All Opinion pieces and Letters to the Editor reflect ONLY the thoughts of the writer, and not those of the Stratford Crier or its Editorial Board.
Board of Education Redistricting Costs and Impact
Released to the Stratford Crier by Heather Lucibello
Hello esteemed Board Members, Mrs. Borges, and Mrs. Mangini,
In looking ahead to the upcoming Board of Ed meeting, I continue to have questions and concerns that have not yet been responded to. I sent a detailed email on June 26th with regard to my concerns about moving a large number of Wilcoxson students to Chapel and with the exception of a response, that in fact did not answer the questions I posed, from Mrs. Bedell, I didn’t receive any other correspondence. I am reaching out again to engage in discussion with you all before the meeting and vote next week.
I am hopeful that you are carefully considering parental input before a vote to ensure the least number of students and their families are impacted as well as honoring the burden our budget places on tax payers.
I’ve reached out to you all multiple times in the past 6 months requesting information regarding the cost of bussing, but never received a direct response with cost. In doing my own digging, I came across information Mrs. Bedell shared on Facebook during the last redistricting effort in 2018, as it relates to bussing costs. I think we all remember well that those costs savings were a major driving force of the last redistricting effort. While Mrs. Bedell confirmed that this is not the driving force of this redistricting effort, utilization of space is, however cost is still quite important both in terms of using our budget to actually support our students and honoring the burden placed on taxpayers.
What I discovered in my research, (included here in a screenshot) was at the time, Mrs. Bedell reported the cost per bus/per day was $314. My guess is transportation costs have not decreased over the course of the past 6 years. So, given that rough estimate, we are looking at minimum $114,296 to turn 71 Wilcoxson students whom walk to school, into bus riders. This of course is in addition to minimum 2 additional bus routes to bring 68 Johnson Academy students to Wilcoxson, so in absence of the actual numbers, hypothetically another $114,296. Isn’t this the precise type of savings a fiscally conservative majority like yourselves strive to achieve? If you feel like the unnecessary $114,296 is dollars well spent, despite the evidence showing moving Wilcoxson students is 100% unnecessary, then maybe you can share where on the town side of the tax base we could trim that $114,000? This similar line of questioning is frequently posed during budget negotiation times, so I’m interested in your responses.
Additionally, I hope you will consider the decades of research that indicates moving a child from their school during their elementary years, negatively impacts math scores, leads to disruption in the continuity of their learning and can lead to gaps in knowledge compared to their peers who do not move. The CT Post article that was just released regarding Stratford’s over 50% decrease in math SAT scores is abysmal at best. Yet, here we are increasing the likelihood than an additional 71 will unnecessarily struggle. It goes without saying that the research also indicates moving a child increases the likelihood they will require mental health support and struggle to adjust socially. Below you can find a link to a 25 year longitudinal study as well as the abstract copied below for ease of consumption.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4139923
Abstract:
School mobility has been shown to increase the risk of poor achievement, behavior problems, grade retention, and high school drop-out. Using data over 25 years from the Chicago Longitudinal Study, we investigated the unique risk of school moves on a variety of young adult outcomes including educational attainment, occupational prestige, depression symptoms, and criminal arrests. We also investigated how the timing of school mobility, whether earlier or later in the academic career, may differentially predict these outcomes over and above associated risks. Results indicate that students who experience more school changes between kindergarten and twelfth grade are less likely to complete high school on time, complete fewer years of school, attain lower levels of occupational prestige, are more likely to experience symptoms of depression, and are more likely to be arrested as adults. Furthermore, the number of school moves predicted above and beyond associated risks such as residential mobility and family poverty. When timing of school mobility was examined, results indicated more negative outcomes associated with moves later in the grade school career, particularly between fourth and eighth grade.
