HOT Schools Revisited

I am one of nine members of the Winchester Board of Education. At our regular monthly meeting on January 8, a new unproven program, claiming to improve education through the arts, was presented to us for our approval. The request was for the board to sign an agreement, that night, with the State of Connecticut to support a long-range plan that required local funding. The Higher Order Thinking Schools Program—HOT Schools, for short—is a program sponsored by the Connecticut Commission on the Arts, which would provide $240,000 over six years.

The program’s mission is as follows: "(HOT) Schools create school cultures in which learning in, about and through the arts, in a democratic setting, promotes intellectual and academic growth that allows each child’s voice to be celebrated and enables each school to continuously work toward its own unique vision." I’m confused about the meaning of the phraseology used in this mission statement, yet I fully understand that there cannot be any accurate accountability to determine if these mission standards are met or not met. I felt this was another unproven feel-good program that takes money away from programs that could improve basic reading, writing, and math skills.

Does this plan have merit? Certainly it does, but we must ask ourselves whether the short- and long-range costs of the plan are in line with our ability and desire to fund it. No study was made by the board to determine the plan requirements. We do not know how many parents were given the right to vote or if they understood their obligations to the plan. This should have been done before signing an application with a 99% chance of being approved.

Proponents for this program claim that Winchester’s cost for the six-year period would be $27,450. The way educators spend money, one good copier with paper and ink cartridges plus labor costs would eat up all that money in six years—and then some. I felt and still feel that the hidden costs, at the local level, in this program will be extreme. Other than cost, inadequate time to investigate this issue, the question of both schools being in the plan, and the question as to how the plan would affect test scores led to the plan’s defeat by a 7 to 1 vote.

The Superintendent of Schools immediately took the floor to condemn school board members for not approving her proposed agenda, and she claimed that BOE members were impeding the progress of students. It appears to me that our superintendent, who is an employee of the school board and the most active member in school board activities, was attempting to shift blame to school board members for the plan’s failure. The HOT Schools plan had failed because there was an untimely and ineffective presentation for a plan that had no record of success.

One week later, on January 15, I received a phone call from our board chairman asking me if I would support a plan that included both schools in the HOT Schools program. I said no, not today, because there is no time to study the plan. In the next few days I found that other members had received similar calls from the chairman or other board members. Near the end of that week I received a call from the superintendent’s office that there would be a special board meeting on the HOT Schools issue on January 22.

The agenda for the meeting on January 22 read as follows: Call to Order; Roll Call; Business—Presentation of a District-wide Higher Order Thinking (HOT) Schools Program Application; Public Hearing.

The presentation began with a lengthy dog and pony show that presented little additional information on the plan. The meeting became unruly when the chairman refused to explain the reason for calling the special meeting. The chairman ruled the motion out of order. His decision was properly challenged and seconded, but the chairman refused to bring the challenge to the floor for discussion as is required by standard rules of order. He attempted to justify the meeting by claiming that we were considering a different motion! Thus the procedures used to call the special meeting on January 22 were less than honorable, and the claim that the main issue was different for the January 8 and January 22 meetings is ridiculous.

The actions of the chairman were clear; he was informing the board and the public that he had dictatorial powers over the school board, and that he alone was empowered to do anything he wanted in the name of what’s best for the children in the district. He proclaimed that as chair he had done—and would continue to do—what is proper and right, and that he would exercise the responsibilities of the chair for the best interests of the district. Well, now! This well-prepared political statement told me that other elected school board members have no right to be a partner in the decision-making process as to what is proper and right or what is in the best interest of the district. The arrogant and egotistic actions of the chairman send a very poor message to the board and citizens of the Town of Winchester.

The motion to apply for the HOT Schools Program in both elementary schools, made by a very strong proponent of this plan, passed 6 to 3. The issues that had resulted in defeat of the plan at the January 8 meeting remained, but four members who originally had voted against the plan changed their minds and voted for the plan. It appears that the four were hoodwinked into believing that they were only making an application for a program, and that they could cancel the program at a later time. To me this rationale would be similar to asking someone to jump out of an airplane without a parachute because he could cancel his action later if he wanted to. To then imply that taxpayers could torpedo this plan at the next Annual Town Budget Meeting is pure gobbledygook, since it is well known that taxpayers cannot cut anything in the education budget other than the total dollar request. Should the proposed education budget be reduced, the chances are very slim that a program providing approximately a half million dollars from the state would be cancelled.

Since those who were involved in a dubious process to have the Winchester School Board revisit the HOT Schools issue refused to explain their actions at the meeting on January 22, I give you my view: I question what took place between January 8 and January 22 to result in a special meeting being called to revisit the HOT Schools issue. I believe that a clandestine meeting or meetings were held on or before January 15 to conspire how to force the school board to reconsider a vote on the HOT Schools issue. On January 18, a local newspaper with direct access to the Superintendent of Schools wrote an article that said, "Infuriated by last week’s decision, school administrators, teachers and parents petitioned members to come to a compromise. After negotiations, board members unofficially agreed last week to allow Batcheller School to apply for the HOT Schools program, provided that the Hinsdale School also apply." Questions remain: Where were these meetings held? Who was present at those meetings? Who was involved in negotiations? One of the many phone callers I heard from after the issue was approved said it best when he said: Joe, these people are probably sitting in a back room congratulating each other because they feel the end justifies the means.

When I arrived at the meeting on January 22, I received a package containing a copy of a 37-page application and seven letters sent to the school board chairman, which I perceived to be the reason the meeting was called. I was told earlier by another board member that our chairman had received three or four phone calls after the first meeting. I received eight, and none of the callers were infuriated because the plan was voted down. The next day I discovered that all seven of those letters addressed to our chairman were from employees of our school system who could financially benefit from the adoption of this plan. Most echoed the superintendent’s comments at the January 8 meeting. One letter, dated January 1, 2002, was written long before any discussion on this plan began. Five letters were dated January 16, a day after a clandestine vote seems to have been taken to revisit the issue. The other letter was dated January 15. Question: Why was a vote taken before the complaint letters were received? Another question: Would you have called a special meeting on the HOT Schools issue based on seven letters from your employees who could receive additional monies in their paychecks should this plan be implemented?

Have a nice day.