Apologies for the delay between posts. I had internet trouble--water got into my cable wire leaving us off the grid for a few days. And of course, the Stacy Lore story broke and I was busy covering that.
Tomorrow night, the BOE is scheduled to vote to appoint Susan Marks as superintendent of Norwalk Public Schools. At the same meeting (hopefully before) we will also hear about the site visit to Maryland by BOE members, a parent, a teacher, and a principal. Obviously, it went well in the eyes of the delegation.
While I feel a sense of relief that we will have a permanent leader at the helm, I can't help but being dissappointed by the process by which she was hired. After the initial interviews, we were only presented with one candidate. She was not a "finalist" as she was labeled, since a finalist implies more than one. "Candidate-select"would have been a more accurate title. After the public meeting with Marks, we were asked for our opinion in the form of a questionnaire. Did the feedback forms get compiled and shared? Why isn't the public allowed to hear and digest the information from the Maryland delegation prior to the voting on Ms. Marks? Perhaps, even ask a couple of questions? Isn't the job of the newly formed Communications Committee to keep us informed of important Board developments?
From what little I know, Ms. Mark's appears to be a competent candidate. My frustration is not with her, it is with the Board who seems to have played lip service to community involvement. I understand that voters elected the Board to hire a new superintendent, but we also expected to be involved in the process. And in the end, what we really wanted was to feel like Marks was our choice, our collective choice.
Here is the full agenda for tomorrow night's meeting.
agend001-9
Monday, April 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Moina- I fully appreciate the sense of frustration that you expressed as it mirrors what a number of other parents have shared with me as well.
ReplyDeleteThe rules for the search were established by the prior board, with no opportunity to change them so that a team of parents, teachers and community members would be involved in the initial interview/screening process. That being said, the end-result is still a very good one for Norwalk.
You see, like my colleagues, I read the summary sheets that were completed at the meet-and-greets with Dr. Marks. Certainly people had questions, which is expected given the relatively short time any group had to meet Dr. Marks. However, the comments I read were overwhelmingly positive.
Also, my converstaions with some of the members of the travel team (I didn't speak with them all) indicated that those who visited Maryland left impressed.
In my conversations with Dr. Marks and in my review of her credentials, I found a leader who is first, and foremost, an educator. In fact, I was so impressed with her that I'm confident she will provide vision and leadership to our schools, and I'm willing to entrust my daughters' educations to her.
As a Norwalk parent to young children who have not started elementary school yet and a new teacher in Norwalk, I have to agree with Moina. I am frustrated and feel disappointment with the process. It was a done deal from the beginning, even though she may be a fine candidate. I have yet to make my opinion. I think that we need a new leader with a clear vision to guide our struggling school system. I applaud Steve for your efforts—clearly you are very involved and reading up on things. I still do not feel as though all members of the board are. But again, why the lack of communication to the community??
ReplyDeleteMy prayers are for this to be a turning point for Norwalk. We have too many issues.
I still am unclear as to how we cannot hire someone in this position on a "trial" basis for say... one year... and if we like what we see, we hire the candidate. We are not in a position to be spurned again by a transient smooth talker. We need commitment at a deep heartfelt level. To be honest, no one can really tell if that commitment is there from the start, not even the candidate.
ReplyDeleteA good candidate isn't going to leave a position elsewhere to take a "trial basis" job in Norwalk. However, a candidate who is desperate to leave another district or whose district wants him/her to leave, is likely to take anything he/she can get. If Dr. Marks is a good candidate, as Mr. Colarossi says, the board ought to offer her a 3-year contract.
ReplyDeleteThe best thing the board can do once the new superintendent arrives is to provide solid backing as she studies all of the administrative staff positions and the people who hold those positions. Some of them should be doing other jobs. In some cases, those other jobs should be in occupations outside of education.
Steve, thank you for your sincere comments. I must say however I find the explanation "The rules for the search were established by the prior board, with no opportunity to change them" less than satisfying.
ReplyDeleteFirst I don't see how that was the case. If you or any of the new Board members had disagreements about the process they should have been publicly aired and those board members who disagreed would also have been on the records. Everyone would know where BOE members stood.
Second, the majority of the search occurred after the election. Issues such as how many candidates were put before the public, press access to the candidate as she toured Norwalk, and announcements on the progress of the process were entirely in the control of the newly constituted Board.
