Pages

Friday, June 24, 2011

BOE Reinstates Housemasters, West Rocks Assistant Principal

Norwalk High School and Brien McMahon High School will each keep all four of their housemasters next year. In addition, West Rocks Middle School will retain its second assistant principal.

The Norwalk Board of Education decided Thursday night to overturn decisions made a week earlier to cut one housemaster position at each school. Also, all of the housemasters, as well as both assistant principals at West Rocks and Ponus Ridge middle schools were made 12-month employees. Last week, those four positions had been cut to 10 months.

“I am so happy for the kids and so proud of our Board of Education,” Brien McMahon principal Suzanne Koroshetz said after the board's unanimous vote. Koroshetz advocated for the restoration of four 12-month housemasters with the help of several Brien McMahon administrators, parents and teachers, who cheered and hugged after the vote.

At the meeting's start, Chief Operating Officer Craig Drezek told the board that $500,000 had become available for next year’s budget after changes in the district’s health insurance projections — mostly because of revised estimates because of employee contract changes.
Another $100,000 became available because of cuts in repairs and maintenances. “We budget some money for a rainy day fund. Well, it’s raining,” said Drezek.

As part of her budget reinstatement plan, Superintendent Susan Marks had initially put forth a proposal to reinstate the Central Office’s grants instructional specialist at $162,000. But school board members Steve Colarossi and Artie Kassimis resisted the proposal. “I suggest this position be a lower-level position,” said Colarossi, who advocated for the reorganizing of the Central Office.

Marks, Board Chairman Jack Chiaramonte and board member Jodi Bishop-Pullan all spoke on behalf of the Central Office. “The Central Office is being devastated In order to improve processes, you need people,” said Marks. Bishop-Pullan spoke about the complexities of federal grants and reporting that required expertise.

After a lengthy conversation, Marks suggested she would take the grants position off the table. She insisted, however, that she be allowed to reorganize the Central Office with the $80,000 budget surplus that remained after the restoration of the high school and middle school administrators, as well as any other funds that become available in the coming months.
“We have to give the superintendent latitude to come up with a plan and not have the board micromanage her,” said board member Glenn Iannacone.

The board also discussed elementary teachers and class sizes. Last week, the board voted to cut nine elementary teachers. That number stands. However, the board decided to add four reserve teachers to next year’s budget. Drezek said the funds budgeted for unemployment benefits would fund the reserve positions because no teachers will be let go. All positions are being eliminated through attrition. One reserve teacher has already been slated for Cranbury Elementary School.

After a review of class sizes by Drezek and Bruce Mellion, president of Norwalk’s teacher union, Drezek said only a few classrooms hovered near the limit of 24 students per class, the teacher’s contractual limit. “We’ll be monitoring the situation very carefully, week by week,” said Marks.

44 comments:

  1. The superintendent clearly indicated her top priority -Central Office. She is playing a game. She will take the $80,000 she fought for and she will find additional funds so that she can do as she pleases over the summer. No one will be watching over the summer... Please, BOE, micromanage her. She has only once concern. Isn't it obvious by now?

    ReplyDelete
  2. You have no idea as to what you are talking about. Central Office is key to keeping the schools up to date with Connecticut Standards, ordering books for all the schools an PD for the teachers, just to name a few. Dr. Marks is not out to get anyone and does not have some sinister plan that she will envelope over the summer! The curriculum dept. is now just an empty shell. Lets see how the schools feel about that when their requests for guidance, help, direction in their curriculum comes about! Some of you folks seem to have your own agenda, which is tearing up Dr. Marks, let her do her job for goodness sakes. There is nothing obvious at all going on, every time she makes a suggestion she seems to get knocked down, and just disregarded! Again, lighten up and let her do her job!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. 6:38, YOU have no idea what goes on at central office.

