New Haven Independent

Posted by: FairHavenResToo | October 9, 2009 8:22 AM

What? Destefano is perfectly fine with raising taxes again, and for what? We already have astronomically high taxes and what have we to show for it??

Posted by: fearless | October 9, 2009 9:04 AM

Last night was a farce . school reform in new haven starts with king john , mayo, and all of the downtown mayo cohorts running this travesty forced out by the voter. i'll take anyone else with credentials, except garth harries or anyone connected with king john/mayo. these two are responsible for the mess, why do they get to fix what they f----d up?isn't thirty years of mayo enough? where are term limits when you need them?

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | October 9, 2009 9:17 AM

We already pay a lot of taxes due to poorly performing schools in terms of higher police costs and social services. We either pay in the beginning or the end for the decades of poor performance.

I think people can support contributing more up front for a solid plan to reform education. The thing is, it can't always be more money to solve the problem. Amistad does more with less, why can't all of NHPS? When the Mayor gets rid of dead weight like paying $50,000 for a pothole detective, we will take him more seriously and entertain paying more taxes for education. Let's see him do more on eliminating the patronage jobs in BOE as a place to start looking for more money for education reform.

Do that, and I am willing to support a solid plan for education reform that looks at raising taxes.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | October 9, 2009 9:30 AM

Parents wake up all they are trying to sell you is this type of school system.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/American-Apartheid-Education1sep05.htm

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/education/blog/2009/04/jonathan_kozol_on_de_facto_sch.html

Nothing more than segregating the school system
and corporate control.

Posted by: James | October 9, 2009 9:32 AM

The mayor needs to begin to look for inefficiencies in his own system and doing away with nonsensical, outdated, no-show positions like the City Clerk before he should even dare mention another tax increase. As it is, my taxes are far higher than comparable and superior metropolitan areas. For the woefully inadequate services we receive, any mention of an increase is just absurd. We have a bloated bureaucracy that, in many cases, serves only to perpetuate the bureaucracy. As it is, I have every intention of leaving this city as soon as the market will allow me to recoup my foolish investment in New Haven. The taxpayers of this city are not a bottomless well from which the mayor can draw funds whenever he fancies a new program. Start by showing us some reform and some meaningful cuts. Not laying off the guys who cut the grass on the Green. I'm talking about high-dollar, low return positions. Once I've seen that the Mayor is serious about cutting inefficiency, waste, and patronage positions I might take him seriously. As it is, I see him as nothing more than a self-aggrandizing egotist willing to enact his social experiments at the expense of the hard-working citizens of this town. He runs this city like a social-sciences field experiment.

I agree that we need school reform, and that this will cost money. But we need to look at cutting costs in a meaningful way. Instead, the first place the mayor goes is back to the taxpayers for more money. How this man continues to get reelected is amazing to me. Not that people vote for him. When you look at the slate, he's the most qualified inmate in the asylum. What amazes me is that there's not a single, qualified, intelligent individual who is willing to run. The last aldermanic elections showed us that people can win without the support of City Hall and that our citizens are not willing to allow the mayor to shove his puppet candidates down our throats (but apparently are willing to let the unions do so). How hard would it really be to beat this self-important ... ?

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | October 9, 2009 9:49 AM

Almost every organization in the world is making cuts like in this article about Harvard: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/education/09harvard.html

Where is it happening here in the City of New Haven?

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | October 9, 2009 10:29 AM

Jeffrey Kerekes you said.

We already pay a lot of taxes due to poorly performing schools in terms of higher police costs and social services. We either pay in the beginning or the end for the decades of poor performance.

I disagree. A study was done on why we have higher
police and social services cost. It found when unemployment is up crime is up.Also the study found that when more people lose there jobs,They turn to social services for help.The problem is not just poorly performing schools,The
problem is that unemployment is what is driving up taxes and the need for social services in this country.

Posted by: David Voss | October 9, 2009 10:34 AM

Instead of constantly bashing everyone, why don't people start talking about what THEY THEMSELVES can do to help. I have a multimedia campaign called Be There. Check it out at bethere.org. It answers the unending question: What can we do to inspire parents to become more involved in their children's education. People today are used to being influenced by media messages (to buy a car, drink a beer, etc.). Why not positive media messages for parent involvement? Check it out. It's working in 17 states. David Voss.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | October 9, 2009 10:42 AM

How could anyone be surprised that the parental component is shallow and incomplete? When was the last time the mayor and any of his staff seriously considered public input? Public hearings are a farce. The budget process is a study in incompetence, deceit and rubberstamping. Other votes are cooked up in private pre-meeting caucases and the city finance projections are intentionally shrouded from public knowledge or examination.

I agree with Jeff - show me the plan and cut the fat. Talk to me about higher taxes when you can lay it on the table, honestly, forthrightly and without any dancing on the head of a pin.

