Today's letter to the editor from Maureen Garry underlines one of the many problems with our school system, which Gary Goncalves raised during his campaign, and you'll hear more about after the elections.
The shortage of textbooks and access to online books at Danbury High School is alarming, to say the least. How did this happen, and what will the implications be for the students' overall education? What will this mean for students taking SATs next year and applying to college? Perhaps the city will be moved to do something when the results of this book deficit become apparent in standardized test scores, the litmus test ensuring that "no child is left behind." Before long, without books, what student at Danbury High won't be left behind? As a parent of a student at Danbury High, I am outraged by this situation.
For the most part, books are being handed out at the start of class and collected at the end; in some classes, multiple students share a single text. Online books are virtually nonexistent. Students at Danbury High this year are really being shortchanged. Without books, students don't have the opportunity to reinforce what's been taught during class. Homework and classwork have become one and the same thing.
Since covering more education-related issues, I've heard this complaint repeatedly from teachers and outraged parents and as a parent (and taxpayer) myself, I'd be a bit pissed if my child was in a book shortage situation.
That being said, Garry's next paragraph is not quite accurate.
A lot of attention was paid this year when the city, under Mayor Mark Boughton, a former teacher, approved payment for not one or two but several school board members and administrators to accompany the superintendent when he traveled to Arizona to interview Danbury High's new principal. Given the severe book shortage at the high school, I am very concerned about the school board's spending priorities. One would hope that due to the economy, every effort would be made to cut back on superfluous spending so that our students would have something as basic as books.
I respect the outrage, but in bringing up Boughton's name, the outrage is pointed somewhat in the wrong direction. The Board of Education is a separate entity from the legislative (Common Council) and executive branch (Mayor's office) of government. The connection between City Hall and the Board of Ed comes into play during April and May time when the Common Council approves the budget. After the budget is approved, the board decides how to handle the money it receives from the city, not the mayor.
When it comes to trips, the Board of Ed makes that call, not the mayor's office. In the case of the trip to Arizona, that decision was made completely my the board...in fact, the mayor and Common Council were not too pleased when they learned about the trip.
The Board of Ed is a separate entity. It's comprised of elected officials who don't really report to the Common Council or mayor's office (Not the same way as a department head). The Board is responsible for school-related issues while the Common Council dishes out the cash.
Would it be fair to hold the mayor accountable for the shortage in books. Well, yes in a sense simply because he's the chief elected official in the city, as in the case of this letter, parents would first point the finger in his direction as opposed to school officials and the board of ed.
That being said, in the case of the trip to Arizona, the board can take complete credit for that situation as it's not the Mayor and/or Common Council to micromanage other elected officials or commissions.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
