I am out of town this week and could not attend the Democratic Nominating convention on Monday night.
Here's the list of Democratic BOE candidates as reported by several news outlets:
District A: Rosa Murray
District B: Migdalia Rivas
District C: Kevin Poruban
District D: Greg Burnett
District E: Mike Barbis
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I can't believe the Demo can't find any one else for District B - its sad to see a representative from that district claim 'community' when they truly don't represent it. I'm glad to see Greg Burnett, Rosa Murray and Mike Barbis - not sure about Kevin; not sure who he really is but willing to hear his 'stand' on education. Definately, sad about District B
ReplyDeleteSTATES CURB DOUBLE DIPPING
ReplyDeletehttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/07/13/36doubledip_ep.h30.html?tkn=ZPRFLot13%2F9NlxQieIx7B8MP9%2FrkfpKn1mIw&cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS1
This post is not intended to be teacher bashing. There are excellent teachers out there and we know who they are. This is an all-in-one to political candidates (particularly those in charge of political appointments) to stop the double-dipping in all areas. Most retirees who were professionals during their career should be drawing from their retirement plan. Give new comers a shot. Grow the economy.
The American Teacher
ReplyDeletehttp://fest11.sffs.org/films/film_details.php
Again, my post above was honestly not intended to bash. We just need to get a handle on things maturely. It would be interesting to compare and contrast the films "Race to Nowhere" and "The American Teacher" "The American Teacher" makes the claim that American teachers are grossly underpaid. This is not the case in Norwalk. Is it?
Mike Barbis only wants to take care of Rowayton and has forgotten Rowayton is a part of Norwalk. Ugh.
ReplyDeleteTo July 28, 2011 12:03 PM - Thank you. Your comments said exactly what I thinking. I live in District B and I can say for sure I won't be voting for her.
ReplyDeleteKevin Poruban was a Council Member back during Knopp's first term, I think. He was also involved in a major issue when he accused Nick Kydes with having a conflict of interest over a family owned parcel of property on Wall Street. You could look up the Council minutes and I think there was also a hearing on the accusation. Kydes was cleared. After all was said and done, it cost the City something like $15,000 in lawyer fees.
Rosa Murray? Did we forget the mess she made before her entire team was booted out of office in 2009?
ReplyDeleteRivas speaks her mind- I don't live in Dist. B but she seems honest and straightforward.
Pouriban- can't make sense of this nomination except that the Dems really don't want to win that seat and concede it to Lyons.
Greg Burnett- the best choice the Dems made. Greg broke ransk with his party over the 2009 budget. He is an independent thinker.
Mike Barbis might be a great guy, but he is too tight with the Red APPLES-- I don't think we need another know-it-all on the BOE alligned with that bunch.
No Red Apples please. I agree
ReplyDeleteTo 8:25 p.m., I agree with your comments about about Rosa Murray and Greg Burnett.
ReplyDeleteHowever, about Rivas, I seem to remember that there was a meeting regarding a presentation and Ms. Rivas took offense at how one concept was presented. The presenter immediately removed the wording and said, "How do you want it expressed?" However, Ms. Rivas got stuck on the perceived offense and went on and on and on and on about it. Sitting there listening to the whole diatribe, it was like "Okay, already. We get it. You didn't like it. It's been changed. Move on!" The point was getting presentation ready for the event. She didn't like something, it got changed but that wasn't enough for her. She had to beat everyone over the head with it. And just for the record, she often claims to speak for the "community". Well, I do live in District B, and she by no means speaks for me.
Rosa Murray? Seriously? Apparently, the dems do not care about Norwalk students. She is responsible for the mess this district is in. Greg Burnett is a great choice! Kevin Poruban is a has been, and Barbis is just a big joke!
ReplyDeleteHEADS UP EVERYONE: Check out the Tuesday, August 2nd Board Agenda Information packet. After the many pages of Food Service packet is a request for a DIRECTOR's position! This is simply the job description of the grants position combined with overseeing Academically Talented Staff and other small duties. So now the 10 month administrator's position has been expanded to a director's position with NO evaluation of principals? We all know who this position was created for!