Even then, it's a tough sell. The mayor can't fix potholes or put in a sidewalk without borrowing money, can't re-pave its streets without asking the state for money; indeed, can't even balance its books without tens of millions in state dependency payments. Our property taxes have nearly doubled in six years and the only reason they didn't go up this year, is because it's an election year. Next year - mark my words, there will be a tax increase and the mayor will hang it on school reform and "it's for the kids." No fat will be cut. No meaningful parental or taxpayer input will be considered. It will be business as usual.

Posted by: Edward_H | October 9, 2009 11:03 AM

THREEFIFTHS

A study was done on why we have higher
police and social services cost. It found when unemployment is up crime is up.

Any links to this study or information on who did it? I would like to read it. I am sure others would as well.

Posted by: cba | October 9, 2009 12:30 PM

... john has not seen a tax that he wont raise or use, because his whole career has been sustained at the public trough

Posted by: robn | October 9, 2009 12:59 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with the person at this meeting who requested that parental involvement must be made compulsory.

Posted by: lance | October 9, 2009 1:16 PM

It's kind of hard to be an involved parent when you're doing a prison stint.

And it's the PARENTS job to make sure their kids have the opportunity to go to college, not the working stiff paying taxes and trying to save for their own kids.

...

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | October 9, 2009 2:10 PM

Sanctioning poor parents by making it "compulsory" for them to become educational role-models, is like a health system which refuses to treat over weight people for their heart conditions. Some may feel righteous about this kind of insistence, but do you think we will be successful in creating better parents through sanctions and punitive measures? And if not, then what?

The larger issue with the focus all on parents is that it takes the heat off of the professionals in the system. We already know that, yes, parental involvement can make all the difference. But if it is not present, great learning can still happen. Is it more expensive? Yes. Is it harder to accomplish? Of course. Is it possible at scale? Absolutely.
Can we afford to wait until parents get with the program? Absolutely not.

Parent involvement makes closing the gap so much easier. But instead of blaming the victims, a far better strategy would be to try out aspirational methods to gain parent involvement vs punitive methods which won't be enforceable. You cannot penalize the child for the shortcomings of the parent.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | October 9, 2009 4:40 PM

Edward-H
This is the study my friend from John Jay College
sent me.http://thecrimereport.org/2009/08/11/experts-crime-will-rise-as-the-economy-sputters/

http://www.thestandard.org.nz/crime-leaps-along-with-unemployment/

I also ask him to send me the link about Higher
police cost and he told me that than get overtime
pay when they make a arrest and have to go to court when they are called by the D.A.

Posted by: KoolAid | October 10, 2009 10:11 AM

Another city stop for King John , Mayo the puppet & the New Guy.....Trying to get everyone to drink the Kool Aid

The same people posting that they support this are the sameones 3 years from now that will be saying " see I told you it wouldn't work "

Your all Hypocrites

Posted by: Insider2 | October 10, 2009 1:30 PM

I don't know why you all continue to moan and groan. When the opportunity presents itself to replace King John and company the voters of this city put King John and his clowns back in power.

The present lot of mayoral runners are not up for the job but we have in the past 3-5years some very qualified candidates. But as usual the city voters/critics tore all of them apart before they could get out of the gate.

So folks stop belly aching and do what you do best and spend the next 2yrs complaining about what King John and his bands of merry clowns have or have not done.

Posted by: James | October 10, 2009 7:51 PM

Insider, I'm curious as to who you feel these qualified candidates have been? I like Ralph a whole lot, but I cannot take him seriously as a candidate. And apparently neither can many others. Elser may have been a decent candidate had he ever actually put any effort behind his bid, but that one petered out before it began. Hopefully the next election will see some serious candidates. I'll vote for the first person who steps forward that I believe is remotely qualified, but race-bating preachers and guys who campaign from bars just don't make the cut.

Posted by: robn | October 11, 2009 9:13 AM

FIX,

I don't disagree with your point that systemic change can improve our educational system, but that won't fix the core problem of parental involvement. Lack of parental involvement is not a physical condition like obesity; its a behavior and it can be changed if parents know there are legal implications. Parents or guardians don't have to be Rhodes scholars to be involved; they just have to take the time to make sure their kids are attending school and doing their homework.

Posted by: Eyes On New Haven | October 11, 2009 11:34 AM

You can say that there are no mayoral candidates up for the job - but you'd be mistaken. While Angela Watley doesn't have a long history inside New Haven politics, she has been involved in the community for years, and she promises to bring a voice to the people of New Haven who have been shut out over the last 16 years. Ms. Watley has big plans for increasing parental involvement and creating accountability in the school system! Check out her website and consider her on November 3rd; if you're so against DeStefano, you have no excuse not to.

Posted by: Insider2 | October 12, 2009 2:00 AM

To Eyes On New Haven:
My friend I have nothing but love and respect for Ms. Watley. However her political involvement and knowledge is very limited. She has no idea as to how government works in this city and I have had the chance to speak with her and hear her speak. Lovely lady but she can't govern this city.

It will take more than just bringing a voice to the people. During this whole campaign she has failed to establish a vision for the city of New Haven regarding the finances of New Haven, Economic development, identifying new sources of revenue for the city and has taken a very soft stance on a poorly administered under-performing educational system. Again great lady but can't govern this city.