One of the most important decisions of the Board is to choose a Superintendent and if it seems that certain incumbent Board members weren't up to the task then there is an election coming next year when we can tell them "Thank you for your service. Good luck to you."
5:53- let me try to address, from my own perspective, your concerns.
ReplyDeleteI think that everyone on the BOE kept an open mind during the interviews and evaluated every candidate fairly. They all put in many long hours away from family to do the job that the voters elected all of us to do-- which is to find the best possible leader for our schools. I was honored to have been a part of that group.
You are right, the interviews did entirely occur after the election. However, by the time of the interviews started, we needed to hit the ground running given the serious time constraints that were faced. And, because we all pledged strict confidentiality regarding our deliberations, any discussions that took place must remain confidential. Although I have no qualms voicing my own opinions, disagreeing with the administration and openly communicating with the public about BOE matters, even I recognize that there must be limits which preserve the integrity of a confidential interview and deliberation process.
The chairman did make a number of announcements giving the public our progress on the search. He was a strong leader during the process.
No, Mr Colorossi, have to stop you right there.
ReplyDeleteWhat you say in your first paragraph, hey it wasn't my fault, my hands were tied.
Isn't that what you were accusing the previous board of, ducking responsibilty and pointing fingers.
Nope Steve, you ran on a platform of discontent and fueled the flames.
But what are you doing now?
Telling us, YOU, know better.
Thats change?
Stop rewind.
No, Steve this was handled with club feet all winter.
You know that and it appears you may be one of the ones that is overwhelmed by the tasks at hand.
No Steve, I dont trust you with my child future.
Have you accomplished anything to gain my trust but simply asking us to blindly trust your judgement.
Sorry champ, no can do, ivy or no ivy shingle.
You have done little to open up and let the sunshine in.
Newbie smobie, we gave you the bat and told you to swing for the fences.
Easy hit.
Two strikes, two outs, no one on base and your calling in a benched pinch hitter?
Trust you?
Not with my kids future.
Steve, I don't agree with you. That being said, I will add that I predicted this was a done deal and so it was. I do not think Marks is for Norwalk, but there is no choice now. I will look for what you saw in her, and I will try to be hopeful that I won't be back here saying, 'I told you so.'
ReplyDeleteI am greatly disappointed.
Although I don't agree with this choice for superintendent, I hope she arrives with an open mind and doesn't automatically assume that the rumours about administrators are accurate. Let her judge for herself. There are good people even in central office!
ReplyDelete(Let me be perfectly clear that I hope this post does not open up a discussion for those who love to hate certain people in central office. This is not the forum for that.)
BOE do NOT give this poor woman marching orders to destroy people's careers. We have had that before with the Arizona superintendent. He spent little time giving anyone a chance. That proved to be a huge mistake. If she is so good and has such a great vision, don't lead her down the BOE's path. Allow her to make her own decisions.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be very involved with reviewing and responding to this blog - I have a question or two for you . Put a side the New Super - she is a done deal. Let's move to something that is also pressing - the budgets. As the Chairman of the BOE Finance Committee - what has the committe done or is doing to tackle the issues we are facing on the educational cuts? Things are very quiet right now and the last thing I would hate to see are "last minute decisions" that parents and the community can not fight for. Where is the communications - where are the updates? How are parents being informed on what is currently taking place? Please - don't give us the excuse of "Come to the Finance meetings" because this is not always possible for working parents. What is going on?
6:56 - Do you have enough information to make your assessment about Dr. Marks?
ReplyDeleteMarks a done deal?
ReplyDeleteBackroom deal?
Someone did post a while back, when Marks was first leaked, that it was already "a done deal" and the board was just trying to make some effort at appearing kosher, as they say, "in a nutshell".
One board member stated she had read hundreds of documents, another said that allot of time was put into the search by some members.
Look, that is most assuredly a given, the task is substantial and its not like its not appreciated, we do pay so handsomely for our volunteer board members.
Think if we unpack this a bit, we can perhaps understand some of the concerns that have been raised, by many and many of the same concerns have been brought up once or twice here and there.
Accountability, transparency, collaboration.
Briefly reviewing more recent board behaviours, it is, honestly not all that reassuring, to have the board, announce suddenly, after Papallo's clock ran out, " Hey WE did it". " We found the one". trust us we know what we are talking about.
Not reassuring at all.
If the members can perhaps try and project themselves to the other side of that curtain, perhaps they too, would be sounding the alarm.
