Blogs > All About Milford and Orange

If you live, work, or simply just care about Milford and Orange, this is the site for you. We'll provide you with interesting news about these communities. Most importantly we want to hear from you. Feel free to contact City Editor Helen Bennett Harvey, at or Brian McCready, Milford Bureau Chief, at

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Polansky blasts $2.1M education cut

By Brian McCready
Milford Bureau Chief
— Superintendent of Schools Harvey B. Polansky said Wednesday that the school system would have to reduce both staff and programs and will look at all options, including whether to close a school, in light of the Board of Finance cutting $2.1 million from proposed school spending.
The Finance Board voted Tuesday night to reduce the Board of Education’s proposed budget from $82.9 million, to $80.83 million, which still gives the school system a 3.7 percent increase. Polansky, however, said the district requires a 5.46 percent increase simply to maintain current services in the next fiscal year.
“This puts us in a very difficult situation,” Polansky said Wednesday. “Now we’re cutting staff and programs. We cannot absorb this magnitude of a cut. Every program and staff member is on the table. Staff will be reduced with this magnitude of cuts.”
Polansky said he and school board leaders will sit with aldermen and try to convince that panel to restore money to the proposed budget. If none of the cuts are restored, he said, the administration and school board would have to look at eliminating programs, and even closing buildings.
“Everything will be looked at,” Polansky said.
He said he understands a tough economy makes it hard for municipalities to increase budgets, but without the money, class sizes will increase, which the board opposes.
Aldermanic Chairman Ben Blake, D-5, offered Polansky, school board members and parents some hope that aldermen might look at restoring some money to proposed school spending.
“At first glance, some of the Board of Finance recommendations seem extreme,” Blake said. “We’ll do a review of the Board of Education’s need, and the needs of the entire city.”
Blake also vowed there would be some additional cuts on the city side of the budget.
Board of Finance Chairman Jack Skudlarek said Polansky’s budget presentation was one of the most comprehensive and complete he’s ever seen, and he was sure the board needs every bit of the money requested. But he said he felt something must be done to curb the spiraling cost of education.
But Joanne Rohrig, R-1, the school board’s minority leader, said, “I understand we need to be responsible to the taxpayers. At the same time, this is absolutely detrimental to the school system.”
“This will affect our programs, activities, and affect class size,” she said.
Rohrig said she would remain optimistic that the aldermen will reinstate funds cut by the Finance Board.
Mayor James L. Richetelli Jr. said further cuts to the budget would likely result in a reduction in city services, which he would not support.
“The Board of Aldermen has their work cut out for them,” he said. “I don’t know how we could get (the budget) lower than it is now and still maintain city services.”
The Finance Board approved a $175.42 million budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year, which represents a 3.7 percent increase from the current budget. The proposed budget would set the tax rate at 28.63 mills. The current tax rate is 31.77 mills. On average, a resident can expect his or her taxes to increase by 3.25 percent, but the exact increase is tough to calculate because Milford is phasing in its revaluation.
Register reporter James Tinley contributed to this story.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh Please - stop the fear mongering. If you and your staff had control of your facilities and students, you would be surprised what you could do with no additional programs.
Once you successfully demonstrate you have control, maybe then new programs can be reviewed. Until then, the taxpayers should not flush another dime into the Milford educational system

March 17, 2008 at 12:30 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee there is no administrative fat in the budget, let's scare teachers and parents. At first look at why would Milford need 3 assistant supervisors of special ed, a supervisor of tests, etc. Right there - it covers 500k - a quarter of the cut.

March 19, 2008 at 12:43 PM 
Anonymous a different anon said...

other anonymous x's two.... why don't you simply ask the three special ed supervisors what their jobs entail, since you obviously have no clue. Just for starters, each handles a different age group. The PPTs alone required for special ed services is mindboggling. Then go ask the superintendent what all the other administrators do. But, maybe that's too difficult for you to handle.

March 19, 2008 at 2:12 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe there are probably too many administrators - possibly not on the special ed side, but....still and area for more savings here. Today I was appalled to read the Supt has $1,006,650 in his budget for substitute teachers. If this is correct, using the $90/day figure paid for high school level ($75?) lower grades that means he need 11,185 substitute teachers. Now that is a real big number and a whole bunce of absent teachers. Talk about a double insult to the tax payor. What is being done about this? Maybe we do not need all the teachers we currently have
Not that I believe everything in the papers, but thank goodness for Edward Tamas Sr. The City really needs his insight!

