Board of Education Candidates

Position Papers - Please remember to VOTE November 8th!

Karen A. Murphy, Independent Candidate

1.     Qualifications

Budget and personnel issues are among the most frequent areas of decision-making by the Board of Education (“BOE”),
usually displacing deliberations on educational policy by a wide margin. Issues such as developing three year operating
budgets and six year capital budgets, selection and retention of teachers, setting compensation and employee benefit plans
levels, and developing union contract provisions are recurring agenda items for the Board of Education. Based on
experience and qualifications, I am probably the most qualified candidate to address these issues. 

I am an attorney and actuary with an extensive financial background. I have more than 30 years of executive-level financial,
HR and legal experience.  Prior to forming Stamford Financial Group, Inc. an investment banking firm providing consulting
and actuarial services to the insurance industry, I directed Citibank's Insurance Mergers & Acquisitions Division, practiced
ERISA/Employment law at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, was hired as Chief Actuary for Johnson & Higgins of
Philadelphia, and served as an actuary for Social Security Administration (Medicare). For more information on my
qualifications and background please go to the Independent Party’s website at: http://independentpartystamford.com/KarenMurphy.html

Further, in today’s world, legal mandates based on state and federal legislation, judicial decisions, and negotiated union contracts frequently impose substantial
constraints on the local board's policymaking authority. I will not be dependent on the superintendent’s and the staff’s policy proposals and information.
As an attorney I will be able to delve into the legal constraints and suggest alternative solutions/options for the Board’s consideration and not just legitimize the
superintendent’s proposal as so many school boards do.

As someone who has an extensive background in mathematics and statistics, curriculum and other proposed changes will be based on sound research, facts and data. 
The Board must make informed decisions and not simply embrace change for change’s sake, or acquiescing to proposals that may actually subvert advances already made.

Finally, as an Independent, I will hold the Board, the superintendent and City officials accountable. Board members must leave their party affiliation at the door!
For too long now Board members have neglected one of the primary duties of the Board – school infrastructure – while the city politicians have been using bond
proceeds to build Trophy Projects. The City raised $173 million in bond proceeds in calendar years 2007 through 2010, and less than 8%, or $13 million went to the
schools … despite the fact that an independent assessment of our schools says that approximately $175 million is needed in school building improvements. The $3.75
million in 2008 Qualified Zone Academy Bonds are also not accounted for.

 2.     School Superintendent - Attributes or Characteristics

One of the Board’s most important responsibilities is to select and appoint a chief executive (i.e., the superintendent) to whom responsibility for the administration
of the organization is delegated.  Although I have no litmus test for the superintendent, the attributes and characteristics I would like to see in our next
superintendent include:

1.      Prior experience as a superintendent or assistant/associate superintendent as well as experience as a principal and teacher
2.      Track record of improving student achievement
3.      Knowledgeable of the best practices for maximizing student achievement
4. He or she should not be afraid to boldly set goals, such as 90% of the third graders will be able to read by the end of the second year of the superintendent’s
contract, and then challenge the principals and teachers, and put in place the programs and resources needed, to achieve these goals
5.      Analyzes programs and performance based on facts rather than opinions
6.      Ability to delegate authority while maintaining accountability
7.      Promote increased principal and teacher participation and leadership in the decision- making processes
8.      Maintains open channels of communication publicly and privately
9.      The ability to create an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect with Board members and among teachers, principals, parents, taxpayers and other stakeholders
10.  Sets high standards of integrity for himself and for others.

3.     Role of the BOE and the Superintendent

There is a need for clarity in the role of the Board and the superintendent. Frequently we fail to differentiate between the policy-making role of the Board and the
administrative role of the superintendent. When the Board and superintendent understand and respect each one’s role in district governance and administration, they
are able to set clearly defined roles for increasing student achievement.

A review of Connecticut General Statutes is necessary to assess how clearly the state defines the primary role of school boards as policy making and delineates
executive and managerial role of the superintendent.

The Board of Education is basically an agent of the state. The Board has such powers and duties as provided for in Connecticut General Statutes.[1]The Board
provides for the supervision of the schools by appointing asuperintendent who serves as the non-voting, chief executive officer of the Board. The superintendent has
executive authority over the school system and responsibility for its supervision.

