School students, organized as the Education Adequacy Clinic under the
supervision of Professor Robert Solomon and other Yale Law School faculty, are handling the case.
Third-year
law student Neil Weare and second-year law student David Noah will face an
Associate Attorney General in Tuesday's oral arguments.
The lawsuit
has already made a difference, deVries said.
Gov. M.
Jodi Rell created the Governor's Commission on Education Finance in 2006 and
proposed substantive increases in education funding that were passed by the
2007 legislature, she noted.
For more
information, visit www.ccjef.org/about.htm
Contact
Eileen FitzGerald
at eileenf@newstimes.com
or at (203) 731-3333
IFYOUGO
WHAT: Oral
arguments before Connecticut
Supreme Court
WHEN:
Tuesday, April 22, 10 a.m.
WHERE:
Supreme Court, 231 Capitol Ave.,
Hartford
********************************
Connecticut School Rankings
http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindexphp/STATE_CT.html
Connecticut Public K-12 School
Rankings are based on the CT Mastery Test (CMT) and the CT Academic Performance Test (CAPT)
provided by the CT State
Department of Education. There are two sets of rankings:
- Standard
Rankings:
Elementary
Schools: Percentage of 4th Grade students at the Advanced Level
(Level 5) in Math, Reading,
and Writing in the CMT; - Middle Schools:
Percentage of 8th Grade students at the Advanced Level (Level 5) in Math,
Reading,
and Writing in the CMT;
- High Schools:
Percentage of 10th Grade students at the Advanced Level (Level 5) in
Math, Reading,
Writing, and Science in the CAPT;
You have the
option of (i) Ranking all
schools in the State of Connecticut (choose
"All Counties" in the toolbar to the left), (ii) Comparing individual
counties (choose "County Vs. County"), and
(iii) Comparing all schools in a given county (choose, for example, "New Haven" County).
To view FREE public school rankings from a prior year, simply click on the
"Rank" button on the toolbar to the left. The most recent rankings
are available for subscribers only. Subscription fee is $8.33/month (1-year
term). Sign up here.
- Customized
Rankings (Subscribers Only) are based on the following:
Elementary
Schools: Can choose any or all of the following: 4th grade Math,
Reading, and Writing; Percentage of students at the Advanced Level (Level
5); Percentage of students at the Goal Level and above (Levels 4 or 5);
Percentage of students at the Proficient Level and above (Levels 3, 4, or
5); - Middle Schools:
Can choose any or all of the following: 8th grade Math, Reading, and
Writing; Percentage of students at the Advanced Level (Level 5);
Percentage of students at the Goal Level and above (Levels 4 or 5);
Percentage of students at the Proficient Level and above (Levels 3, 4, or
5);
- High Schools:
Can choose any or all of the following: 10th grade Math, Reading,
Writing, and Science; Percentage of students at the Advanced Level (Level
5); Percentage of students at the Goal Level and above (Levels 4 or 5);
Percentage of students at the Proficient Level and above (Levels 3, 4, or
5);
With the
Customized Ranking, you can choose any or all of the counties. Subscription fee
is $8.33/month (1-year term). Sign up here.
Notes:
- Results presented on this site are for All Students; we do not
break down the results for different racial/gender/economic groups.
- Schools with fewer than 20 students are not included.
- Historically, the CMT tests are taken in the Fall
while the CAPT tests are taken in the Spring. Starting with the 2005-2006
academic year, both CMT and CAPT tests are taken in the Spring.
Data Availability:
Connecticut School ratings are
available for: 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006