The Windsor Journal

The most important thing to be done to improve student learning is to assure that teachers are given classes of students who have similar instructional needs. In this way, each teacher can devote herself or himself to instructing the entire class, all day long. The teacher can then give a single lesson in each subject to the entire class at one time, without having to break up the class into smaller groups to teach the same subject to different groups, or give them instruction that is not focused to their needs. Any question asked by a student would then have relevance to all other students. The teacher could give the same homework to the entire class and expect them all to be able to do it. This change will maximize the instructional time for the student, and maximize their learning.

But the current practice in public education in the USA, as well as in Windsor, is the opposite. Each elementary and middle school class is made up of students with the widest possible differences in instructional needs, with the consequence that every teacher is overwhelmed by the task of teaching to so many different levels at once. She or he simply cannot devote more than a fraction of a full day of instruction to any student. We, in effect, minimize the effective time of instruction.

The reason for the wide differences in instructional needs in each classroom is that, following the educational practice of the last forty years, the administration selects the students of each teacher’s class according to how different their academic performance is, such that each class of a grade has the same percentage of students of all the different performance levels. The students are selected for each classroom such that some students are high performing, some average, and some slow learners. This arrangement of students is typically known as “heterogeneous” grouping. Various theories are put forth to justify this practice, but in fourteen years on the Board, I have yet to hear or read a rational argument for it.

The reason why heterogeneous grouping leads to dissimilarities of instructional needs is that academic performance is the measure of instructional needs. A student in a grade who has difficulties learning has instructional needs that require detailed explanations, with several repetitions, and a slower overall pace. Another student who is of average performance and has more background knowledge requires a faster pace, with the use of broader abstractions and less repetition. Otherwise he is wasting his time. Finally, the student who is high performing begins each day with even more background knowledge than the average student, and can and should be taught at an even faster pace. These differences in performance, and hence of instructional needs, show up in the assessments of the students. Similar instructional needs are determined by similar academic performance.

This clearly implies that we need to place all students with similar academic performance in the same classroom – the opposite of our current practice. The schools would then have two, three or four separate classes, depending on the number of total students and the spread of instructional needs. If students are grouped and instructed this way, according to similarity of instructional needs, their effective instructional time will be enormously increased, since there will be only one instructional group per classroom. (Students who are better in one subject than another can change classes for the subject, as they do at high schools.)

As can happen, a student will occasionally change his or her performance over time, becoming either a higher or lower performer. In such cases, they should be moved to higher or lower leveled classes in the grade, accordingly, in order to maximize their instruction. No one should be “tracked,” i.e., placed in a predetermined permanent level for all time from and early grade. If they begin to perform well, determined by regular assessments, then they should be required to move up a level.

Therefore, the appropriate thing to do is for the administration to issue the minimum standards of performance needed for each level, and have the teachers determine by assessments where they should be placed.

The problem of wide differences in instructional needs in the same grade is aggravated considerably by the practice of “social promotion.” Like most other public school districts, Windsor typically retains no students from the second though the fifth grade, and very few in the first, sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. The consequence is that the spread of performance widens as the years go by, as several students who perform below grade level are regularly promoted. To minimize this problem, the administration attempts to provide special assistance to students who did not meet minimal competency by the end of the previous school year, with indifferent results.

Therefore, Windsor should retain all students not achieving minimum competency by years’ end. This will establish a true high standard, and provide struggling students with the opportunity to properly learn the background material needed to understand the subject matter of the higher grades. In this way, they will not be promoted to where they are doomed to continual failure.

In order to help the students and their parents understand how the student is doing early in the year, a standard report card should be used in all grades. Currently, a progress report is used in grades one through five. The progress report is confusing, and does not clearly communicate to a parent if their child is performing below their grade level. The parent needs to know early in the year, in no uncertain terms, that their child is on course to be retained, in order to be able to take actions to help their child, and to not be surprised if the child is retained at the year’s end.

More resources in the form of tutors or paraprofessional can be added to the lowest performing class of each grade, to minimize retention. But the main benefit is to have a full day of focused teacher instruction, all day long – something that cannot possibly be provided under the current practices of heterogeneous grouping with social promotion.