The duties and responsibilities of the superintendent include, but are not limited to:
1.     Fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of the office of the superintendent as required by the laws of the State of Connecticut and by Board policy;
2.     Recommending curricula and policies to the Board and implementing curriculum and policy decisions of the Board;
3.     Making administrative recommendations on items of business considered by the Board;
4.     Assisting the Board in the preparation of the short and long-term operating and capital budgets for the school system;
5.     Staying abreast of educational trends and developments;
6.     Establishing and implementing a process for keeping the Board up-to-date on developments, initiatives and issues in the District, state and nationally; and
7.     Performing all duties incident to the office of superintendent as assigned by the Board.

Excluding curriculum and policy duties, which are discussed below, the duties of the Board include (i) appointing the superintendent, (ii) appointing teachers unless
the Board delegates such authority to the superintendent, (iii) maintaining the school infrastructure, (iv) negotiating and approving union contracts, and (v) preparing the
operating and capital budgets for the school system. Further the Board has the authority to perform all acts necessary for it to carry into effect the powers and duties
imposed by law.

In order for the Board to fulfill many of its duties, including developing a succession plan for the superintendent, the Board should encourages the superintendent to,
from time to time, bring principals and teachers into meetings of the Board who: (a) can provide additional insight into the items being discussed because of first-hand
involvement in these areas, and/or (b) are principals or teachers with future potential that the Superintendent believes should be given exposure to the Board.

             Curriculum Decisions:

In Connecticut curriculum and instructional methodology are largely under the Board of Education’s control, subject, of course, to certain federal and state mandates.
Specifically, in paragraph (e) of the Connecticut General Statutes (“CGS”) Section 10-220 –Duties of boards of education – it states:

Each local and regional board of education shall establish a school district curriculum committee. The committee shall recommend, develop, review and
approve all curriculums for the local or regional school district.

The Board does not have the authority to delegate its curriculum decision-making authority to the superintendent or to any third party. Notwithstanding, the
Board should seek the advice of the superintendent in curricula matters, and the advice of others to include: school government councils, parents, students, school
administrators, teachers, principals, citizens, local elected officials and any other individuals or groups the Board deems appropriate.

Further the Board and (and in my opinion) each committee of the Board, including the curriculum committee, should have the authority (subject to appropriations)
to obtain advice, reports or opinions from internal and external counsel and expert advisers and the power to hire, at the expense of the District, legal, financial and
other advisers as they may deem necessary or appropriate, without consulting with, or obtaining approval from, anyone in advance.

Finally, it should also be noted that with the passage of P. A. 10-111, An Act Concerning Education Reform in Connecticut, and the adoption of the national academic
standards, known as the Common Core State Standards, the state is playing an ever increasing role in setting and establishing policies and the core curriculum for the District.

             School Policies

As previously noted many school policies are legally mandated. The responsible party for developing, adopting and implementing such state and federal policies is
usually the Board of Education.  For example, CGS Section 10-221 - Boards of education to prescribe rules, policies and procedures - provides, among other things,
that the “Boards of education shall prescribe rules for the management of the public schools… board of education shall develop, adopt and implement written
policies concerning homework, attendance, promotion and retention.”

As stated above, the Board does not have the power to delegate its policy decision-making authority to the superintendent or to any third party. However,
the Board should encourage suggestions from, and confer with, the superintendent, experts and others to understand the pro and cons of all policies considered
in order to make informed policy decisions.

4.     Middle School Reform

The “the old rigid tracking…[as described in Gary Klein’s July 25, 2011 Letter-to the Advocate’s Editor with] four or five tracks, determined by some nebulous
formula with no opportunity for the student to move up or down” should have been eliminated years ago. Such tracking was found discriminatory and unacceptable
in 1967. (Hobson v. Hansen(1967, 1969)). How this unconstitutional rigid tracking continued in the Stamford schools until relatively recently is despicable.

1. Middle School Reform has both positives and negatives. The positives include:
   The reform allows for flexibility in ability grouping so that students do not become tracked without the clear ability
   to move from group to group.
2. Students are no longer in the same instructional group for all subjects. Instead students are grouped based on performance
   in math and science and there is also a separate grouping for reading and social studies, which is a positive, but,
   could be improved.
3. There are presently three groups in math, and two in all other subjects which ensures that many students, but not every
   student, in middle school has an opportunity to take part in challenging programs. Also children in the lower groups are
   not receiving the additional recourses they need for better learning.     
4. Increasing the instructional time for core classes – math and reading – is constructive and necessary in order to
   improve achievement.
5. Adding advisory periods in which students address topics like work habits, social interaction, and personal growth
   and responsibility are positives.