ReplyDeleteDo you think we are idiots?
Thanks for the HEADS UP 9:20-- just read the info from Dani's blog on The Hour.
ReplyDeleteMakes me wish the Dems had found someone in A,C, or E who might give our kids a fighting chance against the RedAPPLE-RubberStamp gang.
Can't get any sense of why no candidate is taking on this superintendent's bad choices.
I'm a lifelong D and never ever dreamed that the D's would be turning their backs on kids to support more $$$$ for the central orifice.
Teacher's pet! Now it all makes sense. That's why the superintendent was spotted having lunch outside central office with the person who obviously is going to get this position. Where is the money coming from? No money in local budget, right? So what grants did they usurp this time? What has been taken from the grants to pay for this cushy job? The principals are in charge of their Title I funds, so what's this person going to do? Nothing?
ReplyDeleteSomeone has got to take this new information public. How about one of the new candidates? Will one of you step up to the plate?
ReplyDeleteWhat people need to understand is that the former director of elementary education is entitled by contract to get a job that is equivalent to the one that was eliminated, assuming that at least one person at that level has less seniority than she does. I believe that there are one or two people whose jobs she can take.
ReplyDeleteThe superintendent must believe that the district and students are best served by leaving these people in their current positions, and so this is her say of addressing the dilemma.
She is, by contract, entitled to a job for which she is qualified. There are jobs available in the system for which she is qualified. No job had to be created for her. That is a lie!
ReplyDeleteSorry, the BOE eliminated her position because it wasn't working, so the superintendent created a new position out of the grants position and calls it a director's position? That's just not right. Something is going on there that's just way out of line. Anyone on here who is familiar with the administrator's contract who can explain this?
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that a job had to be created for her. I said that the superintendent may have preferred that to having the displaced administrator bump a less senior person who is in a different director's position. The way the contract works is that a person who is qualified (and she is qualified for an administrative job because she has the necessary endorsement) can fill a vacant position at the same pay category. In the event there is no vacancy, the administrator can then take the job of someone with less seniority who is in the same pay category.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe that a totally unnecessary director's job has to be created so that a displaced person won't take a job that would displace a less senior person. If I am right, the only job that is open is the director of Briggs. That job was vacated by a retiring administrator. No one really filled that job yet, or at least shouldn't have filled that job yet. After all, we were in the process of budget cuts. It would have been unwise to start filling positions before the budget cuts were final.
ReplyDeleteSo, if I am right, the contract states that a displaced director has the right to the job at Briggs if he/she is qualified for that job. Seems that you are claiming that the former director of Elem Ed has the endorsement. She should get the job. Certainly a new job should not be created for her. Is the superintendent also creating a job for the former grants person?
The Briggs Principal position has been filled already.
ReplyDeleteI keep reading about a teacher's pet? Who is this alleged pet?
If the position has been filled, then the superintendent was the first superintendent I know of who filled positions before the budget was finalized. Too bad. Unfortunately that is the position that the displaced director has to take. That's the contract.
ReplyDeleteSo many incorrect assumptions.
ReplyDeleteThe administrators' contract does 2 things--- first, it gives an administator the right to move into an equivalent position if her job has been eliminated. Second, it gives the superintendent the power to move that person into a different job provided the person's salary doesn't change.
So, the Dir. of Elem. Ed is eliminated. She has a right to an "equivalent" open position (which is the principal at Briggs). But, the superintendent can say that she isn't qualified and move her into a lower level job provided she gets the same salary. That's why the former Dir. of Elem. Ed has been moved to Norwalk High as housemaster but is still being paid her old salary.
Oh my gosh. I can't read this blog anymore. Instead of talking about the posting topic you all continue to rant about your problems with certain CO staff.