To maintain the standards for promotion, the teachers should be the final authority on retention – not the administration, as is the current practice. It is the teacher who deals with the student on a daily basis who can best judge whether or not they have met the minimum standards.

With a standard report card, and promotion standards carried out by the teacher, the student and parent will know that they must work with the teacher to avoid retention of the student.

With leveled instruction, students will know that they can do well in a class full of their peers if they pay attention and study, and that if they do not put in the effort, they will receive lower grades. School will no longer always be easy for some, and always difficult for others, as is the case now in grades one through eight. All students will be challenged, without being overwhelmed by material and instruction that they do not understand. Teachers will have the time to instruct, and will have the authority to be taken seriously by the students. It will be possible and desirable to give significant amounts of homework to students from the early grades, and expect them to do the work, accustoming them to hard, independent intellectual work needed for high school, college, and the workforce.

Paul Panos

The freak winter storm that hit our area this past Saturday knocked out power, phones, internet, and cell services.  In these difficult times Windsor and its residents and employees came to the aid of our residents.

The Emergency Operations Center (“EOC”) was opened and fully utilized for the second time in 2 short months in over a decade. The EOC was and still is staffed at this writing 24/7 to assist residents with providing information on where to find shelter, get gas, and food among other things. I would like to thank all Town Hall staff and the volunteers that worked during the storm in many capacities. This includes and is in no way limited to Peter Souza, Emily Moon, Dr. Charles Petrillo, Enita Jubrey and many others that gave of their time and efforts.

The EOC was only a part of the emergency operations that we in Windsor had available to us. L.P.Wilson Community and Senior Center was forced into duty as a shelter for our residents providing warmth, showers, battery charging locations, and sleeping accommodations, granted ‘roughing’ it, for over 300 residents. Myself, and fellow Town Councilors Aaron Jubrey, and Randy McKenney assisted at various times where we could at the shelter and with meal times. We observed the phenomenal efforts in trying times put forth by Social Services, Senior Services and Recreation and Leisure staff and other Town staff.

I would like to thank Paul Goldberg, Kristin Formanek, Rich Henderson, Rick Liegl, Anne Wakelin, and the many others not named and not forgotten and noted by this Councilor and the other Councilors.

A group led by Dana Plant and the Windsor School Food Services should be applauded for feeding 3 meals a day to all Windsor residents looking for a warm meal. I would be in trouble if I did not recognize my wife, Michele, and daughter Analiese and Jaycee John Jary and other Jaycee volunteers helping with food service and registration.

I would be remiss not to acknowledge the Custodial staff for the efforts they had to put in to keep up with cleaning a building occupied with several hundred people at any given time.

Even in the shelter we had residents put out by the storm, and still looking to help where they could. This volunteer spirit is what makes Windsor a great place to live and work. Thank you all that put in the extra effort.

No power is a problem. We have all realized that over the last few days as we managed or escaped from the cold dark confines of our powerless Windsor homes.

The lights may have been out, along with access to TV, e-mail, phone chargers and other comforts and conveniences like heat and refrigeration, but we never lost any of the real power we need to do some pretty good stuff for ourselves, our children, our homes and our town. And, we get to use all our real power on Tuesday November 8, 2011 – Election Day.

That’s when our votes can light up a process that really needs some energy. The process is participation in town government and the energy goes to help shape the course for the future of our town. The people we choose to elect have expressed their vision for our future that thy will represent when elected. The Town Council and Board of Education members will make many decisions that directly impact the future of your children by actions taken for our schools. The quality of our lives and those of children and seniors are impacted every day with the allocation of resources to programs and services. Our home values change by decisions made that impact our neighborhoods.

These and many more reasons make a lot of sense in providing argument as to why voting in local elections and actively participating in local process makes a difference. Yet, when it comes to voting, the lights are mostly out. The power is off.

Barely 1/3 of voters exercise their voting rights and the privilege of being able to have a say in the democratic process we have fought so hard for in our nation and around the globe.

That’s a problem – and one that we can fix – easily.

Voting takes very little time – a few minutes off the track on the way home and a few minutes to check in and fill out the ballot. The impact adds a lot to setting the tone and tenor for the forward motion we need to overcome the many challenges and obstacles that face us.

These challenges will be tough and grinding as we move forward.

