This is part of an ongoing series of guest posts about issues in Norwalk. yourCT.com is a non-partisan site dedicated to airing all sides of a issue. That can’t happen without valuable contributions from our readers.
By Bruce Kimmel
The Quality Review of the Norwalk Public School System, done by Cambridge Education, was published during the first week of February. From the moment it was delivered electronically to Norwalk, efforts have been made to distort its findings and minimize its importance. Here are some facts that have been ignored: Cambridge Education is a world-renowned evaluator of school systems. It was asked by the state to evaluate districts that have been in need of improvement for three years or more. Cambridge personnel are good at their jobs and can distinguish between narrow perceptions and prevailing conditions.
The text of the Quality Review Report for Norwalk is 14 pages, single-spaced. It is divided into three sections: a half-page discussion of district demographics, a one-page overview of what the district does well and what the district needs to improve, and a 12-page section on the “main findings.” The first paragraph of this latter section tells all:
“The Norwalk Public School District has several strengths, but many areas that are in need of improvement. Its main strengths lie in some of the operational systems such as information technology, provision of assessment data, facilities management and purchasing, and capital investment in school buildings.” That’s it. The remaining 12 pages focus on the areas that have substantial problems.
These pages are divided into five sections, called domains. The first domain, and clearly the most important since it deals with student achievement, is called Attainment, Learning, Teaching, Curriculum and Assessment. It is rated “below basic level and needs substantial improvement.”
The second domain, Leadership, Culture and Accountability, “needs substantial improvement.” The third, called Management of Human and Fiscal Resources, “needs substantial improvement,” the fourth, Operational Systems, “needs improvement.” And the last, Stakeholder Engagement and Satisfaction, “needs substantial improvement.”
Norwalk’s report card includes one “below basic level,” three “needs substantial improvements” and one “needs improvement.” A student with these grades would need some type of intervention. And that is exactly what’s going to happen to the Norwalk school system:
A week before the Cambridge Report was delivered, the state Commissioner of Education, Dr. Mark McQuillan, issued a press release stating that teams from the state Education Department would be working with Norwalk and eleven other districts to enhance student achievement.
The commissioner noted that, under existing legislation, the state has been “given the authority to evaluate each district’s strengths and weaknesses, work with each district to develop a focused and prioritized plan for improved student performance, approve certain expenditures for reform, and monitor progress.”
The second page of the commissioner’s release makes clear that the Cambridge Report would form the basis for the revised district improvement plan.
The state calls its new relationship with Norwalk a “partnership.” In New York City, where I have been a teacher for 21 years (and have worked with Cambridge Education on two occasions, once as a classroom teacher and once as a reading teacher), we often use the term “takeover” to describe this type of relationship. Whatever we call it, what’s clear is that some of the Board of Education’s oversight and monitoring responsibilities will be taken over by the state.
The timing of the Cambridge investigation, last September, in one particular sense was unfortunate. At the time, BOE committees, except for its Policy Committee, rarely met and, as a result, board members were not in a position to seriously question many of the important agenda items that came before them. There were also serious concerns that the board was not rigorously conforming to Freedom of Information guidelines. And there was a general belief that the board needed to be more transparent and provide the public, as well as other city agencies, a more complete picture of its operations.
Since then, the BOE has developed a monthly schedule of committee meetings and has begun to post meeting notices more widely. And unlike last year, board members thoroughly examined the 2008-09 operating budget, which is now posted on the BOE website for public perusal. Hopefully, the relationship between the BOE and stakeholders in the school system, which I believe include other city agencies and the general public, will improve in the coming months.
It has been suggested that board members should not dwell on the findings of the Cambridge Report. I would suggest the opposite: The board’s several committees should closely examine those areas of the report that fall under their purview. There is a lot to digest in the report, there is a lot to investigate, and there is a lot that needs to change.
Because of various problems in the district, one might say that the proverbial buck now stops at the state. But in the long run that buck stops at the Board of Education. Board members should not allow themselves to be marginalized by either school officials or officials from the state. That’s not what we were elected for.