We spent 490 grand on lawyers last year, the costs was projected at 425,
Week ago we were looking a projected 520. min for 2010/2011.
That was last week. Here in Norwalk we love to complicate things. This week the board is looking at 7 figures as a starting baseline.
So, needless to reiterate our mind numbing mistakes of past, it is worthy of note that the cloak has yet to be removed.
Just an impression of such an idea, (another backroom deal), certainly leaves a bad taste in one's mouth and forget about any bounce of that springboard.
Although we kept the pool open, we removed the diving board and the life guard.
That first step is lulu is you dont know how to paddle in the deep end, your going to sink.
Looks like we are be going to be paying through the nose whats another blooper. Million here million there, ah just pocket change.
Its the teachers fault. Its the parents fault for bringing dumb kids into this world.
Its the darn priests, the taxi driver, the store clerk, the pepsi guy, Ralph Cramden he is the bad guy. Or is it Norton?
I didn't do it, humpty dumpty just fell on his own, I swear!!
Geesh, if we could just get some clarity and a smidgen of courage.
That asking too much?
Adults behaving like respectable, rational, adults?
Norwalk?
Yes maybe the bar is a bit too high here.
I love the agenda, section V11.
ReplyDeleteCan't we at least pretend we live in a democracy. Approval of actions?
So that whole vote thing, its is all show no tell. Was a back room deal, no discussion, no questions, eat your oatmeal and move along, we know better, you know nothing, nothing!
Huh, we know Duff has dibs on Marks.
Ca ching.
9:20, yes I do. You and I will watch her lack of leadership/vision and total lack of understanding of the Norwalk politics play out on the NPS stage.
ReplyDeleteSave your change. We will need it to pay her out. I'm tired of it all.
Don't know if Marks is the right person or not but wish her and our children the best.
ReplyDeleteThe BOE failed to communicate to the Norwalk Community as to why she is the best candidate. I agree that a public forum should have been held prior to the appointment.
The statement that the game rules were set by the previous Board and could not be changed by our newly appointed "parents" who campaigned for reform is embarrassement to us all. How foolish we really are.
Is it possible that even the Almighty Collarossi has failed his disciples in the name of politics and lack of transparency?
I have been neutral on the subject of Steve Collarossi on the blog. Often, I have sat back and shook my head wondering if he was being a bit naive in being so eager to openly communicate on the blog. Have to say though that I feel pity for the way folks are speaking to him on this set of posts. He seems to be a decent person who ardently believes that he is volunteering his time to make a positive change for Norwalk education. Take the high road, Steve, and don't argue with fools. The Bible says it best: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (Proverbs 26:4-5) Keep doing as you are doing, Steve. I've come to appreciate your honest efforts.
ReplyDeleteOh great a bible head. Just what we were missing.
ReplyDeleteRegardless if Marks misses the mark, the members could have and should have handled it with more transparency.
Far as hammering Colorossi, he is a big boy,
if he doesn't know the rules by now its time he learned.
He does earn a high score for trying to communicate through that deafening silent wall.
Stumble? Hey he has only been on the job a few months, so some seasoning is natural.
Voting for Marks?
Wouldn't want to cast my vote for an unknown long shot.
Keno anyone?
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
ReplyDelete— Arthur Schopenhauer
6:18, you are the naive one. A man who marches to his own drummer is not necessarily tuned in to reality. It may be wise to listen to the people's voices.
The Bible and Schopenhauer! What an erudite blog. :-)
ReplyDeleteAnon 6:47--Just because I chose to quote the Bible, it does not mean I am religious or a "bible head" as you so eloquently stated. The negativity on here never ceases to amaze me.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Mr. Collarossi should spend as much time worrying about a balanced budget (without it affecting any child) as he does defending his poor decision making on this blog.
ReplyDeleteI am so saddened to read that the new board felt that they could not change the way a new super was recruited. How long will her appointment be? Having lived through too many unproductive leaders for Norwalk, Ihope we do not regret a board who is not willing to psuh for changes and challenge the status quo.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the papers, this is the year for uncovering. Everything done in the dark will come to the light.