ReplyDeleteOur schools are in trouble. The BOE is disfunctional and the Superintendent is trying to staff her team and solve some of these problems. The plan presented last night is the first we have seen of implementation of Dr. Marks' vision. I hope the BOE can look past their bickering and do what is best for our schools and the kids.
Let me see if I got this right. The position of Director of Elem Ed wasn't working, according to the BOE. The superintendent didn't think the displaced director had the qualifications for director of Briggs, so the superintendent comes up with a new director's job for this person that is another central office job. Not only is it a position created for her, but professional development money is being used to fund it. I would say that I have been right all along. The superintendent's first priority is making sure this person stays at central office. What gives with that? I thought a superintendent's first priorities should be (1)our students and (2)making sure our teachers get the help they need to be better at what they do (professional development). Guess I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree with 3:44 posting. Most of the comments on this blog is about bashing CO staff. How can the BOE expect Dr. Mark's to run this district with all of the cuts in the CO over the last two years? She is trying to create a position that is needed. Bruce M.'s comments about this position at last night's board meeting is "this is too much for one person". Does he realize that if Dr. Mark's can't get this position, then the Asst. Supt. will have to do all of the responsibilities of this position and everything else in
ReplyDeleteCurriculum & Instruction for the entire district. As a parent, I voted for the current BOE members. Please have faith in Dr. Mark's so her vision for this district can happen. Also 2:29, who is the former Dir. of Elem Ed that was moved to NHS as housemaster? If I recall, we had Marilyn Liberatore (interim) for two years and prior to that it was Hugh McKiernan in as Dir. of Elem. Ed.
It isn't that help is not needed for some of the work at C.O. - It's that a director's salary is not needed to fund the work. It's also that taking it from professional development funding is not a good thing. How about reworking the job description and putting it at an administrator in charge salary? That would settle the argument.
ReplyDeleteSuperintendent's vision????
ReplyDeleteI know I'm not the only parent who was disappointed with the cuts proposed by this supt. What vision was there when central office was saved and elementary schools were hit the hardest???
Come on, now. Just because the Supt. Marks Fan Club keeps posting about the "vision" doesn't mean that one exists. Just look at all the headlines in the National Enquirer and you'll know that putting something in print doesn't make it true.
These comments do relate to the thread about the nominations because we want to know where the candidates stand on these issues.
Did Jody not get her nomination because she's been too close to the past and current supers? Will Rosa break from Jody and Heidi Keyes and side with Midaglia? These are election issues.
Are any of them going to say a word that the Dir. of Elem. Ed is still working in the Central Office one month after her position was eliminated??????????
I have been following Norwalk Board of Education issues for quite a few years, and I am disturbed by some peoples' criticism of some of the superintendent's decisions and proposals, most of them involving staffing and organization. Remember Sal Corda and Victor Herbert? Each had an executive assistant and a chief operating officer, as well as directors of elementary and secondary education. In addition, each had a finance director, as well as content area supervisors in the major subject areas, and a crew of other support people. Despite all of this, they still hired consultants to do some of their work.
ReplyDeleteNow you have a relatively new superintendent who has been handed the bones of what once was the central office, and she has been told to do the work regardless. Add to that an assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction who lacks the necessary background and interpersonal skills to do quality work and to otherwise support the superintendent, and you have a superintendent who has been handed an impossible job. She has also been handed a district which has historically had too many loose cannons among its personnel, including principals who don't like to be told what to do, and who revel in making difficult work even more difficult for their organizational superiors. Moreover, the union leadership is salivating over the prospects of completely undermining another superintendent so they can get away with even more.
I am certain that the superintendent didn't want to deny any of the schools the staffing that they need, but she is responsible for looking at the bigger picture.
I have quite a few contacts outside Norwalk, and those who are familiar with the district often remark about the severity of the dysfunction, some of it due to incompetence, some of it due to malevolence, some of it due to understaffing.
Looking at what has happened with the federal government, states can expect reduced federal funding. In turn, school systems can expect reduced state funding, especially for a community like Norwalk, which some perceive to be affluent because of property values in Fairfield County, which are still higher than they are in most parts of the state.