At the last redistricting sub-committee meeting, a vote was taken and passed unanimously to allow flex zone children to change paths to attend Flood/Bunnell as opposed to Wooster/Stratford High. Mike commented that “it’s not a big difference” transportation length wise, yet this is the precise answer he gave when questioning why the 68 students that need to move out of the Johnson district could not attend Chapel. In fact, Mike is correct regarding the nominal difference for flex zone students (which includes the Johnson House area) to ride up to Chapel (they do in fact share a parking lot with Flood). According to Google Maps, the difference between a student traveling from the Johnson House area to Chapel, as opposed to Johnson to Wilcoxson as the plan suggests, is 4 whole minutes. It just doesn’t make sense to needlessly move and additional 71 students. It will not impact change in utilization at all because it is the difference of 3 students.
To this end, it was also asked in the sub-comittee meeting, “why didn’t SLAM provide us with the option to split sections of the plan to go to different schools?” The response was, “we didn’t give permission to SLAM to do that” as well as in regards to why they voted to change that aspect of the plan, “when you live it, you just know it better than looking at a map”. Turns out, we do know better because we live here! Additionally, during the sub-committee meeting, it was pointed out that moving the flex zone to the Flood/Bunnell track wouldn’t make sense if the numbers weren’t consistently significant grade by grade. This is an incredibly important point so we don’t have to do this again in 5 years! Statistically speaking, the Johnson House area is more dense populous wise and would provide a greater return on your investment so to speak. You will consistently have larger numbers of students to send on the Flood/Bunnell track than you will from sending the Wilcoxson area students on that track.
Lastly, as it relates to my children specifically, the impact this unnecessary move will have on our family and the town’s finances is tremendous. My son has a 1:1 nurse due to significant health issues. If he were able to attend Wilcoxson, he would be a walker and cost the town zero extra dollars. If this plan goes through as planned, without exception for Wilcoxson, the district will legally have to provide my son with special education transportation. This includes a van and a certified nurse to ride with him both ways, each day. Additionally, you will then need to provide regular education transportation for my non-disabled daughter to attend Chapel as well, from the very same address. It is mind boggling that come budget season you are trying to save every penny, but it seems for this you are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of extra dollars on transportation for a move that is completely unnecessary.
With all of this said, we are urging you to please reconsider, not only for our family, but for the entire Wilcoxson community to allow the 71 students to remain on their school track.
The Failure of Joy: The 2024 Election and the Power of Fear
Paul Oestreicher, PhD
Democrats should spend less time blaming each other for their loss and more time on why Republicans won.
In the wake of the 2024 election, political analysts, journalists, voters, and interested observers worldwide are grappling with how Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party lost despite running a campaign imbued with joy and optimism. As The New York Times reported, “The nationwide repudiation of the party stunned many Democrats who had expressed a ‘nauseous’ confidence about their chances in the race’s final weeks. As they sifted through the wreckage of their defeats, they found no easy answers as to why voters so decisively rejected their candidates.”
Not true. The circular firing squad assembled quickly, and the headlines screamed their verdict: “This Is All Biden’s Fault,” “Dems rage against Biden’s ‘arrogance’ after Harris loss,” and “Democratic strategist says her party has lost ‘common sense’ and the ability to speak to ‘normal people’.”
Sure, there are plenty of ways to blame the Democrats for their massive defeat. The party needs to learn a few crucial lessons. But people must remember how Rupert Murdoch/Fox, Elon Musk/X, and others amplified the flood of lies and distortions, which found no counterweight in the mainstream or legacy media. The muddle contributed to tens of millions of people choosing not to vote, abdicating their privilege and responsibility.
And there’s one more critical factor: Joy alone cannot stand against the power of fear, which Republicans wielded effectively to secure victory.
The Limits of Optimism
Harris and her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, chose “joy” to set their campaign’s tone and emphasized hope, unity, and progress. The Vice President highlighted a woman’s right to choose, economic growth under Democratic leadership, and floated new incentives for home ownership and business development. Walz’s persona—the Coach—complemented this strategy, projecting confidence and unwavering belief in a brighter future.
In a New York Times opinion piece written during the campaign, Charles M. Blow noted, “‘Joy’ Is Working for Harris, but Can It Close the Deal?’” We know the answer. Another NYT piece pointed out that this hopeful approach often fell on deaf ears among undecided and swing voters. One voter said, “I’m not looking for a leader who just tells me everything will be okay. I need to know they understand what I’m worried about.” Another added, “Optimism is nice, but it doesn’t pay the bills or make me feel safer.”