March 20, 2008 at 9:19 AM 
Anonymous Pta parent said...

First of all, part of the money in the substitute budget pays for the computer system they use to line up the substitutes they need. It also pays a fee to area universities for interns who fill in around the school and handle other tasks. Lastly, there are some 600 teachers in the district. Substitutes are needed when they are ill, when they have to attend professional developement workshops (that will be the next thing you pick apart because you apparently have no clue) and when they have other issues to attend to during the day, like a PPT (which often the interns cover for). Ed Tamas doesn't have any understanding either about the implications of the budget numbers and why certain things are necessary. The numbers by themselves mean very little unless you have an understanding of WHY they numbers are what they are. Next year why don't you and Ed educate yourselves and attend the numerous budget workshops the superintendent holds in December and January. You may be very surprised to find that it all makes sense.

March 20, 2008 at 3:15 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

replay to PTA Parent
I have a clue I am a certified teacher with a masters in education and business. I prepare budgets for a profession. You are the clueless one. There is so much fat in this budget that a pig could be cloned with it. You hear what the Supt. wants you to hear. If you do not have a background in the budget process or accounting, don't bother to respond. By the Way, I did attend the Dec and Jan meetings - they did not make sense which is why I am responding to your nonsense

March 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM 
Anonymous a different anon said...

I'll weigh in on this subject too. Teachers are entitled to use their sick days just like workers in any company are. The only difference is that in a private company if someone is sick they often don't call a sub, but sometimes they do. It's called a temp. But imagine how much a company like BIC or ADP would spend if they had to cover every absence with a sub? Teachers get sick. They work all day with kids who cough and sneeze all over them. What would you propose the school do if a teacher calls in sick and they don't have the money for a sub? It's not like they can leave the class unattended.

As to Mr. Tamas. First of all, he claims the school district has 14 new teachers in next year's budget. It is only 9.5 and 4 of them are not really new. They are already teaching in the school system but the grant that has been paying their salary has been eliminated. So, the BOE must now pay the salaries if they are to retain the positions. You can ask the superintendent why these 4 positions are so important. The benefits for these 4 teachers are already accounted for so the taxpayer will not be paying anything extra for them. 2 of these 9.5 positions are needed for special ed and 3.5 teachers would be for a truly new program at the alternative ed school. The explanation given at the budget workshops the other poster mentioned, is that if these services are not provided for these students inhouse (i.e. a mandate), the district may need to outsource at more cost to the taxpayer. Again, educate yourseld and ask the superintendent why the services are mandated and necessary. As to Mr. Tamas' claim that the district has hired 60+ new teachers in the past five years, I cannot say if that is accurate or not but I am not holding my breath judging from his other inaccuracies. I CAN say with certainty that the school district did have to hire many new special education teachers over the past several years because of the settlement of a lawsuit called the PJ Settlement. It mandated that school districts educate the vast majority of special needs students in their home schools and in the regular classroom setting for the majority of the day. This meant no more keeping all of these kids in one school or together in separate classes. It is a very good law for these children, but costs a lot of money for the school district. It's all well and good to be upset about taxes. But if you would simply educate yourself as to how the school system works and why education is so expensive today you have many questions answered. You think you have a monopoly on education? I am an educated person myself and it all makes perfect sense to me. I could sit here and suggest perhaps you were sleeping. You just don't want to believe there could possibly be a legitimate reason for any of it because it would be contrary to your opinions.

March 20, 2008 at 5:21 PM 
Anonymous ACCOUNTANT said...

I have to agree with different anon. I do have a finance background so I feel highly qualified to comment. I also think its very self-righteous of you, anonymous, to think that only someone with a finance background could understand the board of ed budget process. I was at the budget workshops too and found them to be incredibly candid and easy to follow. It seems if someone does not agree you their opinion is worthless. Well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then.

March 20, 2008 at 5:45 PM 
Anonymous pta parent said...

REPLY to anonymous who said "I have a clue I am a certified teacher with a masters in education and business. I prepare budgets for a profession. You are the clueless one. There is so much fat in this budget that a pig could be cloned with it. You hear what the Supt. wants you to hear. If you do not have a background in the budget process or accounting, don't bother to respond. By the Way, I did attend the Dec and Jan meetings - they did not make sense which is why I am responding to your nonsense"

WELL KUDOS TO YOU ANONYMOUS. I don't need a background in accounting or budgeting to have an educated opinion on this topic. I am quite capable of thinking for myself, listening to and sifting through information and coming up with my own opinions. And, if the budget workshops didn't make sense to you perhaps you should have made an appointment with the superintendent and he would have answered any questions you might have had. But that wouldn't suit your purpose, would it? You've shown your true colors, end of discussion.