I know that the focus on the city's grand list omits the needed focus on student needs, some of which are higher in Norwalk's urban environment, but things aren't likely to change to Norwalk's advantage anytime soon. People are going to have to face the harsh reality of the new American economy. Maybe it's time to look at ways of doing business differently, possibly by cooperative agreements between and among school districts.
Seems odd they can't come up with another real candidate in E. Mr. Rowayton, Barbis is running for BOE and 6th District Commissioner??!! I don't see how anyone can have time to do 2 offices and have a meaningful relationship with a child.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty sad that the comments from 8:08 fall into the same old trap of blaming everyone for the rookie superintendent's lack of leadership.
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty funny that Marks' fans all turn a blind eye to the lack of leadership of Chairman Jack-- I guess if you support Susan Marks you can get away with a lot.
9:29 - Did you even read the 8:08 posting? Why not respond to the specifics, rather than issue a blanket rejection of its content?
ReplyDeleteThe so called 'vision' of the superintendent needs its own blog topic. Personally, this attempt at reorganizing central office is the worst I have ever seen anywhere! The Norwalk Hour has chosen to front page this reorganization plan that the superintendent has proposed. Why can't we discuss it here? The superintendent's groupies will complain, that's why.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I think the vision for reorganization must have come to the superintendent at a lunch table while she was sitting across from the former Director of Elem Ed. - It appears that the former, now displaced director has amazing powers! A vision giver! LOL
Dear 9:35, I'm not the 9:29 posting, but feel up to your challenge.
ReplyDeleteCorda presided over a declining school system that had fluff in the budget, but still used scare tactics to get more money. His "staffing" is a role model for ineffiency and incompetency. Not where I'd look for support for Dr. Marks.
We have loose cannon principals. How many have been sighted for insubordination? NONE. How many have been put in their place? NONE. The Supt. hasn't managed these people. It's not like she's tried, but was hit with union flack. She just hasn't reeled in any of these "loose cannon".
The BOE did vote to cut a lot of jobs in the central office. What was their choice? Cut valuable services for little kids or make the assistant superintendent and superintendent work harder? I think that the BOE made the right choice.
The superintendent had that first budget that was awful. Her cut lists all sang the same tune-- save central office jobs but cut jobs in the elementary schools. Those were bad suggestions. Whether she want to do it or not isn't the issue. She made the suggestions and Colarosssi suggested different options. His worked to balance the budget and keep elementary schools solid. Marks could have made the same suggestions but didn't.
The superintendent asked the BOE to accept a new position two meetings ago that had a vague job description. Her "reorganization" plan was weak. That hardly seems like a big picture view. We are facing tough economic times and local aid programs might be cut in the near future. That's a great reason not to create jobs that will cost us over $150K/year when we might need every penny for the kids in the classrooms.
Interestingly biased and flawed recap 10:16 or should we call you Colarrossi.
ReplyDeleteI am totally in agreement with 10:16 and I am not that person! How about that, 11:20!
ReplyDelete11:20 a.m. - when Mr. Colarossi blogs he always identifies himself. No need to play detective.
ReplyDeleteTake a deep breath, everyone. No one ever said that cuts at any school level were desirable. No one ever even suggested that the superintendent's proposed organization was one that anyone would desire. The point of my 8:08 posting is that the central office has been cut back so severely that it is impossible to establish a reasonable central office organization or to accomplish the work that has to be done.
ReplyDeleteI am by no means advocating for an executive assistant to the superintendent, a position that was impossible to justify when Corda had it, but I listed that among the many eliminated positions only to illustrate that there has been a downward spiral in central office staffing.
As for the "loose cannon" principals, they have been such for years, when Mr. Daddona was in charge of secondary, when Mr. McKiernan was in charge of elementary, and since then. No one cited them back then, when there were people whose job descriptions put them in direct supervision of the principals' day to day activities, without so many additional major responsibilities that they couldn't possibly do the jobs. The directors were well aware of the principals' antics, but they further empowered these individuals by failing to cite their behaviors and by failing to evaluate them accordingly.