I am a believer, a supporter of joy, and an optimist. However, for months, I have said that the Harris strategy needed to change. The campaign spent significant time talking about unifying the country and the many misdeeds of the 45th President when they should have focused on issues that matter most to middle-class, middle America and efforts to get out the vote.
In our hyperpolarized world, too few will accept facts, listen to arguments, or ask probing questions. And history shows that two other “happy warriors” failed to win the presidency: Al Smith (1928, losing to Herbert Hoover) and Hubert Humphrey (1968, losing to Richard Nixon).
The Politics of Fear
History and legend show that fear motivates more effectively than joy or optimism. In the book “Camelot, Inc.,” I discuss how those plotting against King Arthur recognized that emotion—particularly anger—is the most potent unifier. It was understood that to gain traction, people needed an emotional rallying point: “It has to be something broad and popular, which everybody could feel…so that everybody can be angry” (T.H. White, The Once and Future King). Modern-day Republican strategists have mastered this lesson, using the emotional glue of fear to build their base.
Consider how policy debates are framed not as opportunities for growth but as existential threats. During the Obama era’s debates over the Affordable Care Act, opponents shifted the conversation from increasing access to healthcare to an infringement on personal liberty – “taking away” Americans’ choice. Similarly, efforts to regulate firearms meet fierce rhetoric about assaults on constitutional rights, evoking a protective response that overrides fact-based discussions.
The 2024 election highlighted this dynamic. While Democrats emphasized what they could add to the richness of Americans’ lives—greater equality, better access to services, social progress—Republicans positioned their platform as a defense against perceived losses: the erosion of freedoms, security, and identity.
While the abortion issue resonated with many voters, it did not offset the Republican platform of fear. The Republican campaign amplified worries of economic instability, rising crime rates, and the erosion of traditional values, painting a picture of an America under siege. Their messaging resonated powerfully with the public, who sought certainty and protection. Slogans like “Take Our Country Back” and “Never Surrender” reinforced the narrative that the nation needed saving from immediate threats.
The Role of the Media: Sanewashing and Shaping Perception
The news media significantly influenced the 2024 election. While Democrats struggled to energize voters with optimistic messages, mainstream media often sanitized or “sanewashed” Donald Trump and the Republican agenda. The coverage overlooked inflammatory or incoherent statements and emphasized a more favorable narrative.
This approach significantly affected public perception. While Democrats focused on facts and future-oriented policies, media coverage that downplayed the divisive aspects of GOP rhetoric allowed fear-based messaging to become normalized. This created a political environment where emotional, fear-driven narratives easily overshadowed messages of hope and unity.
On a critical policy issue, a New York Times headline announced that “Public Health Could Be Recast in Second Trump Term.” Recast? Slashing CDC funding, breaking up the NIH, and ending vaccine mandates would demolish public health. Undermining institutions, politicizing science, demonizing scientists, and shattering trust in vaccines will lead to a less informed, less healthy America.
The Need for a New Democratic Strategy
The Harris-Walz campaign fell into a common trap: assuming facts alone would inform and influence perceptions. Facts are crucial, but we see repeatedly that public perception, driven by emotion, often holds more sway. Climate change is real, vaccines don’t cause autism, and fluoride strengthens teeth and helps prevent cavities – widely known facts, yet millions choose to ignore them and sometimes fight against them.
If Democrats want to regain electoral ground, they must face an uncomfortable truth: joy alone is not enough. The GOP’s approach consistently demonstrates that fear, anger, and protectionist themes more effectively energize voters. Democrats should not abandon their values; instead, they should integrate emotional narratives into their strategies. To break the cycle of electoral disappointment, they must combine their vision of hope with the raw power of perceived threats.
Noble ideals must be matched with an emotional strategy that galvanizes as effectively as it inspires. Only then can Democrats hope to break the cycle and harness the energy needed for sustained political momentum.
