The Chameleon Language of Edu-speak - Letter to the Editor published in the Ridgefield Press April 14, 2016

Edu-speak is nothing if not a chameleon language that takes on definitions that aim to obfuscate rather than clarify. 

The argument that this BoE budget should be supported because it is Ms. Baldwin's first makes sense only if we are now throwing Deborah Lowe under the bus after praising her repeatedly. It begs credulity.

The Board of Finance volunteers worked hours to arrive at a financial formula that they believe is fair and equitable.

But I believe we are throwing millions at a school system without solving structural issues. 

The bulk of the problems surround the Special Needs community, a current mix of in-house programs, lavish outside contracts, settled lawsuits and exorbitant legal fees under no central authority that I can discern. Why are taxpayers just hearing about this via a doubled increase for 'education'.

I question why our technology is lacking, why we buy student laptops instead of having each child use their own. Why can't students plug in whatever tool they want to use to learn, be it laptop, tablet or phone?

I question why $93k is set aside for text books, not because we need them but because some teachers don't know how to access educational materials via the internet. We plan to pay for these teachers to learn to do that so I also question the $900k set aside for teaching teachers. Shouldn't teachers bear some responsibility here? Are principals doing their jobs? Are we hiring the right teachers? 

I am concerned that state shared education funds may be reduced $900k if the legislature has its way.

Despite the many hours put in by the Board of Finance, I question whether the upcoming budget passes muster. 

Written by a proponent for strong education.

Letter to the Editor - published in the Ridgefield Press on March 21, 2016

At their March 8th meeting, the Selectmen dodged their Charter responsibility by not making a recommendation on the requested 5.72% education budget increase. The Selectmen folded to political pressure from a special interest group representing 20% of our Ridgefield community. 

What ruffles my feathers is that we elect these people to make balanced decisions that affect the entire community. So did they?

Sort-of. By recommending that the mill rate not exceed 3.5%, they were saying that the BoE request was too high.

The question has now moved to the Board of Finance and they should have lots of pointed questions.

I re-read a letter-to-the-editor from 2004. The BoE and it's supporters made the same arguments then: state mandates, special ed, DRG, falling behind and real estate values. 

To begin: real estate values have fallen precipitously since 2004 despite steady increases to the BoE budget year after year -- mostly to support a larger school bureaucracy, more hires, a larger head count. Does this have a familiar ring to it?

About $800,000 of this year's school budget goes to training teachers. Are we hiring the right teachers? I don't understand why the teachers don't contribute to this training.

Nevertheless, over the years, nothing much has changed scholastically in special ed or standard ed. Yet this year the town has cut almost $1,000,000 in the highway department budget and will most likely be expected to cut planned fire fighters. These cuts will affect all of us in order to satisfy an insatiable 20% of the community. Is that a balanced approach?

The town's books are audited annually. Connecticut has an education auditing department. How about using it, Board of Ed? Let's make sure the kids are getting the benefits, not the bureaucracy.

From a strong proponent of great education.