March 20, 2008 at 5:55 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did what I wanted to do - I opened the conversation.
The Budget is still fat and our schools are a joke outside of Milford - Other towns are laughing at us and we just want to throw money at it.
The Supt must gain control of the schools, admin. and teachers. They must all do their jobs - and Parents need to Parent.
Our School system is a joke - Dulin, Firn, sex in the bathrooms, male teachers with ponytails, pepper spray, substitute teachers dating students, BusRadio to calm our out of control students, bullying and bracelets and absenteeism. This is only what is seen in the papers, what else is happening. - If the system was under control, and the teachers and admin. had control of students and the schools - maybe they would not need all this money.
Obvioulsy there are good teachers and good students - but this is a very sad state of affairs and money will not resolve these problems - I would prefer my tax dollars be spent on the police dept.,fire department and the elderly. They would appreciate it

March 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To a different anon ....
Something has to be done about the special ed costs... other communities are not in the same stranglehold as Milford. Admin and the board needs to do more to get more from the state to cover mandated costs... Threatening teachers and the community is poor leadership and as another poster has said, Milford has had several years of poor leadership. I was optimistic about the new super.... not so much now!

And please tone it down... putting down other posters to shore up your argument only diminishes your credibility.

March 24, 2008 at 7:05 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Same ERG - Similar populations....just look at central office staffing:
Manchester, CT Central Office (population 55650)
1. Superintendent of Schools
2. Asst. Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction
3. Asst. to the Superintendent, Finance & Management
4. Interim Director of Human Resources
5. Director of Student Support Services
Milford, CT Central Office (population 53262)
1. Superintendent of Schools
2. Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning
3. Deputy Superintendent of Operations
4. Director of Human Resources
5. Director of Pupil Personnel Services
6. Supervisor of Adult and Support Services
7. Assistant Supervisor of Special Education (preschool/elementary)
8. Assistant Supervisor of Special Education (middle school)
9. Assistant Supervisor of Special Education (high school)
10. Supervisor of Curriculum/Reading
11. Supervisor of Assessment Services
12. Professional Learning
13. Director of Facilities
14. Assistant Director of Facilities
15. Custodial Supervisor
16. Food Service Director
17. Business Office Manager
18. Director, Information Systems
Wallingford, CT Central Office (population 44740)
1. Superintendent
2. Assistant Superintendent for Personnel

3. Assistant Superintendent for Instruction
4. Director of Pupil Personnel Services
5. Supervisor of Buildings, Grounds, and Custodians
6. Business Manager
7. Food Service Director
8. Director of Information Technology Services

"An educated consumer is our best shopper"

March 24, 2008 at 8:21 PM 
Anonymous Milford Parent said...

Dear the last anonymous:

Gee, just as a quick example, for Wallingford you forgot:
Coordinator, Special ED. Dept
Elementary Special ED. Dept. Head
Middle/High Dept. Head
Middle/High Dept. Head

For Manchester Central Office you forgot, just to name a few:
Special Education Supervisor (2)plus a
Secondary Spec. Ed. Supervisor
IEP Coordinator
Asst. to the Superintendent, Finance & Management
Accts Payable Supervisor
K-12 Lang./Arts Supervisor
Supervisor of Equity Programming

The state dept of ed changed from "ERGs" to "DRGs" several years ago and the makeup of the group Milford is in has changed.

Group D

Did it occur to you that other school districts might not name all of their internal supervisors on their websites or may have them in different spots (ex- Manchester .. you just didn't look far enough)? In all fairness, you have to compare student population to the number of administrators. This info is easily found on the strategic school profiles. Of course, this is the total # of administrators, principals included:

Milford 7504 stud, 31.5 Admin
Manchester 7085 stud, 35.4 Admin
Southington 6934 stud, 29 Admin
Wallingford 6936 stud, 24.6 Admin
Shelton 5691 stud, 25.6 Admin
Windsor 4145 stud, 31 Admin
Branford 3591 stud, 15.1 admin
Watertown 3503 stud, 14 admin
E.Lyme 3212 students, 14.7 Admin
The last three districts are about 1/2 the size of Milford, and have about 1/2 the # of administrators.