A Trail of Unanswered Questions by Board of Education
Shared to the Stratford Crier by Katie Kosinski
Hello Board Members & Ms. Borges,
I hope this email finds you well this evening. I have been conducting 1:1 communications with Mr. Henrick regarding my recommendation regarding IEP children. In a communication dated 11/13, Mr. Henrick informed me that “Waivers for students with IEP’s will not be granted” but given that the final vote on the matter is this coming Monday, I wanted to share my professional findings that support my recommendation that would allow IEP students to waive into their schools of origins.
Children with IEPs can have extreme difficulties with change and transition. I question why it is necessary to require these children to move when they are happy and progressing well in their current school.
Additionally, children with therapeutic related needs will experience progress loss when switching providers. There are several articles and books listed below that support this statement.
In my correspondence with Mr. Henrick, he stated that he conferred with numerous special education professionals and that they stated the current staff is trained to handle this and then gave the example “ I wonder what would happen to a child with an IEP if their teacher retired, left the district or was transferred to another school.” to which I pointed out that that is not an apple to apples comparison. If a child’s provider were to retire, they would be able to rely on the familiarity of the building, previous teachers, the administration and their friends to help aid in the transition. Whereas, when you take a child with specialized educational needs and plop them into a foreign environment with foreign teachers/providers there will be difficulties.
I ask this board to review my research and to make a truly educated decision regarding my recommendation.
I also want to state to the entire board that I have personally found this entire process to be incredibly disheartening. Not a single parental recommendation has been implemented. The recommendations of parent’s should be pivotal to this process since it’s the parents that will ultimately have to handle the Board’s decision. When children cry at night because they’re moving schools, the Board will not be there to comfort them. The Board will not need to talk to therapists and service providers to determine a transition plan, the parents will. So please take this parent’s recommendation as you make your final vote.
Research:
The Impact of Environmental Change on Individuals with ADHD and ASD:
- For individuals with ADHD or ASD, changes to routines, environments, or schedules can often be disruptive, leading to increased anxiety, difficulty with focus, and behavioral challenges.
The Role of Predictability and Structure in Managing ADHD and ASD Symptoms:
- Research indicates that individuals with ADHD and ASD often perform better in environments that are predictable and stable. Excessive change or unpredictability can contribute to stress, meltdowns, or behavioral issues.
Stress and Anxiety in ADHD and ASD due to Unnecessary Change:
- Both ADHD and ASD are often associated with higher levels of stress and anxiety, and sudden or unnecessary changes in their environment may exacerbate these issues.
Behavioral and Cognitive Impact of Frequent Changes in ADHD and ASD:
- There are studies that focus on how cognitive and behavioral functions in individuals with ADHD or ASD are impacted by sudden changes or lack of continuity. These can range from changes in school, home environment, or daily routines.
Key Reference Materials
- Overview: This well-known book by Dr. Ross Greene introduces the Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS) approach to working with children who are inflexible and reactive to change. Many children with ADHD fall into this category. Greene provides strategies for addressing the anxiety, frustration, and meltdowns that often occur when children with ADHD are faced with changes in routine or environment.
Taking charge of ADHD: The complete, authoritative guide for parents (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
- Overview: Barkley’s work on ADHD often emphasizes the importance of consistency and structure for individuals with ADHD.
- Overview: This book focuses on helping children with ADHD improve their executive functioning skills—skills that are often challenged in children with ADHD, including planning, organization, and flexibility. It also explores how these difficulties lead to increased anxiety, especially when children with ADHD face unexpected changes. The book provides strategies for improving organization and helping children manage anxiety.
“Autism Spectrum Disorder: The Ultimate Teen Guide” by Francis Tabone
- Overview: While geared toward teenagers, this book offers important insights into how older children and teens with ASD deal with transitions, changes in routine, and new situations. It discusses how unanticipated changes—whether social, academic, or environmental—can cause anxiety and behavioral regression, and how to prepare for and manage these changes.
- Overview: This foundational book in the field of autism treatment emphasizes the importance of structured interventions and the role of consistent routines. It also discusses how changes—such as in caregivers, environment, or daily routines—can affect a child’s behavior and how to handle these disruptions.