Posted by: Insider2 | October 12, 2009 2:35 AM

Hey James You can't run a city when you don't know it. How in the world can anyone say that they want be mayor when they don't even know every part of the city. And yes you're correct you can't campaign from a bar. This guy only wanted to see his picture and words in the paper.

I agree with you that this campaign should not be about race and yes the back door double dealing Black preachers have been nothing but a major block and very divisive in bringing the African Community and this city together.

Unfortunately I believe that we are going to have swallow hard and watch King John, Ron Smith ... and Bosie Kimber who thinks that the city hires too many people with vowels in their names and Mayo who has done nothing but see his job as raising money for King John instead of educating our children continue to destroy this city. We have 3 people running against Johnnis Boy and not one of them come with a platform. It's too late for anyone else to enter the race (unless they are a write-in candidate) and I don't see that happening.

So what do we do? We have to make these clowns accountable along with a gutless BOA for the next 2 years. Mayo needs to go he wasted the last 13-16 years of career being nothing more than a puppet for King John so really there is no need for him to stay on. Also with the new guy from New York I think the mayor is preparing him to take Mayo's place ...

WOW it's going to be a long 2 years.

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | October 12, 2009 9:39 AM

ROBN, If what you mean by parental involvement is that we cut down on truancy, there is already a law on the books. If you set the bar that low, then I agree with you.

I guess there are different manifestations of parental involvement. Trying to require parents that their kid attends school is one that I'm all for.

What I think is fruitless is to expect that adults, many of who had little education and little money growing up, suddenly become educational role models. Whether it is reading to your child every night or promoting the value of higher education, not every parent has that capacity. Lack of education leads to poverty which leads to a lack of education which leads to ...

The most realistic way to break the cycle is not to try to fix poverty and all of its effects (something that we already tried to do and failed miserably). It is to educate more children so that they will emerge from college no longer pre-destined to be poor and lacking the skills necessary to navigate today's global economy.

Posted by: teachergal | October 12, 2009 10:37 AM

think i pressed the send button too soon.

The point I am trying to make is that until we build the relationships in school that create an environment where kindness and collaboration rule, then we will never see any change. That is all of what the SDP (School Development Program/Comer) teaches. This has nothing to do with money.

I recently attended a workshop where a teacher cried as she shared a story of how she was treated by a superior. Apparently she was reading a story to the children to illustrate the use of "simile" when she should not have been according to her superior. She was written up because of this. Come on folks is that really necessary??? Is that how we keep teachers in our city? Can't we do better than that?

Building relationships is key to success and it is the opinion of many well known scholars and researchers as well. This doesn't take money, it takes a change in attitude. Kids deserve to go to schools where they are respected and feel safe, as do the many city teachers that are dedicated to the education of NHPS children.

JMHO

Posted by: teachergal | October 12, 2009 12:32 PM

As my first posting was not sent so my second may not make sense. My initial posting was in response to threefifths sharing of Jonathan Kozols articles (happen to be a big fan). J. Kozol shares pertinent information and insights into urban education and are surely worth the time. He is generally on the same page with James Comer and his philosophy.

Robyn, i generally agree with you but unfortunately there are bad parents everywhere and we have to do the best with what we have. Our job is the children and if we can bring a few parents on board that would be great. SDP in New Haven strongly supports more of an active role of parents in the school.

Posted by: Almost Ex-resident | October 12, 2009 1:18 PM

Gonna sell my house and run like hell.

Posted by: Westville Mom | October 12, 2009 9:17 PM

ROBN & Fix: I generally agree with the thread of what you're saying, but would like to make a distinction. Instead of parental "involvement" I would suggest parental "education." It's a chicken and egg argument. We, as a society, keep emphasizing the children, but the problem is that often they are too far behind and sometimes damaged by the time they even get to school. Even with high-quality education, they often return at the end of the school day to chaotic, dysfunctional homes.
This country has already put "welfare-to-work" in place, so apparently it is constitutional to require certain things in exchange for benefits. I think they put the cart before the horse. What is needed--even before "work"--is basic competency in parenting skills. If we could change "welfare-to-work" to something else---say, a requirement that parents attend parenting class in conjunction with co-op service in the daycare classroom alongside their children---importantly, WITH qualified, educated teachers who would mentor them---then maybe, just maybe, we could break the cycle. I believe something like this has already been implemented in England, although I can no longer recall the source of the info.
It's likely that most people--no matter their political persuasion--would be in favor of welfare benefits that actually yielded positive results, as opposed to the endless reinforcement of the permanent uneducated underclass (please excuse the cliche) that we seem to have in New Haven.
In addition, the inclusion of fathers in this plan would be key.
I'm wondering why this kind of thing is never discussed in this country. It's okay to require work but not to require competency in parenting? I don't get it. Perhaps responsible parenting LEADS TO responsible studying, working, etc., no?

Posted by: Lee | October 14, 2009 5:50 AM

Follow this link to research and specific suggestions for how a school system can engage parents: http://www.ia-sb.org/assets/6822accf01e64833a1a3f99b1fddd217.pdf