I will let you do the math yourself, but when you figure # studetns to admin Milford is comparable to all and only one - Wallingford, has an appreciably higher ratio (1 admin per 282 students vs Milford 1 admin per 238students)

One can only be the "best shopper" if given correct information.

March 24, 2008 at 10:34 PM 
Anonymous The Scarlet Pimpernel said...

We still need cuts in the downtown office, not at the school/teacher level. There are many "make-work" jobs in Milford Parsons Bldg. (aka: The Ivory Tower). The day they start cutting in Parsons is the day I will gain respect for our top administrators and for our BOE. Someone with "G-U-T-S" needs to just drop the hammer on some of these folks that just waste education dollars waiting for their retirement.

March 25, 2008 at 8:21 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Taxpayers demand that public monies be spent responsibly. Milford spends more per student than towns in the same grouping - Branford and Wallingford. It is difficult to then hear our new superintendent use the cry wolf tactic. That is not leadership. And if “Parents” want to continue justifying ineffective administrators, instead of demanding effective leadership and performance, progress will not be made in our schools. “Parents” should be demanding more of the school district’s leadership – not justifying their existence with facts and figures.

March 25, 2008 at 10:19 AM 
Anonymous milford parent said...

The Scarleted Pimpernel said...
"We still need cuts in the downtown office, not at the school/teacher level. There are many "make-work" jobs in Milford Parsons Bldg. (aka: The Ivory Tower). The day they start cutting in Parsons is the day I will gain respect for our top administrators and for our BOE. Someone with "G-U-T-S" needs to just drop the hammer on some of these folks that just waste education dollars waiting for their retirement."

Scarleted - You make these broad general statements without having an understanding of what the jobs in central office entail. You don't think there is waste on the "city" side of things at Parsons and people with city-side municipal jobs waiting for retirement? City-side employees contribute NOTHING to their health insurance benefits. Education employees ALL contribute to their health insurance benefits. Teachers and administrators get no overtime pay, while on the city side overtime is routinely saved for and given to employees nearing retirement to boost their city-paid pensions, which in some cases have in fact neared 100% of regular salary. (Teachers and all school administrators contribute to their pensions - not a dime of local money goes to education pensions and none can earn more than 75% of an average of their annual income after working for something like 45 years).

I am not saying that the school system cannot and should not make cuts. But to say they "make work" is unfair. Why don't you start spreading your grousing throughout the entire operation of the city of Milford. Otherwise, you come off as simply having a vendetta against the school system.

And to anonymous, "effective leadership and performance" is a matter of opinion. I know hundreds of parents who know we have great schools, great teachers and great leaders. Taxpayers should expect that ALL public monies be spent responsibly. So, if you are going to continue to only pick on the school system with your rhetoric, in my opinion you and scarleted are two peas in a pod.

March 25, 2008 at 11:17 AM 
Anonymous resident said...

The Board of Ed will not know the bottom line of its budget for next year until sometime in MAY. BY LAW the school system must notify by APRIL 1st all non-tenured teachers whose contract MAY NOT be renewed. In my opinion, without knowing the true extent of what dollars the BOE will have next year, it would have been irresponsible for the superintendent to have NOT sent out these notices! He has been very clear that 180 teacher jobs will not be eliminated. But until he knows the whole budget picture, he has no way of knowing now which, if any, teaching jobs will be gone. He had no choice but to send out those letters now. Until May or June when all the numbers are in and the BOE decides how it will allocate the budget numbers sent forth by the alderman, your arguments are all non-arguments.

March 25, 2008 at 12:04 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where would one "Parent" find the time to speak with hundreds of parents who all agree and think the school system is great. My definition of great is certainly not a system with two schools not making adequate yearly progress. It is a shame if hundreds of parents accept mediocrity.

Look at how West Haven is handling their Education budget with the town. Their superintendent is handling the process with more finesse than Milford's. Milford hired the wrong guy again.

March 29, 2008 at 9:02 PM 
Anonymous milford parent said...

Once again spoken without all the facts. Two schools in Milford, East Shore and Harborside middle schools, failed to make adequate yearly progress IN A SUBGROUP ONLY- (i.e. major racial and ethnic groups, students in poverty, students with disabilities and English language learners). Neither of the the schools as a whole failed to make adequate yearly progress. It could have been a simple matter of several non-English speaking children or special needs children failing the test.

As to how one "parent" would find time to speak with hundreds of other parents .... I have a lot of friends.

