Education Reform Is Not About Tenure; It’s About Privatization

To the Editor:

With all due respect, I disagree wholeheartedly with Chris Lyddy’s characterization of the so-called education reform bill known as SB24. In last week’s Bee [“Lyddy Cites Misunderstandings, Confusion Over Education Reform Bill”] Mr Lyddy stated simplistically that most people haven’t read the 163-page bill in its entirety nor did teachers understand the implications about tenure.

This one-sided interview was flawed in many ways. The true damage that this bill will do is not to teacher tenure but to students, parents, and teachers by way of the fact that corporate interests (ConnCan and Connecticut Business and Industry Association) have crafted language within the bill that is harmful to the primary stakeholders in education, our children. These interests have far more pernicious intent than simply changing tenure rules. Their intent is, first of all, to have “the money follow the child,” which has far-reaching implications for taxpayers across the state. Under the guise of “closing the achievement gap” the real purpose is to divert tax dollars away from the public domain. When local control of education is diluted by loss of funding, our students ultimately lose.

Why would ConnCan care so much about lobbying Malloy and the legislators to the extent they have been? What is it they really want? When you look behind the curtain this outfit is connected to the Walton family, Purdue Pharma, and other entities that should make one question why they care so much about the underachieving students in Connecticut. However, one thing is clear: they do care about redirecting money to privatized charter schools.

If you read ConnCan’s own web presentation you can find these words: “ConnCan provides special acknowledgement to five legislators who stepped forward in support”.

Chris Lyddy is one of the five, which may account for the fact that he never responded to my letters of concern in any thoughtful manner. I received nothing more than a form e-mail. Other colleagues received a “cut and paste” letter, which was nothing more than a bunch of talking points. As a colleague said, “Had Mr Lyddy been in my class I would have failed him for plagiarism.”

ConnCan’s assertions have also been taken apart, piece by piece, in an article in which Bruce Baker of Rutgers University reviews ConnCan’s report in a 2011 National Education Policy Center study. In it Mr  Baker summarizes in part: “The report is of negligible value to the policy debate over Connecticut school finance because it provides little or no support for any of the foundational claims that undergird its proffered solutions.”

With this bill we shall reap what we sow. SB24 is analogous to the doctor who, seeing a patient with a broken leg, decides amputation is the best remedy. Let’s fix this bill the right way. Let’s address property tax reform, unfunded mandates, special education spending subsidized primarily by local property taxes when the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is federal law, and of course true reform that can be agreed upon by all stakeholders.

Geraldine Carley

66 Currituck Road, Newtown                                       March 26, 2012