In recent months, the entire Weaver High School community has been mobilized by the Hartford Board of Education’s poor communication about the school’s temporary move to the Lincoln Institute and the plan to eventually rehabilitate and rebuild the north end school. Tuesday night’s Board meeting once again found students, teachers, and Weaver families demanding action and answers from the Board. There were few to be found, but much talk of “due diligence.” The uncertainty and anxiety among the Weaver community was palpable, as too was the growing mistrust of the Board and its hollow words. Speakers, including Principal Tim Goodwin, admonished Mayor Segarra, who was not in attendance, for suggesting that Weaver’s low enrollment could affect the school’s reconstruction. Goodwin demanded that enrollment issues be taken off the table and not be a part of the discussion. He cited the school’s continued improvement according to multiple metrics, including decreased disciplinary referrals. Through the years, Weaver High has been especially hampered by the breaking up of Hartford’s traditional high schools and the “school choice” reform scheme. Lastly, it was clear Tuesday night that Michele Rhee’s privatization front group StudentsFirst had attempted to glom onto Weaver’s struggle, going so far as to blindly hand out as many of their unrelated t-shirts as possible to students.
Since the Board’s failed attempt to hand the Clark School to the Achievement 1st charter school corporation two months ago, Clark was entered in to the Commissioner’s Network of schools in need of “turnaround.” A “turnaround committee” of parents, teachers, and the State Department of Education has been meeting to develop a plan for Clark. Parallel to this, HART was contracted by the Board to garner support among the community for another charter takeover of the school. This time a charter school corporation called Friendship Charter School of Maryland has been identified as the favorite by the Commissioner of Education. As has been reported in Real Hartford, the Clark community is unwilling to be bullied, bought off, or threatened into this deal. During Tuesday’s meeting, Superintendent Kishimoto blamed outside interests for the problems with the committee. In her report on Clark, she warned of parents being “lobbied heavily by organizations placing pressures on parents on matters beyond the immediate and urgent needs of Clark School students.” She chided these mysterious groups and mentioned that parents were complaining to her personally about the “pressure.” Kishimoto made no mention of the financial incentives being offered by HART or the Friendship Charter corporation to individuals in the Clark neighborhood to support the charter school. That night Hartford Rising! parent activists challenged the Board on the exorbitant charter school “management fees” that the district has been forced to pay, including transportation and special education costs, for outside, private operators, like Achievement 1st and, potentially now, Friendship Charter.
The Board approved $600,000 in “seed money” for the creation of Hartford Promise which has been dubbed by the district as a “college access program.” With these funds, Hartford Promise is to eventually become its own self-sustaining organization which will provide financial rewards for college to eligible Hartford students. This initial infusion of funds from the district includes the hiring of an executive director with a salary of $150,000 a year. The approval of the funding passed unanimously without any questions from the board members.
Lastly, the superintendent search committee narrowed down the field of candidates from the initial 59 applicants. From the semifinalists, a final three candidates will be announced within the next two weeks. These finalists will then be presented at a series of public forums. It was announced that the finalists would meet with various “stakeholders” in the community. They will first meet with “corporate partners” of the district and students and parents will meet with the finalists last. All stakeholders are equal but some stakeholders are more equal than others.