For the leadership team that will drive the Town Council agenda, the effects of the bad economy will put a lot more pressure on the town budget. State and federal resources can’t be counted on at current levels unless there is a quicker and larger swing out of recessionary economic doldrums. That means that programs and services will again need to be assessed and prioritized and critical decisions need to be made as to what level – if any- they continue.

That’s always a more difficult task as Windsor has done a great job of operating a very lean and direct budget and level of service. There is not much room to move so every new budget challenge makes for tougher decisions.

Here’s where voter power comes in. Your say in these decisions – on Election Day, in budget workshops and referenda or with contact and communication to elected and other town officials helps a lot. People can have an impact close to home on these issues if they participate. And fewer do all the time.

Windsor has a great number of large issues with huge impact for the future. Smart things we do now can save on future costs providing a bigger bang for the investments if they are done right. The Great Pond development promises to add a few thousand new residents in the next decade or two. The impact of that issue is huge when applied to service delivery. There needs to be a good deal of leg work, investigation and input to get it right – and the Democrats have been working at it but there’s more to do and watch out for as that develops.

The quest to get the right balance for economic development is always a tough one. Windsor has reaped great benefit from a good plan that has been executed over a few decades that provided good resources to make this town very attractive. These good investments paid off well. The challenge is to keep on working at it and it’s harder as resources get tight.

We have a dump to close some time soon – it always requires attention to make sure it is done effectively and at the lowest cost and once completed –it’s done. That takes monitoring and good planning. We have roads and bridges and buildings that cannot fall in disrepair and become larger budget burdens because of neglect. Effective police and fire make our town safe and help people feel secure here – that’s important.

For the council it’s a huge list of items for which they keep on moving and looking forward with good plans and long term thinking and they look backward to assess what worked and didn’t as a tool to help light the path for that brighter future.

What’s still missing and a growing problem – is much needed and wanted citizen participation.

For the leadership team that gets to move and guide our schools this will be a big term. A new Superintendent will be selected – that choice is important, that person will have a full agenda and we need someone who is up to the task and energetic enough to spark some real difficult change.

We will transition our elementary schools for grouping of grades at the same time we give our youngsters access to full time kindergarten. Meantime we need to continue to implement curriculum strategies that help our children succeed in the learning environment.

A big challenge facing Windsor and all towns is the relationship between real learning assessment, educational progress and achievement and the misconceptions of motion up or down from one-size-fits-all standard tests.

If more parents participated, paid attention and learned about the components of the system and impact on their children in this very complicated process we’d all be better off as we made clearer choices on focus and direction for the schools and what’s working or not.

No question there has been great progress and no question the challenges get tougher. It is truly amazing that the leaders of this Board of Education have begun to implement a significant and complex transitional plan with minimal financial impact.

But the next 2 years the schools will also face uncertainty as federal and state funds may dry up and make the great plans on the books even more challenging and decisions even harder.

All of this begs for more people to spend more time to learn and act on things that impact them right at home.

The campaign question posed by the Windsor Journal to the Democratic Team was what is the biggest problem and how much will it cost to fix it.

Power outage is a problem – a big one. Our democracy and our government depend on people power to get the job done. When the power is out – just like at home as we’ve all seen – things don’t work.

Our town is no different – but people can be different this year. In 1991 51% of the voters did the good citizen thing and voted. We’d like to see more energy than that – but it’s a better number than the 32% that voted in 2009.

Participating does make a difference. It is important. This is not sexy, high profile, big drama, made for TV politics that we are all loving to hate. Ours is closer to home with more direct impact than any other political action you take. The biggest problem is that we are losing ground here. BUT....the cost to fix it is - FREE – the right to vote -FREE, Go to vote November 8 -FREE. Call your local elected official or attend a Town Council or Board of Education meeting - FREE. Help your children with homework – FREE, Attend the Council and Board budget workshops starting in February FREE. Vote in referenda…you get the point.

We can rename Windsor CT USA Home of the FREE and turn on some real Windsor power. Start up the power generator - hit the switch – Election Day is Tuesday.

BY

The Democratic Team

During the past 10 Years the town of Windsor experienced new commercial developments and active adult communities resulting in $10 plus million in new tax revenue while household income and inflation only went up 25%. This should be good news for keeping property taxes in line with inflation yet the results below are deplorable.

