Woodstock CT Café

Thanks to Con’s advice we upgraded the rules of engagment for posting at the Cafe. See the uppermost link on the left sidebar. One of our rules is as follows:

“Using multiple pseudonyms…” to express varied points of view.

Heretofore, Cafe Admin will identify alternative pseudonyms of individuals when comments are posted. There are currently three individuals who are using this chaotic technique. Anonymity is okay but this notice is fair warning that this practice of using multiple pseudonyms will not be tolerated in the future. One can change their pseudonym from time to time if he/she wishes, but frequent commenting under multiple pseudonyms will not be tolerated. Admin

by Becki

“…this Board of Education made a rational, informed decision to reject the retention of the Ninth Grade based on a process of consideration that was in-depth and broad based.”

From the first presentation of the 9th Grade Proposal, I couldn’t decide if it was the stressful reaction of constricting budget dollars or if it might have been an effort to pressure the Academy to reasonably negotiate for a contract. It didn’t really matter.

A quick glance showed the proposal to be not only creative but also fairly well thought out. Mind you, I am not including the public response. I’m just talking about the original presentation of the proposal. I had to admire the depth of the consideration and the broad spectrum of details that had been included and presented.

Within hours a firestorm had been ignited within the populace and not too much later it seemed like the matter had been fairly soundly undone. The budget went forward without a change in the grades being sent to the Academy. Still in the background, an undercurrent continued like an infection.

I never believed that we would end up holding the ninth grade back at the middle school. Clearly, given what had been presented, the savings were not nearly enough to justify that kind of a change. The members of the Board of Education are intelligent, good people who do not take their responsibilities lightly. I know most of them well enough to have a good sense of the people they are.

Still in conversations with people from varied demographics in town, there was a strong sense that others didn’t feel that the matter had been resolved. The general gist that I regularly heard was that the idea had been floated and even though nothing had changed in the budget, there was a feeling that this idea was still out there and could come back at any time. I was confident that it wouldn’t but, it was obvious that many in the community were not comfortable with the matter. It was as if the proposal needed to be resolved, put to bed, so-to-speak and it had not been.

I’m sure that most of the members of the Board of Education were hearing the same misgivings. I’m sure that is precisely the reason they took up the matter again in the fall. They called together a committee to examine the proposal in depth and make a recommendation to the full board.

One of the things I think that people have the hardest time understanding is process. We live in such an instant gratification society that we often lack the patience to wait for the process of anything to come to fruition. In our own lives it is quite acceptable to make instant decisions or see which way something is leaning and bet on where its will land. If our decisions are off or end up being wrong, it is only ourselves (or perhaps a few of those close to us) that pays the price.

In the instance of the Board of Education, such shoot from the hip approaches are not embraced. Theirs is a reasoned approach, one that has served Woodstock well for many years. We have managed to have testing results that are in the upper 40% +/- of statewide averages and yet 96% of the towns in the state have to spend more than we do per pupil. So too the approach to analyzing the ‘9th Grade Proposal’ would be steady and measured. Read the rest of this entry »

by Con 

This group seems to constantly treat readers as though we cannot think for ourselves and require an interpreter for the English language. In addition to a point-by-point refutation of their arguments, it’s important to constantly question them and challenge their re-characterization of underlying matters. They state an opinion as though it’s a fact and then build an argument around this ‘false fact’ – this is an essential element of their tactics.

Many articles bear this out and their Sophist technique is easy to spot – they must re-characterize something in order to insert their bias and convey the message only after applying this ‘hard spin’. To re-characterize, they most often use a preface like: “what they really mean is…” or “in other words…” or “what they seem to be…”. In almost every instance when we see these words used it is immediately after something that already speaks for itself (such as a straightforward quote, description of events, reference to a printed article or comment which we can all read).

However, the citizens of Woodstock are NOT stupid and we do not need someone to tell us what a comment means “in other words…”; we do not need a biased comment to explain “what this really means…” or “what they are really saying…” especially when we have just read the comment, quote, referenced article or described event! We can draw our own conclusions without the extra push. Why not TRULY let the comment, article, event, conversation or whatever is the subject – speak for itself? Why must they constantly re-phrase and re-characterize even the simplest of matters?

A current example can be found at woodstocktruth.com under “Powers: The record of the WBOE speaks for itself” – ironically, contrary to the very title of his own article, Mr. Powers still insists on re-characterizing for us dumb citizens the behavior of the BOE when he asserts that “What they as individuals, and this Board, seem most upset about is that the BOE will have to face the voters and defend their records.” This type of ‘I can read minds’ comments appears quite often in these biased articles. Read the rest of this entry »

I’m glad the discussion of the Woodstock Academy contract has come up. Let’s take a look at that. In general I believe there are three general reasons why the Woodstock BOE and the Woodstock Academy have yet come to contract terms. These are the general problems members of the Woodstock BOE see with the boilerplate contract that they would like us to sign.

• It is a commitment to buy without a discussion of price. In my opinion it would be irresponsible to commit the town to a long term agreement with the Woodstock Academy without any control on price. It is very unusual to enter into any commitment to buy for an extended period without knowing the price or how much it can increase. It is particularly important when the WA has some very expensive capital project on the horizon. This is different than the heating oil delivery person showing up at your house with a different price on oil. You can always send the oil delivery person away and look into different options. This is more like signing up with an oil company that they will deliver your oil for five years at whatever choice they choose to charge. You can’t turn them away, you will buy it. I am somewhat confused as to why CPS isn’t our ally on this, if they actually stood for what they claimed, this would be a no brainer issue.

• There is no commitment to curriculum alignment. The contract does not in any way commit the Woodstock Academy to sharing information with the WPS so that we can design our curriculum to best prepare the children for the Woodstock Academy. I’ve heard a lot about getting the WPS to help children in preparing for the WA math placement tests. That’s what this concern is about.

• There is no discussion on standards of achievement that WA will deliver for the town. At minimum they should guarantee to maintain all certifications.

To be honest with a quick count of board votes it wouldn’t take much for the WA to get a contract. Read the rest of this entry »