March 30, 2008 at 7:12 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i was listening to the Milford BOE meeting on the access channel.
Very unimpressed with some board members and def. with the Supt of Schools I must agree with Anonymous on the statement, hired wrong guy again.
I was also attending a meeting and was reading a magazine (name forgotten)- it publishes court decisions
Gusess what I found - Doe vs Firn - we can't get away from our scandals at the BOE and the Ed. Administrators

March 31, 2008 at 7:47 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Firn was absolved of any wrongdoig in the Doe vs. Firn case. It's a closed issue and has been for some time.

March 31, 2008 at 2:03 PM 
Anonymous The Scarlet Pimpernel said...

Dear Milford Parent, You seem to be the Truth Detector on this blog site. Yes - There is cutting and trimming that needs to be done on the City of Milford side of this budget, but the topic at hand is the BOE, so stop pointing the finger in another direction. There ARE "make-work" jobs in parsons without a doubt. If you work there you know who these people are, if you do not work for the BOE then I suggest you put your ear to the ground and listen better. I am not going to name, names on this siteand I have spoken to BOE members, as well as BOA members about some of these people and to date not one person will disagree after checking, but theyr are sqeemish about pulling the trigger on trimming the fat. perhaps out of guilt. Wake up and take a good long look at Parsons. By the way, making a "Broad" statement would be along the lines of saying "Cut ALL The Jobs In Parsons". My statement, if you will read correctly, uses the word "SOME", not "ALL". Stop defending Parsons, unless of course you are one fo those in Parsons on the Make-Work committee. I can list three people and they unnecessary Assitants they we can do without and not one child would ever be afffected. If you can't agree on where the cuts need to be, then you must L-O-V-E paying more taxes. You can have mine if you love it so much.

April 1, 2008 at 12:02 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Milford Parent - the schools are on the list - you can try to dissuade readers by justifying subgroup performance only, however too many tax dollars are spent trying to get the subgroups to make progress. As a taxpayer and parent, it is unacceptable to me that 2 schools are listed. I see that Branford and Wallingford do not have any schools on the list. It is not unreasonable for citizens to demand more from the leadership and elected board. I really can not relate to parents who would not expect more. It is unfortunate you have hundreds of friends of the same mind set. Milford schools will never achieve their potential with so many accepting the status quo.

April 1, 2008 at 4:42 PM 
Anonymous Milford parent said...

Half of the school districts in our DRG have schools on the list for the same reason .... a subgroup. The cause could be as simple as one or two children who do not speak English moving into the school and HAD to take the test regardless. It does not mean the SCHOOL is failing.

You say "too many tax dollars are spent trying to get the subgroups to make progress." THAT IS THE NATURE OF NCLB! Go argue with your legislators in Washington. None of my friends are "accepting the status quo."

April 1, 2008 at 6:09 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Start local first! Once again, you want to blame everyone but those in Milford responsible for Milford. The point is the money is being spent as per NCLB, with limited impact – this is where leadership comes in - now if you did not have 3 assistant supervisors and instead had more involved in direct student contact – then maybe you would get better results. Since you have all the facts, please present how some of the hacks @ Parsons are improving results. That’s what the argument here really is – can anyone justify their existence?

April 1, 2008 at 8:02 PM 
Anonymous milford parent said...

Scarleted says "There ARE "make-work" jobs in parsons without a doubt. If you work there you know who these people are, if you do not work for the BOE then I suggest you put your ear to the ground and listen better. I am not going to name, names on this siteand I have spoken to BOE members, as well as BOA members about some of these people and to date not one person will disagree after checking, but theyr are sqeemish about pulling the trigger on trimming the fat. perhaps out of guilt."

Your opinion, not mine. But, please, by all means, start naming names. It's a well-known fact that there are BOE members who have it in for at least one PERSON at Parsons that I can think of. For them, it has nothing at all to do with the job itself, but their dislike of the person.

This should not be about the PEOPLE in the jobs, but about the jobs themselves. Name the positions, then there can be a discussion about the benefit of the position itself.

And as to Mr. Anonymous saying "The point is the money is being spent as per NCLB, with limited impact" that is your opinion as well, and again, not mine and not the opinion of most of my peers.

April 1, 2008 at 10:34 PM 
Anonymous mom in milford said...

Personally, I am glad someone has taken the time to counter what appears to be slanting of information or posting only half-truths in order to boost their own agenda. One person points out less administrative positions in other school districts but fails to give the whole picture. Another claims two schools in Milford are mediocre because they "did not make AYP" when in fact it was a subgroup that did not make AYP in each school. A poster is correct that could have been because of one or two children. Yet another suggests getting rid of important supervisory positions. I am going to assume you mean the special ed supevisors because those seem to be the ones always mentioned lately. I have a special needs child. Those positions provide a lot of support to the special ed staff. I also have a child at Harborside. It is by no means a "mediocre" school!