Notwithstanding the positives, the Board should revisit Middle School Reform. It appears that the middle school reform was not accurately presented to, or
properly analyzed and evaluated by, the curriculum committee and the Board. Apparently an enrichment period was promised to students who are ahead of
the curriculum but that did not occur. Also the wide disparity in students' abilities within each grade level in Stamford School District was not properly accounted
for. I am also of the opinion that:

1. The principals, teachers and, if applicable, the school government councils at each school should determine how
   many flexible groupings are needed to appropriately serve the children who attend that school.
2. Limiting reading to two flexible groups is almost guaranteeing failure for students who are at the lower levels of
   academic achievement. Students who need more attention will not receive it. Also students at the other end of the
   spectrum will not be challenged and the students in the middle will be just that, caught in the middle.
3. Grouping children for reading and math instruction can be a useful way to improve learning, if you do so based
   on ability. Students who need additional support in reading and math should get remedial help as soon as a problem
   is noted.  Delaying such help means a student is performing below grade level, which can be both demoralizing and
   possibly require intervention in later years that may never get them up to their grade level.  Simply put, if we want
   to improve student achievement and build self-esteem and confidence, we need to step in and help them as soon as
   a problem is discovered.
4. Flexible grouping for reading and mathematics has beneficial effects that outweigh any stigma of homogeneity. If not
   in middle school there will be ability grouping in high school and students at the lower levels of achievement will be
   singled out. Under P.A. 10-111 the Board will be required to provide remedial services to high school students who
   are unable to successfully complete any of the required courses or exams.
5. We can significantly improve student achievement by requiring that every student reads at grade level - that means
   the focus should be on reading even at the expense of science and social studies for some students. How can a
   student pass social studies or science if he or she cannot read?
6. With the adoption of the national academic standards, Common Core State Standards and the on-going support the
   state is providing to curriculum committees, principals and teachers throughout the state needed to implement the
   standards, Stamford will be at disadvantage if flexible ability grouping and not mixed ability groupings is the norm
   in the state.

Simply stated, heterogeneous grouping (different academically skilled students are in the same class and everybody
is mixed) is not a fair way for educators to deal with the wide disparity in Stamford’s students' abilities.

5.     Budgets – Funding art, music, foreign languages, etc.

The Board’s primary focus must be on core subjects not because we are judged by NCLB, but because every child
should have a chance to be exceptional. I believe every child can achieve academically and our low-income students,
primarily, blacks and Hispanic students, must dramatically increase their competence in reading, math and science.

The Board must also fund for art, music, foreign languages, sports, etc. However to accomplish this objective, the
Board must understand that the BOE’s operating and capital budgets are intrinsically linked to the City’s operating and
capital budgets.

Taxpayer dollars that are wasted and unaccounted for on the City’s side of the budgets siphon off funds that
could available to meet the needs of our school system.  Lack of financial controls and an internal audit function that
characterized the prior administration and have continued to-date have resulted millions in underpayments of medical
premiums, incident after incident of embezzlements (many believe we have only seen the tip of the iceberg)  … deprive
our schools of much needed, hard-to-come-by dollars.

The City has limited resources for capital projects. The City’s and the BOE’s capital projects goals must be well
defined, prioritized and aligned to meet the infrastructure needs of the schools and the community. Spending on trophy
projects – $67 million for a one mile Urban Transitway, Mill River, Old Town Hall, the Waste –to-Energy Project – at
the expense of our schools is irresponsible. 

The members of the Board, the superintendent and others must demand that the City and the BOE:

1. Prepare and submit to the Board of Finance, the Board of Representatives (and in the case of the BOE to the Mayor)
   for approval or modification meaningful 3 year operating budgets.
   
2. Develop appropriate long-term capital budgets. In the case of the BOE this would require evaluating the capital needs
   of all of our schools and looking at all options, including building new schools. Further if our schools have been
   short-changed, all bonds proceeds that should have been allocated to the schools should be accounted for. Demand that
   the school system receives a fair share of all new City general obligation bond offerings.
   
3. Implement at both the BOE and City levels modern, affordable and competitive employee benefit plans.

a.      The health care reform levies a 40% nondeductible tax on the annual value of employee health plan costs that
exceed $10,200 for single coverage or $27,500 for family coverage. While the excise tax doesn’t take effect
until 2018, the BOE and the City needs to analyze options and develop reasonable medical plans as soon as
possible. If the current annual cost increases continue, the BOE and City medical plans will easily exceed the
aforementioned costs ceilings directed at Cadillac plans.