“The New Social Story Book: Illustrated Edition” by Carol Gray
- Overview: Carol Gray’s social stories are widely used to help children with ASD understand social situations and navigate transitions or changes in a predictable way. This book helps teach children how to deal with change and new experiences through structured, visual narratives.
Children with ADHD or ASD are not the only IEP children that will be adversely affected by redistricting. Children who have any therapeutic based need will experience progress loss due to provider change. Below are some highlights regarding provider changes for children with Speech Disorders specifically, but the same thought process would apply for children with OT or PT needs as well.
- Continuity of Care:
- Continuity of care in speech therapy involves having the same clinician working with a child over a period of time. Research often suggests that this continuity can help foster better communication, rapport, and trust between the child and the therapist, which in turn can improve treatment outcomes.
- Changing therapists too frequently may lead to delays in progress due to the need for the child to adjust to new approaches or personalities, and potentially re-establish therapeutic goals.
- Therapeutic Relationship:
- The therapeutic alliance between the child and the SLP is a key factor in the effectiveness of speech therapy. A consistent relationship allows the clinician to develop a better understanding of the child’s unique needs, preferences, and challenges, which is critical for successful intervention.
- In contrast, frequent changes in therapists may make it difficult for children to form this kind of relationship, affecting their motivation and engagement.
- Variability in Treatment Approaches:
- Different speech pathologists may use different therapeutic approaches, tools, and strategies. Consistency in therapeutic techniques can lead to more steady progress, whereas switching therapists could result in conflicting or inconsistent strategies being applied.
- Parental Perception and Child Comfort:
- Parents often report that stability in the therapeutic team contributes to a better overall experience for the child. Children are more likely to feel comfortable and motivated if they are not frequently changing therapists. Conversely, constant changes may create confusion or anxiety, hindering progress.
Research & Articles:
Hesketh, A., & O’Connor, J. (2002). “The effects of inconsistent therapy on speech development in preschool children with speech sound disorders.” International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 37(1), 55-70.
- This study highlights how inconsistent therapy, due to changing therapists or therapy methods, can hinder progress in children with speech sound disorders (SSD). The paper suggests that continuity is important for achieving positive outcomes.
McLeod, S., & McKinnon, D. H. (2007). “Speech disorders in children: When does therapy have an effect?” International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9(4), 276-287.
- This article discusses the overall effectiveness of speech therapy for children, suggesting that the consistency of the therapist and the approach is a significant factor in therapy success. While it doesn’t focus solely on changes in therapists, it provides a framework for understanding why disruptions in therapy may lead to slower progress.
Dodd, B. (2011). Children’s Speech: A Handbook of Clinical Processes (3rd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
- Dodd discusses various aspects of speech therapy, including the challenges associated with maintaining continuity and consistency in treatment. She suggests that disruptions in care, including changes in clinicians, can negatively impact progress.
Edeal, D. A., & Gildersleeve-Neumann, C. E. (2011). “Factors contributing to variability in therapy outcomes for children with speech sound disorders.” American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20(3), 213-227.
- This paper examines the factors that can affect speech therapy outcomes in children, including consistency in the therapeutic process. While it doesn’t focus exclusively on changes in speech pathologists, it highlights how disruptions or variability in treatment can affect the overall progress of children with speech disorders.
Roulstone, S., & Lindsay, G. (2012). “The role of speech and language therapy in early childhood interventions.” Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 28(3), 335-346.
- This article emphasizes the importance of early intervention and consistent therapeutic approaches for young children, including the role of the clinician in fostering progress. While not solely focused on therapist changes, it discusses how varying approaches can complicate treatment effectiveness.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 7:53 PM Katie Kosinski <[email protected]> wrote:
In your particular example, the child would then have the familiarity of their friends, the building, previous teachers and the administrators. Those examples are not an apples for apples to removing a child with transition difficulties and placing them into a foreign school/environment. So I disagree with the thought process.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 7:43 PM Henrick, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
Their opinions do matter and that is why it was part of our conversation. A number of our special ed staff and administration were consulted as well. I wonder what would happen to a child with an IEP if their teacher retired, left the district or was transferred to another school. All of our staff members are highly qualified and capable professionals who are trained to meet the needs of the children they serve
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 6:56 PM Katie Kosinski <[email protected]> wrote:
Mike,
Why was that the decision made? The recommendation wasn’t a frivolous one, there is scientific evidence that shows that children with adhd or ads have difficulties with transition and change, why would we put them at a disadvantage if we don’t have to? The number of kids that need to move with IEPs is likely nominal so it just seems cruel.