You obviously have your own opinions, that is fine. But to be deceptive in order to advance those positions is not right.

April 2, 2008 at 7:52 AM 
Anonymous The Scarlet Pimpernel said...

No deception here. Cuts need to be made. Again,it is not proper to toss "names" around on a Blog like this Milford Parent suggests. Rather I have personally, gone Face to Face with elected officials and did indeed name them. These are the folks we elect to do their jobs and in this case they have failed to take the challenge. I would agree that no one should be Fired just because they are not liked, rather it should be based on the need for the position and the type of work ethic behind it. Let's not fool outselves. We have all seen the Public Works projects with one man digging a hole and seven others standing and watching the hole being dug, so one can imagine that the single largest expenditure in the city does nopt have this same scenario, except they are watching one person teach and seven others just watching? Wake up! Make the needed cuts that DO NOT affect the classroom first. Mom in Milford mentioned she has a special needs child in the system and I agree the services offered are great, but they had better be at a 10 to 1spending ratio. Cut the make-work folks first.

April 2, 2008 at 8:37 AM 
Anonymous Milford Parent said...

You didn't answer the question, Einstein. Since you are the Parsons Police, exactly which jobs can be eliminated without detriment to the students? And while you are at it, perhaps you could explain what tasks are assigned to those positions and who will take on those tasks if the positions were eliminated.

Lastly, when you attach a condition of "work ethic" to a position that clearly makes it personal. Or should I say "personnel". It is not the job of the "elected" officials to hire and fire or to evaluate anyone (except the superintendent in the case of the a BOE.) I would not expect BOE members to evaluate a supervisor's or teacher's work any more than I would expect the Alderman to evaluate the performance of a public works employee or director of recreation for the city, as an example.

April 2, 2008 at 11:46 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Milford Parent - I think you were asked a point of information. Again, rather than answer the question posed to you, you divert and become sarcastic. Must be your only option. Lose a point here!

Left BOA meeting - Chicken Little made many parents believe the sky is falling. Too bad these people feel that the only way to demonstrate they are "good" parents is to blindly support a mediocre system.

April 2, 2008 at 9:32 PM 
Anonymous Milford parent said...

Butt out anonymous. My question wasn't posed to you. And once again, mediocre is your own opinion, not the opinion of all.

April 3, 2008 at 7:48 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

4/1 - anonymous asked "Since you have all the facts, please present how some of the hacks @ Parsons are improving results. That’s what the argument here really is – can anyone justify their existence?"

Milford Parent - that was the question on the board. You responded with your own diversion. You have presented yourself as the defender of central office, while others on the board believe the superintendent threw the teachers under the bus, sent parents into a frenzy, all the while refusing to look at possible cuts in central office operations. The spectacle last night - talented teachers justifying their existence to the BOA is a disgrace. Is this going to be an annual tactic of the new leadership? This is a failure in leadership. Taxpayers and parents should question.

April 3, 2008 at 9:53 AM 
Anonymous Milford parent said...

Anonymous ....

The superintendent, nor ANYONE for that matter, has "refused" to look at cuts in central office. As a matter of fact, I have heard him as well as BOE members say EVERYTHING and EVERY POSITION will be scrutinized.

The letters of possible non-renewal had to go out by state law by April 1st. I call it prudent and responsible to cover all possibilities legally. As a matter of fact, he has said more than once that 180 teachers will not be eliminated.

April 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM 
Anonymous Milford parent said...

.. meant to say the superintendent has NOT refused......

They've been very clear that all aspects will be looked at for possible cuts.

April 3, 2008 at 12:23 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just look to our neighbor, West Haven, to see how good leaders handle their budget.

The budget came in 2.75 million short of what the boe was requesting. From the NH Register, the super "said administrators and board members will be looking to free up more than a $500,000 through tightening of budget items and looking at retirements.
We are being creative and innovative at how we are looking at things,” she said. Andrees added that the school district will not be asking the city to take money away from paying the deficit to boost school spending.”

Further in the article, Asst. superindentent “emphasized the spirit of collaboration that engulfed the joint city-school district effort to stave off teacher layoffs. “It has been great to see,” he said.”

Good leadership. Milford should demand the same.

April 3, 2008 at 1:46 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home