And then, all took full advantage of the interim superintendents. To right a sinking ship requires providing additional resources, not making additional holes in the hull. How can any fair-minded person expect the current superintendent to do the work that her predecessors didn't accomplish with far greater resources?
The board certainly has the prerogative to deem the superintendent's proposed organization unacceptable, but this is not to say that the board's solution was any better because the work cannot be accomplished without the resources. How can the superintendent do the work formerly done by the chief operating officer, the finance director, the directors of elementary and secondary education, and others whose positions have been eliminated?
What was once an organization, however flawed, can't even be called an organization anymore. I prefer to call it a "dysorganization" to reflect the dysfunction. Some jobs are too big for one person to fix, especially when those around her continue to throw rocks at her head every time she moves.
12:38 well said.
ReplyDeleteALL 19 principals are going to be evaluated by the Asst Superintendent now. THAT'S the way to improve their conduct? What planet do you come from?
ReplyDeleteWhat is needed is a superintendent who evaluates the elementary principals, just as Dr. Sloan did (and they behaved!). Then we need a grants person who also oversees Academically Talented. Now there's a 10 month job for a LOT less money than a director's job. Want a vision? Start there.
Just to add to your information, the principals have been loose canons ever since Sloan left. That's a fact. It was Dr. Grey that had the worst of it, under the superintendent Herbert. She was before McKiernan. No superintendent supported the evaluations of these people.
ReplyDeleteHaving been away all of last week (and without internet access), I have been trying to catch up over the past few days regarding the nominations for the district school board seats. Needless to say, I was very interested in the debate about the possible creation of a Director of Grants, AT, etc. that seems to have taken over this thread. How we move our district forward through the next few years of economic uncertainty is certainly an important campaign issue.
ReplyDeleteThe superintendent has acknowledged the need for a reorganization of the Central Office. Her efforts are laudable. However, it is critical to recognize that the Board of Education, for better or worse, is charged under the City Charter with the creation of all positions within the school department.
Specifically, Section 1-516 of the Charter directs as follows: "Said Board shall appoint a Superintendent of Schools and such number of assistants, principals, teachers, nurses and janitors as it may deem necessary and prescribe their respective terms of office and duties." Therefore, whether we are "lay persons", or simply mere mortals, the members of the BOE remain those citizens charged with evaluating and implementing any plan that creates new positions. The exercise of our legal duty should not be construed as "throwing rocks" at anyone's head.
I have not heard unfair critiques of the plan-- in fact, last night many constructive suggestions were made which I am hopeful will be reviewed and which could form the basis for creating a "specialist"-level position that could manage the most critical functions of the proposed directorship with less of a financial burden upon the taxpayers.
12;18 how would you know that unless you were he and hmmm blogging anonymously.
ReplyDeleteSteve, you have the voice of reason. I applaud your intelligence and your determination to do the right thing.
ReplyDeleteMr. Colarossi, I wasn't thinking of the BOE members when I referred to people who are throwing rocks. As I said, the BOE is certainly acting within its authority. And I do believe that BOE members are sincere when they disagree; I don't see it as mere politics as usual. I just hope everyone understands that the superintendent lacks the ability to conduct miracles like that of the loaves and fishes. Her solutions are not perfect, perhaps are not even good, but I know of no one who could do better.
ReplyDeleteI still do not understand how one person can possibly evaluate principals. No one can possibly understand the depth and scope of their individual performance at the helm of separate and unique school populations and consequent dynamics. Why can't we get wise to the fact that teachers, parents, and students can give the best possible feedback as to the strengths and needs of each individual school.There are simply some criteria that cannot be evaluated without the input of those who are directly affected by the climate of a school building. It is the school community, itself, that should become empowered to monitor and guide the positive direction of a school. School surveys are a step in the right direction, but these need to be taken very seriously once the data is compiled. How else can our schools possibly improve?
ReplyDelete