    I have a suggestion for the grants dept. Steve is right and there is a solution for handling the grants. There is already a bookkeeper, who happens to be a real accountant on board at central office. Since 90% of grants has now become an accounting task, give that person a stipend and put him in charge of the reporting and the calculating. He is very capable. The only piece left to portion out is the writing of the actual grant, which is usually 90% the same grant as the last several years. This could be contracted out to the grant evaluator or to the Language Arts administrator. Much of the new grant also includes the data that could be gathered by the bookkeeper. It's more math than writing abilities needed there. The principals are now in charge of their budgets and are responsible for spending according to the grant regulations. Check this out, Steve, and you will discover that I am right. Talk to the bookkeeper and ask about his education and qualifications.
    Just trying to help.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Believe me I do know whats going on in Central Office....and it's not pretty. Your comments on the bookkeeper, I'm assuming you are talking about the one in the curriculum dept. are well said, and I happen to agree. However, you comments on Dr. Marks are unjustified and this malious rattling and mudraking needs to stop. This does not help the dire situation our system is in! Let's get back to team player and stop pointing fingers with false information and pure and plain old meaness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Of all the things that middle school needs... a second AP? Really? I wrote a letter to the BoE and Union Heads before the meeting and asked that any extra money at the middle school level should find its way to the kids at West Rocks via books, technology, an extra teacher or some, ANY other academic support for Dr. Moore's kids. (I even asked why they had cut the second AP at WR and not Ponus?)

    I also asked for the justification for a second AP in the first place when the other two middle schools are fine with one (net difference in student population is ~35 students compared to NH.)

    But no, same old political maneuvering by the same people to keep things the same!

    No vision...no strategy...no out of the box thinking regarding how to drive up academic achievement. Just status quo. It is a sad day
    for Norwalk.

    Well...time to change battlefields.

    Legislative change is the only way to clean up Norwalk. Time to press on. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. So I must be insane fundrasise and fight for middle school academic rigor when the BoE clearly just wants to do the same thing over and over again.

    Without state legislation evaluations have no consequences for anyone in education...NASA or the NFT. So what's the point folks?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, 7:18, I am talking about the person in the curriculum dept. He is very capable and could certainly handle the accounting and reporting for grants.

    Please don't deny that there is a problem in central office with the way things are handled from the top. A true leader is needed to calm things down. A leader who knows how to work WITH her staff. I'm sure Dr. Marks is a fine educator, but she didn't have the background to deal with what she is facing. I think she is way out of her league. Sorry to have to say that. Really sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  7. What is the role of the assistant superintendent in all of this? Also, what is going to happen to the person who has been filling the now-eliminated position of director of elementary education?

    ReplyDelete
  8. @8:31 AM, the Assistant Superintendent will take on much of the work of the positions of those who were eliminated. The person who filled the position of Elementary Ed Director will be offered another position. No one loses a job.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Superintendent's had a year to work on the Central Office. She can make a re-org. plan on her own-- doesn't need anyone's permission to offer it to the BOE for discussion.
    But the problem is that she hasn't managed the CO. So what is there for anyone to "micromanage"?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good point, Lisa. My thoughts were more of a concern about just giving her the $80,000. She might find additional funds and rehire some of the positions that were eliminated in central office. Restructuring and redefining what people do at c.o. is much more important. Use the money to find consultants to help her with that if she can't do it herself.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I was very disappointed to see that all the "found money" was used to restore administrative positions instead of teaching staff. Perhaps because all the administrative positions were restored on the building level these administrators can take on additional responsibilities to assist CO. Also, the only department in CO that wasn't impacted by cuts was special education Can the 5 administrators take on additional assignments?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Literacy has been decimated. Shame on the decision-makers. All of them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Literacy and other things!

    Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432304576369421525987128.html

    DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY
    The popular historian David McCullough says textbooks have become 'so politically correct as to be comic.' Meanwhile, the likes of Thomas Edison get little attention.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Let's get this straight. Two brand new assistant principals at each of the struggling middle schools to "assist" two of the most troubling administrators in the system...Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And just where do the needs of the kids fit in? Norwalk just continues to be Norwalk, and will reap what it sows. Lisa D.R...., it seems you are the proverbial "one hand clapping" here, and nobody is listening.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No insurance coordinator, no grants, no public relations, reduced HR dept., curriculum directors covering more than one subject, no director of elementary education, reduced secretarial positions, no staff developer for IT...the backbone is about to crack. There are only 8 hours in a day, 5 days a work week. Obviously something is going to give...then what? Blame will be placed on administration and the little guy will get cut. Fabulous

