Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The irony was the town tore down the original school to fix a mold issue that probably could have been remedied for far less money. Building a new school in a town that at the time had only one other new elementary school. Burr. So knowing they had an issue with racial imbalance they built a school so nice, no family would want their kids to go anywhere else!
Recall one remedy was to offer free pre school at Burr, if you committed to send your kids to Burr till grade 6. This was only offered to Mckinley kids. Believe plenty took advantage of this then reneged when kindergarten started!
McKinley could certainly not be rehabbed at a lower cost of the rebuild.
Little bit of inside baseball but all of this was brought up almost 25 years ago when the school expansion plans started to take shape. Long story short: building of the elementary school/middle schools and the splitting of the singular high school really messed up districting. I'm trying to play it down the middle as much as possible but the warnings and concerns about the current state of FPS was right there at the beginning and again one side's predictions came true in the most part and the other's, well, didn't. Even then they knew that how the town was structuring and placement the schools was going to have big issues including very much this exact one. Even 6-10 years ago the issues were clear, and the administrators and teachers very much felt the pressures and did their jobs to excellence despite.
That said, it's really a shame that they want to break up McKinnley's district and are floating closing Jennings, both idea make zero sense for the supposed issues.
So is the law bad? In this case no. The entirety of the rebuilding, new construction, and initial redistricting were known to be bad ideas from the start.
Last edited by Beeker2211; 08-01-2023 at 11:48 AM..
So is the law bad? In this case no. The entirety of the rebuilding, new construction, and initial redistricting were known to be bad ideas from the start.
What’s a shame is the town ignored the racial inequality rules and didn’t anticipate this problem created by building a beautiful new school that one would want to leave…
Then again, sad people can’t do what’s the best thing for the kids. Brand new school, and be penalized for it…
The thing that the law does not consider though is the performance of the school. Despite having a high percentage of students where English is not their first language, the school performs above the state average on standardized tests.
How does it compare to the rest of Fairfield's schools? If it is every bit as solid a performer, IMO it is working. If it is underperforming not the state but the city, that's a problem.
How does it compare to the rest of Fairfield's schools? If it is every bit as solid a performer, IMO it is working. If it is underperforming not the state but the city, that's a problem.
Not 100% sure, think it underperforms a bit. That’s attributed to the much higher number of ESL students though. That said this school community is quite happy there.
Again statistics are not black and white…
16 years is a long time to find a solution. I would like to see the city and state use binding arbitration on differences of opinion that drag out so long.
It should be built into things like this, statewide.
I do think Weickers Two Connecticuts idea was spot on, and our outcome differential in education harms our citizens.
How does it compare to the rest of Fairfield's schools? If it is every bit as solid a performer, IMO it is working. If it is underperforming not the state but the city, that's a problem.
It might underperform by two wrong answers on a multiple choice SBAC.
Ironically, I hear the school in the most prestigiuos and wealthiest district in town underperforms others in town. That's from parents I know there, not me, they rant about it all the time. I sit there and just nod along.
How does it compare to the rest of Fairfield's schools? If it is every bit as solid a performer, IMO it is working. If it is underperforming not the state but the city, that's a problem.
That’s ridiculous. Why is that a problem?
Of course McKinley performs lower than Fairfield’s most stellar schools but by how much would you say is reasonable? 20%? 10%? 5%? That would be arbitrary at best and up for heated debate.
From what I remember McKinley performs above the state average. That should be sufficient for anyone to expect a school to perform at. If not, then we have a much more serious education problem in our state than racial imbalance in one school. Jay
Of course McKinley performs lower than Fairfield’s most stellar schools but by how much would you say is reasonable? 20%? 10%? 5%? That would be arbitrary at best and up for heated debate.
From what I remember McKinley performs above the state average. That should be sufficient for anyone to expect a school to perform at. If not, then we have a much more serious education problem in our state than racial imbalance in one school. Jay
It's a means often used to settle differences of opinion, which the state and Fairfield obviously have.
If McKinley is under-performing the town, that is problematic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