I have to say that I’m rather disappointed with how the BOE has handled all parental concerns or recommendation. To my knowledge, not a single idea or recommendation has been implemented. If that’s not correct, please advise. What’s the point of having forums or allowing us to speak if it’s for nothing? I always thought that parents’ voices matter but that just doesn’t seem to be the case now does it.
Katie
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 6:45 PM Henrick, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
Katie- it is the recommendation of the Plant and planning committee along with a number of building administrators, to allow students in high school to remain in their current school. Waivers for students with IEP’s will not be granted. Staff will be making extra efforts to ensure these children’s transitions go smoothly. I appreciate your comments and concerns during this process- Mike Henrick
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 9:27 AM Katie Kosinski <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi board members,
I wanted to follow-up on the two optimizations I proposed last June. In a private exchange Mr. Henrick stated that your team would be considering all parent suggestions, so I’m kindly requesting an update.
Those optimizations are below for easy reference:
1. For any child entering a transitional year (ex. 6th, 8th or 12th) they should remain in their school of origin. It is so unnecessarily disruptive for those children to be ripped from their school communities at such a pivotal grade level.
2. For any child with an IEP, parents should be given the option to waiver into their school of origin. Children with IEPs have care teams, care teams that have taken years to develop meaningful relationships with. Additionally the likelihood of those children having anxiety regarding the move is much higher and will cause a progress delay in their services as they adjust to a new team. Obviously parents who welcome the change with their care team OR whom have children that are more flexible can move forward with the change if desired.
Regards,
Katie Kosinski
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 2:31 PM Katie Kosinski <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Board Members,
Firstly, thank you so much for your time during Monday’s meeting. I appreciate my opportunity to speak. Secondly, given that I did have several legitimate questions, I wanted to email my concerns, optimization and questions so that we can have a dialogue about them.
From the 6.24 Meeting, below is exactly what I spoke. Note my questions are in bold for response purposes:
I’ll start with the concerns: I feel like the children of Stratford are being treated as numbers on a ledger vs. tiny human beings. I don’t think the various scenarios make enough of an effort to minimize those impacted. Is there an opportunity to re-evaluate so that even less children can be affected by this? If the concern really boils down to Johnson being overcrowded and Chapel having capacity, why should children from any other elementary school be affected? Wouldn’t the easiest approach be to bus kids from Johnson to Chapel? Chapel is a mere 4-5 mins from Wilcoxson so I see a negligible difference in commuting time for those children.
A two optimizations I would like to propose, that should apply to anything that is rolled out:
1. For any child entering a transitional year (ex. 6th, 8th or 12th) they should remain in their school of origin. It is so unnecessarily disruptive for those children to be ripped from their school communities at such a pivotal grade level.
2. For any child with an IEP, parents should be given the option to waiver into their school of origin. Children with IEPs have care teams, care teams that have taken years to develop meaningful relationships with. Additionally the likelihood of those children having anxiety regarding the move is much higher and will cause a progress delay in their services as they adjust to a new team. Obviously parents who welcome the change with their care team OR whom have children that are more flexible can move forward with the change if desired.
Now onto my questions for your team:
1. Do you have predictive data that showcases that another redistricting won’t be necessary in the near future? If so, is that data available for the public? Considering there was a school shake up in 2018 I have concerns that my child could be affected by multiple school changes throughout their career.
2. What is the transition plan for kids who are moving schools? Will there be meet and greets? Orientations? How will this be communicated to our children?
3. Lastly, what does your team do with parents’ concerns, proposed changes, etc.? Do you discuss them? Or are they shelved since your team has decided on a path forward?
Again, I appreciate your time on Monday and look forward to your responses to my questions.
Warm Regards,
Katie L Kosinski