    ReplyDelete
  16. 5:24 A.M. YOU ARE RIGHT! HAS anyone even looked at surrounding communities? we have 11,000 students, 19 schools---and there is no one to support that--1 assistant superintendent of curriculum...yea right..
    many mistakes have been made...decisions based on those who just don't like a person--so punish the system...
    decisions made on gossip, lies, and stories...
    it is a very unfortunate time for Norwalk...been here too many years...and its the same story...put in who you want, hold grudges for years, don't communicate to those in positions to find out exactly what they do...just assume.
    let union presidents bully the system, the people they serve, and treat the superintendent as if she is noone!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Gripe all you want about central office, but those positions are not necessary. The truth is most decisions are made at the school level. Central office subject area leaders are mostly there to write curriculum, which comes around every five years or so. Most principals are savvy enough to take care of curriculum in his/her own school. Very little interaction occurs with the subject area administrator. The grants position can and should be handled more efficiently. This person does not write new grants. It is simply handling the reports necessary to get the grants. An accountant, who is already on board, can do that. As for the director's job that was just eliminated, evaluating 12 principals without clout is not necessary. That needs to be done by the superintendent in order to get principals in line. The director of elem ed does not write curriculum. Insurance person? Seems like things are running just fine. That's a clerical job anyway. Secretarial staff? Plenty.
    Stop griping about central office!

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's just more of the same. There may be a few new faces, but same backstabbing CO staff who have the BOE influence and votes. The only ones who suffer in the long run are the kids and the tax payers.

    There's no plan for CO or a vision for NPS, they're just getting by day by day. Now they'll be getting by with less. The schools that are good, will continue to be good because they never needed the support from CO. However, the schools that need work, or leadership will suffer further. They should all be ashamed of themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The schools that needed work or leadership suffered anyway. Your point doesn't make sense, 6:22 - Leadership does not exist whether those positions were there or not.
    What we desperately need is a superintendent who evaluates principals and uses his/her clout to get the work done that needs doing. What we desperately need is someone who doesn't expend all energies fighting people, but leading people in his/her direction. It can be done. Central Office is looking for a good leader. All the people ever get in the superintendent's office are retired educators who can't seem to get along with others. Puh-leese don't blame it on central office as a whole. They would follow a real leader!

    ReplyDelete
  20. 6:28 my take is that Central Office should be stocked with leaders. If there were a true leader there then things would be happening to put us on the right track. I do agree that principals are not evaluated and continue to be less than professional with their staff members. In the past twenty years we have seen elementary and middle schools go to the principal plus one or more vice principals and still there are parents and students who are unhappy at the leadership. Why is that? Why not get rid of the principals who year in and year fail to move their school forward?
    After seeing a few of Dr. Mark's speaking engagements, I wonder if she is confident in the choices she makes. I do not believe she has a book of matches in her pocket to light the fire needed for improvement in Norwalk.

    ReplyDelete
  21. There is a lack of leadership-- no doubt about it.
    I was hoping that a republican majority would have changed things on the BOE-- but, Jack and Glenn are officially Kool Aid drinkers, along with Jody and Heidi and Sue Haynie. All very nice people with good intentions. But, no leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anyone else thankful that at least Colarossi and Kassimis held the superintendent's feet to the fire and didn't cave in to funding another 6-figure ineffective central orifice administator?
    If only Jack and Glenn were on board us taxpayers and our kids would have a fighting chance.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I hope they (Colarossi and Kassimis) will keep fighting for our kids! Too bad it's only two of them but I have hope.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 6:28 - I don't know if you are looking at a certain other member of the CO as "a true leader," but I know of no one else who is nearly as competent as the superintendent. Maybe you're not one of them, but there are still a few who are looking to a CO admin who wanted the superintendency. That is a person who would make me want to get out of Dodge! I hope no one would ever consider such an appointment, even on an interim basis.

    ReplyDelete
  25. total agreement 4:06

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nice knee jerk reaction--spend 500K on more administration...what a travesty on the Norwalk taxpayer.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Time to admit that we made the wrong choice for the top job. This woman talks a good game but has been rather ineffective at building a team and collaborating with others.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It was the superintendent who recommended restoring the housemasters (good move), bringing back the second assistant principal at West Rocks (not needed) and holding onto the grants director (not worth what she's paid)--- funny, but she didn't ask that money be saved for curriculim, management consultants or be spent on techonology, but ON ADMINISTRATION.
    At least now we know where Susan Marks stands.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Shame on all of you who keep putting Dr. Marks down. The current Board members (except Rosa Murray - who is the Principal of WRMS's best friend)hired Dr. Marks,but they will not allow her to do her job. Why do 2 middle schools need 3 administrative jobs? That money could have put into the instructive materials for the students. All of the positions cut in the CO will affect every child in this district. The bottom line is this, this district is run by the NFT and NASA union presidents and also by the principal of WRMS! Wake up people it is time to stop these people and let the BOE and Superintendent run the district!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sorry! The money could have been put towards instructional materials. Maybe it is time for Asst. Supt. to really evaluate the middle school principals who need 2 Asst. Principals because both schools are not meeting AYP standards!