1. Property taxes for a median price home UP 100%

2. BoE Budget UP 50%

3. Student Enrollment DOWN 20%

4. Student Performance Bottom 25% in the State

The democratic candidates having held the majority during the past 10 years are responsible for this track record and running for re-election based on a recent claim they are fiscally responsible.

PLEASE Get Involved! Vote REPUBLICAN on November 8^th and send a message to the Democratic Party this track record is not fiscally responsible!

Thank you for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Democratic Town Council candidates to the two questions regarding the Town of Bloomfield.

 All problems in Bloomfield, large and small, inter-relate with each other so closely that it is almost impossible to choose "the biggest problem."  Taxes effect quality of life which effects education which effects housing, ad infinitum.  However, if I were to select one which would have the greatest impact on all others, it would be lack of a defined economic development plan.    

 It does no good to recite the reasons why we got to this point.  Your question is what do we do about it?  I propose the following:

 The hiring of a consultant to coordinate our new vision for the Center of Town.  The cost, depending upon several things, will be $25,000 to $100,000.  This coordinator will pull together, after consultation with Town officials, Stakeholders who own property in our defined Center of Town, businesses located there and residents from the community a concept for the Center.  We are presently considering a Village atmosphere with a different mix of shops, the closing of one small road,  friendly walkabout and rest areas, and a destination concept of businesses for target consumers outside of Bloomfield.

2.      We have started dialogue with stakeholders regarding formation of a special tax and design district for the Center of Town to promote a partnership between the Town and stakeholders to pay for the project.

3.      We need someone, whether Town employee or consultant, to spend full time attracting major corporations to town, either corporate offices or regional warehouses, such as the Home Goods and Pepperidge Farm facilities, which produce substantial taxes in personal property as well as real estate.  Retention of current taxpayers also would be a priority.

4.      We need to give specific directions as technical advisors to our Bloomfield Economic Development Commission to assist us in contacting the regional and national "players" to accomplish number 3 above.

 With a well-planned economic development program, we can spread out the tax base for the future to keep  residential and commercial taxes down and yet fund the other important reasons people will want to live and work in Bloomfield.

 Among the methods we can use to accomplish our objectives are tax increment financing for infra-structure improvements necessary to the new or expanded businesses, tax abatements on real estate for up to seven years, depending upon the money spent in building, renovating structures and/or bringing new jobs to town, expedited permitting at Town Hall and, if needed, a Town central job bank to assist in finding the workers necessary for the new facilities.  The abatements would cost taxes in an amount not quantifiable here, because they are based upon the costs of building or renovating.  However, we donít give abatements on personal property.  We have found that the extra money in taxes in personal property over what we had been collecting in real estate taxes at the site makes up for a significant portion of the real estate taxes abated.      

 The bottom line is, as they say in business, "It takes money to make money."  If we consider this as a business investment, the residents and businesses in town will reap the rewards of our efforts.

Rest assured that the Democratic candidates for Town Council, which include myself, incumbents Joan Gamble and Leon Rivers, and newcomers Wayne Hypolite, Joe Washington and Donna Banks, will work diligently,  in cooperation with all Council members, to accomplish Town goals.  Our Democratic "team" represents a dynamic group of experienced community leaders, ready to serve the residents of Bloomfield with distinction.

Sydney T. Schulman

Mayor, Bloomfield   

 
 

                                                Bloomfield Town Council Democratic Candidate Information

Syd Schulman - Incumbent Mayor, Attorney, past president Lions Club,

Joan Gamble - Incumbent Councilperson, Chair of Economic Development Committee, former art teacher,

Leon Rivers - Incumbent Councilperson, Chair of Education Committee, retire from Dept. of Corrections,

Wayne Hypolite - former Councilperson, former Chair of Board of Education, State Treasurers Dept. employee,

Joe Washington - TP&Z member, Veteran, former Administrator with Postal Service

Donna Banks - ZBA member, Assistant to Brad Davis (WTIC), past President Intramural Football League

Contact Info:  David Baram, Chair, Bloomfield Democratic Town Committee             860-242-5555  w     860-966-8880       cell