By Chris Powell
How could Aleysha Ortiz go through the Hartford school system and be given a high school diploma without ever learning to read and write? Who exactly was responsible in every grade that advanced her anyway?
State government’s growth causes record spending on lobbyists
Does Trump’s budget really spell doom for Connecticut?
Protests haven’t explained what ‘free Palestine’ means
Maybe Ortiz’s lawsuit in Superior Court seeking $3 million in damages from the city will extract some answers, though more likely it will be settled to prevent accountability.
Rather than answer for what happened, Hartford Superintendent Leslie Torres-Rodriguez is retiring in a few weeks.
State Education Commissioner Charlene Russell-Tucker hired consultants to look into the Ortiz case but won’t answer specifically about it either. The commissioner’s excuse is what she calls Ortiz’s right to privacy, as if the young woman didn’t forfeit that right with the sensational interview she gave to the Connecticut Mirror last September and with her lawsuit.
Privacy? News of the scandal already has gone around the world.
Of course the only people the commissioner is protecting are Hartford educators.
If not for a few Republican state senators who keep pressing the commissioner about the case, it would have been forgotten long ago despite its horrible implication.
Democratic legislators and Governor Lamont, also a Democrat, act as if they have not noticed the case, even though the report submitted by the commissioner’s consultants and her use of the report as a substitute for specific accountability imply that the girl isn’t the only illiterate or near-illiterate to have been graduated by Hartford’s schools lately.
The report cites the Hartford school system’s severe shortage of staff, especially “special education” staff, with Hartford leading the state in educator vacancies — more than 200, including 50 “special education” teacher positions and 80 “special education” “para-educator” positions.
But the report adds that the problem in Hartford’s schools goes far beyond “special education,” since many students who are not disadvantaged and handicapped enough to be classified as “special education” are still slow learners and need extra help when none is available. They are referred to “special education” staffers who are already overwhelmed.
Of course this doesn’t mean that no students are coming out of Hartford’s schools with an education. It means that no academic data produced by Hartford’s schools can be trusted.
What will be done about it? Probably not much. The commissioner says the state Education Department “will intensify our support and targeted monitoring activities” in Hartford’s schools. But she doesn’t say how.
Will the department ensure that the vacant teaching positions are filled? Will the department require that all Hartford students are tested every year to prove they can read and write?
Or will the department, the legislature, and the governor just keep waiting for the scandal to fade away?
The department says it is already giving extra scrutiny and support to the equally dysfunctional school system in Bridgeport, which has gone through five superintendents in seven years and where “special education” is also a mess. The department should have taken control of both Hartford and Bridgeport school systems long ago. Their problems are too big, their competence too small.
But state government lacks the courage for that, since it would require removing all impediments to vigorous administration in the interest of the public and students. It would require taking responsibility.
Fixing city schools would require regular proficiency testing for all students, including a test for graduation. (Students who failed the test could be given certificates of attendance — if they really did attend much.) It would require holding parents responsible for their children’s excessive absences. It would require ending social promotion. It would require accountability at all levels.
More than that, state government also would have to take responsibility for the worsening social disintegration throughout the state. It would have to explain the soaring need for “special education.” It would have to ask the biggest and most uncomfortable questions:
How are uneducated young people supposed to support themselves? Where are all the neglected and troubled kids coming from? And what turned the cities into poverty factories?
Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)
-END-
Chris Powell column 
Great article. Chris continues to shine a spotlight on political, social, and legal issues that Connecticut politicians continue to ignore and the public continues to tolerate.
Next question: How does Ortiz expect to fairly compete in the academic challenges of UConn without the benefit of more social promotion, coddling, and excuse-making? Should she not go back and obtain a GED before becoming a freshman?
LikeLike
I never thought the social-promotion craze would end, but even the AI’s on woke research are waking up.
“Social promotion, while intended to protect self-esteem by avoiding grade retention, doesn’t consistently achieve that goal and can even have negative impacts on self-esteem. While some argue it fosters socialization and participation, research suggests it can lead to a sense of academic inadequacy and lower expectations for future performance.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Arguments for Social Promotion and Self-Esteem:
Socialization:
Social promotion allows students to remain with their age-matched peers, which can foster social development and a sense of belonging.
Focus on Strengths:
Some argue that social promotion allows students to focus on their strengths in other areas while potentially mitigating academic weaknesses.
Arguments Against Social Promotion and Self-Esteem:
Lowered Expectations:
Both for the individual and others, social promotion can lead to lowered expectations of academic achievement, potentially hindering future academic growth.
Negative Impact on Learning:
Students who are not adequately prepared for the next grade level may struggle to keep up, leading to further academic difficulties and potential negative impacts on self-esteem.
Inadequate Intervention:
If social promotion is not accompanied by effective interventions to address learning gaps, it can be detrimental to students’ academic progress and self-esteem.
False Sense of Accomplishment:
Social promotion can give students and their parents a false sense of accomplishment, masking underlying academic issues.
In Conclusion:
While the intention behind social promotion is to protect self-esteem, research suggests it can have mixed or even negative effects on students’ academic self-concept and overall self-esteem. Early intervention, differentiated instruction, and addressing academic gaps are crucial for supporting students’ academic and emotional well-being.”
Still no mention of the bottom line—retaining kids until they are ready for the next grade.
LikeLike