    ReplyDelete
  31. The real admission should be that it really doesn't matter who occupies the office of superintendent in Norwalk. Due to an increasingly caustic dynamic that has been marinating for about the last 15 years, it is now next to impossible for anyone to succeed as superintendent. In many ways the system and its gatekeepers sold out after Ralph Sloan left. One can feel for Dr. Marks, as she was sold a bill of goods to turn the system around. It is way beyond the power of one person to do that in Norwalk's "gotcha" environment. Right choice? Wrong choice? In Norwalk it makes no difference anymore, for unfortunately, beggars can't be choosers.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 1;40 is telling it like it is, this thread is becoming the soap box for the NFT and NASA and their buddy on the Bored of Ed. The fact that they don't like the superintendent is a good sign, means she's doing something right for the kids and it's making them nervous. hope she keeps up the good work and hope they go on a long summer vacation and leave their blog fingers at home.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 2:33 I totally agree! I hope she keeps up the good work over the summer! She is making them nervous. We need to get back to what is important for our kids,our district and the taxpayers of Norwalk!

    ReplyDelete
  34. The union leaders have never been more powerful. Don't you understand that a lack of leadership left a gaping hole in the system? The weaker the leadership, the stronger the unions. This superintendent is not making it, for that and so many reasons.
    And stop the one person tirade about the Assistant Superintendent. Trying to deflect the attention off of your pal? How transparent! A tiresome argument from a cipher.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I can just imagine the person behind many of the negative comments about the superintendent, someone whom the superintendent probably "read" very well the first time they met. This is not someone the district can afford to have take over should Dr. Marks ever leave.

    Yes, Dr. Moore wields a great deal of influence. I read with amusement one of her comments about the need for her assistant principal. She made reference to the school governance councils that some schools will have to have. School governance councils don't take that much of an administrator's time. They require an extra meeting once a month. I wish the BoE wouldn't accept her comments as gospel.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Point of clarification: The 6:40 posting does not mean that Dr. Moore is the individual who would like to unseat the superintendent. Board of ed personnel know who it is.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I'm deleting the post above since it has unsubstantiated comments. Let's stick to the results of last week's meeting and what they mean for the district.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Looks like a certain person is back on the blog making sure negative comments are kept up about 'Board of ed personnel know who that is.' What's the matter, you didn't get the job you were interviewing for? It was a pleasure when you were kept busy with interviews and were not on here. Your accusations are as false as they come!

    ReplyDelete
  40. There is one certainty in the aftermath of the cuts and the restored positions...Certain people maintain hatred and jealousy toward a particular central office person and that sick, unfounded attitude is corrupting the district. In case you are still unclear, the hatred and jealousy is not against the superintendent. This sick attitude will prevail until the superintendent takes hold of this person and stops her. Susan Marks open your eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Consider me just another jaded parent from the dreaded private sector . . . but, I'm just so frustrated by the whole process and then get really fuming when people make crazy claims here but don't give any facts.
    So many posters keep pointing to problems in the Central Office. We hear that the superintendent is stopped from her "vision" by underlings or the unions. Or we hear that there are more palace politics taking place in the Central Office than even Shakespeare could have imagined.
    In my field, all that means is that there's weak leadership at the top. A good leader might not be able to get her staff to like one another, but she can stop them from fighting with one another. A real leader doesn't let anyone who works for her stop her from doing what she's getting paid to do.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Teacher evaluation has been mentioned a couple of time. FYI.

    Education Week,
    "Spotlight on Teacher Evaluation (2011)

    http://www.edweek.org/ew/marketplace/products/spotlight-teacher-evaluation-2011.html?cmp=EB-SPT-062811

    ReplyDelete
  43. I'm closing comments on this thread since they seem to be going around in circles at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

ShareThis