The taxpayers should not be required to pay for “gold-plated” medical plans, and definitely not be penalized
for providing excessively rich health benefit plans. The BOE and the City should identify the plan changes that
are necessary to comply with the cost ceiling limits (appropriately adjusted) starting with the current, on-going
union negotiations.

b.      Implement pension reforms which most states and municipalities are attempting to do. At a minimum the
final average salary computation should be moved from 1 year to 5 years, the early retirement age should be
increased to at least age 62, the use of sick and vacation days to buy retirement benefits should be eliminated,
and a Bad Boy provision should be required in all retirement and retiree health plans.

c.       Eliminate the 10% Pay Plan for the Mayor, his cabinet, clerks of the works and others. These employees and
so-called “contractors” contribute 5% to the Pay Plan and receive a 200% match. The largest, most profitable
corporations in the U.S. don’t offer such plans to their employees.

d.      Eliminate retiree health plans (aka “Other Post-Employment Benefits” or “OPEB” plans) to the fullest
extent permitted under law.

e.       Properly benchmark for the City and the BOE salary levels and employee benefit programs. Note that
the current Board members would not even approve benchmarking for the custodians’ salaries and benefits.
For further details, see link at:
  http://boardofreps.org/committees/personnel/2011/items/p28040/p28040_bof2d_110609.pdf

4.     Insure best practices have been implemented throughout the City and the Stamford School System.

6.      Top Priorities for Superintendent

1. Revisit middle school reform immediately, if the Board has not already done so.
2. Implement all state mandates that have been proven to improve student achievement as soon as practicable.
3. Make sure that our less than effective teachers do not gain tenure. Start whatever process is necessary to
   remove ineffective paraeducators, teachers, principals, and administrators.
4. Demand detailed operating and capital budget guidelines (with clear explanations for the reasons underlying
   the guidelines) from the Board of Finance before the budget process begins in earnest. The interim superintendent
   should be doing this now for the fiscal 2012/2013 budgets. It is important to recognize that the October 2011
   revaluation will probably have a significant impact on residential tax increases beginning with fiscal year 2012/2013.
5. See my response to Item 5 above for the corrective action that is needed for the BOE’s operating and capital budgets.
6. Begin the planning for a new school immediately in order to have a shovel ready project if segments of
   Obama’s Jobs Bills somehow get passed. Although it may be difficult, actively seek state and federal funds
   to build a new school and/or substantially upgrade an existing school.
7. Consider student based budgeting.
8. Engage an outside firm to help improve the City’s educational delivery system and student performance while
   simultaneously savings costs. The firm, for example, would help identify and remove the steps in the system
   that are not necessary and do not add value at the administrative, instructional and student learning levels.

7.     Accountability

Parents, teachers, principals, the superintendent and the Board members must hold not only themselves, but
also our City officials, accountable. The failure of the City to have a qualified controller, an internal audit function,
and qualified HR/employee benefits personnel, which have been absent for more than a decade, opening the door to
years of financial abuses and embezzlements, jeopardizes the funding of our school system and lead to a downgrade
in the City’s bond rating in the Spring of 2010. The new auditors issued in 2010 an unheard of 47 page Management
Letter in connection with the fiscal year 2010 audit. Unless all City and BOE officials are held accountable the fiscal
support to provide all the educational programs our children deserve will be in jeopardy. Stamford Achieves should
want to understand where each of the Board of Finance candidates stands on issues as well.

8.     Other Issues

The strongest path to the educational success of all children in the City of Stamford requires, among other
things, that: (i) there is an effective teacher in each classroom, (ii) for students with low levels of achievement the
focus should be on reading at a minimum at grade level, preferably at goal, (ii) for students at or above grade level
the programs should be challenging, (ii) principals should have more authority over his or her school and be held
accountable,  (iv) for elementary and middle schools uniforms should be the norm, and (v) the disciplinary polices
should be reviewed.

I would like the Board to also consider and evaluate longer school days and years as an approach in closing
the achievement gap. Implementing such a program would, among other things, allow struggling students to attend
two periods each day in either reading or math, and the other students without such needs, to enrich their learning
experience through another elective course or an Advanced Placement.