ReplyDeleteSue Haynie I do trust. She is not selective to whom she responds and she is thorough, no hidden agenda as far as I can see. I've said this before and I will repeat that she stays above the political and emotional fray. She is not trying to be a superstar. From my experience with her, she knows her educational "stuff," much like Mary Bud (Central Office and no Mary is not my friend. I believe she knows the stats., and more importantly, how to decipher them and that she does care about education. Because she is on the board I have decided to trust that the right thing was done though I think the process in not presenting more candidates was shady. If this was indeed done w/ secrets or favors that will come to light. For now, to Sue's credit, I am going to remain hopeful and wait and see. I know many will not agree with me, but I think Midgalia Rivas has a right to voice her opinion if she thinks parent and community input were not given their proper due.
One of the above comments asked why this person was not hired on a trial basis, one year I believe.
Can someone answer this? I am not screaming by putting this in caps, I just want it to stand out: WHAT IS THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD FOR THE NEWLY HIRED SUPT.?
Before signing off I would be remiss in not thanking Moina for her honesty and her thoroughness. I also thank you and "turf girl" for hooking up with Joan Gaylord and keeping her voice in Norwalk.
Well folks, may God bless this new venture. We, as someone else wrote, have too many issues for us collectively not to want to make this a good deal. We have some pretty good principals, but many of the teachers are highly immature and in dire need of help.
One for all and all for one. Can we do this right this time around? Please!
No superintendent worth anything would leave a district for a one-year probationary contract elsewhere. Only someone who is in trouble and who is desperate to leave his/her district (or who is unemployed) would accept that.
ReplyDelete1.She isn't leaving a district, she is retiring and collecting pension there.
ReplyDelete2.Are these just rumors or is there really a connection with Marks to someone in a high office in Norwalk?
3. In answer to 'Can we do this right this time around?'.....Are you kidding? Pray all you want. Norwalk's politics are still in play here.
Of course there's a connection.
ReplyDeleteAND- If we're quoting, the funniest is is "playing lip service" (Sorry, Moina). It's FUNNY and TRUE. The BOE leaves little to desire, but cut Steve a break. He's a volunteer (although, it would be nice to know how you voted).. and he is a dad, and he's doing a LOT for our community by sticking his neck out. Hats off to you, whether I agree with you or not. But you would be my HERO if you would do something about early dismissal days. They just stink, and for which we will opt out for vacation if the year ends on them!!
Ha! At least my typo gives you a chuckle. No editors in the blogosphere, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteSpreading the rumor that the new superintendent is somehow connected to someone in high office in Norwalk is in itself a political dirty trick. If you have something to say, just say it and let the rest of us decide, but you won't do that. You and others guilty of this tactic prefer to have the rest of us spread your wild speculation about who this alleged political connection might be and how the relationship is somehow going to hurt the NPS.
ReplyDeleteDr. Marks has been appointed, so just stop the negative talk for a while because it isn't doing anything other than allowing you some kind of catharsis.
3:04, who appointed you God? As I understand, there is free speech in this country. Are you trying to have it removed? See your congressman.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I hear, there are no dirty political tricks being played here. If the 'truth' bothers you, I pity you for your lack of willingness to contemplate even the possibility of these facts. Those in the know are sticking their necks out far enough to reveal the truth. If you don't want to read it, don't.
6:23 - Exactly what is the "truth" to which you refer? Whoever posted the comment about the alleged political connection said only that. No one knows if there is any truth in the comment whatsoever, but more to the point, because the charge is so vague, no one can possibly do any research into it. Someone who does that leaves wild speculation as the only outcome. No one is served well by this.
ReplyDeleteOh. And as for my attacking your right to free speech, what about my right to the same?
“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.”
ReplyDeleteChurchill
Okay, I'll say it. Rumor is that Marks is connected to Moccia. Go research it.
ReplyDelete...there it is."
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've heard around town, Moccia stayed out of the process and didn't push for any one (he knew one of CT people who applied, but didn't reach out to anyone to push for that one):
ReplyDeleteTHERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO TRUTH TO ANY RUMOR THAT MARKS AND MOCCIA ARE CONNECTED, OR EVEN KNEW EACH OTHER BEFORE HER SECOND INTERVIEW. That's the sort of stuff that people talk about- and no one is talking about it.
There is truth to the rumor that the reason why Rivas was so PO'ed with the process was that she was pushing for one particular candidate who was dinged by everyone else.
'From what I heard' says it all. You don't know, you just 'heard.'
ReplyDeleteI've searched the net and found no connection between the Mayor & Dr. Marks. So, Anon 5:26pm - where did you find it and share it with us. Prove it.
ReplyDelete