Follow Us on Twitter

Is Partnership Zone about to Rear Its Ugly Head in Wilmington?

UPDATE:  DOE's Chief Turnaround Officer, Keith Sanders (of Miller-McCoy testing scandal fame) has resigned from his position in Dover effective July 15, 2014.  I suppose it's just another hop, skip, and jump through Delaware onto greater fame and controversy!

While we are still awaiting confirmation, the rumor on the street is that DOE is planning to enact the next level of intervention in a Wilmington school.

At least one PZ schools is rumored to have failed to make AYP for in two years for two years. Here's the letter:

You can read the state's fancy description here: DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENTS

Here's a PZ reminder without going too deep into the code/regs/law:

Partnership Zone was established by former DE Sec of Education, Lillian Lowery, in conjunction with Gov. Jack Markell.  The zone was written into Race to the Top as an ancillary item, intended to show the state's available resources and muscle when it came to affecting "change" in persistently low achieving schools.

The DE Dept of Education helped author language in a bill that codified the Partnership Zone.  Our legislators passed this bill into law following the RTTT "win."  Funding for PZ schools was a part of the consolidated grant. To access the allocated funding, local education agencies (districts and charter leadership) had to offer a plan (MOU) utilizing one of four (flawed) intervention models, Transformation, Turnaround, Charter, or Closure to DOE.  To be relieved of PZ status, the school had to make AYP in two years for two years.

The regs also prescribed the next steps should a school fail to succeed in two years for two years under the chosen intervention model. In level one of PZ,  the LEA could use one of the four intervention models.  Most LEAs chose Transformation (not all) as it appeared to be the least disruptive for students.  In the second level of PZ, Transformation is entirely off the table.  These schools must choose either Turnaround, Charter, or Closure.

In Christina, the board was permitted to enact a model that merged both Transformation and Turnaround.  Not sure if DOE ruled CSD schools were officially one or the other - regardless I do believe there is audio of the state's former PZ authority defining the CSD model as a "hybrid." 

Thus, if a CSD school enters stage 2 of PZ, it's possible that both Turnaround and Transformation will be off the table, leaving the LEA with the choice of Chartering the school or closing it and sending its students to higher scoring schools elsewhere. 

Hey, DOE, what's it gonna be?

Category: 0 comments

Child Dies in MD Group Home

Maryland lawmakers are asking why the state has given $18 million in contracts to LifeLine Inc., the company operating the group home in Anne Arundel County where a 10-year-old “medically fragile” boy recently died.

The boy, identified only as Damaud, breathed with the help of a ventilator and died on July 2, Patch reports. He was under a “do not resuscitate” order, authorized by social services officials, according to Connie West, his education supervisor. Something as little as his tube clogging and not being changed fast enough could have killed him.

The LifeLine Inc. home, operating from a Laurel apartment complex, was already under scrutiny by the Maryland Health Department for allegations of neglect and staffing patterns, according to CBS Baltimore. The company has contracts with the state to provide care for developmentally disabled children, but the health and safety of children were allegedly not maintained.

The facility lacked the number of employees needed to actually provide 24-hour care for the children, according to Patch.

The other 10 children living in the facility have been moved, though the change is not linked to Damaud’s death.

Officials are waiting for an autopsy report to determine the cause of Damaud’s death.
Category: 0 comments

Who's Lou? ICT Dialogue is Rolling at Kilroys!

We've started a dialogue over at Kilroys, More Proof Delaware's Sec. of Education Lacks Capacity to Lead,  about ICT and placements for children who need more services than are available in the State of Delaware.  And since we are finally talking about this small, but important subset of children, we've been combing annual reports that date back 10 years.

Who's Lou? In the Annual Report issued for FY 2009, Lou is a composite profile of students served by ICT.  

Meet Lou:
ICT, Annual Report February, 2010

Here's the great thing about Lou: I didn't have to make him up!  The Delaware Department of Education did that for me!  They created a fictional character to explain the severity of the needs of those children who pass through ICT's Gate!  

As best as I can tell, Lou makes a one-time appearance in the history of online Annual Reports.  Apparently, giving a face and name, albeit fictional, to this special population didn't sit well with others and he gets scrapped in future years. 

But, we can't let this snapshot in time go without some discourse:

Where should Lou be served?  Let's first dispose of that gut reaction to send Lou as far away as possible - this kid is going to be incarcerated and who among us wants to be his victim?  

Where should he be served?  Delaware.  
What's the likelihood?  Well, he's pretty much run the gambit of all services available, Rockford, Terry Center, out-patient mental health treatment.  Lou's cure seems pretty elusive. 
What does he really need? A structured day program where a call to the police is not the first option for treatment for his aggressive outbursts. Lou needs a locked day facility with staff who have been educated, trained, and developed to utilize a safe best practices-driven protocol to curbing teen violence acerbated by mental health defect.  

Can Delaware provide that for a 12 year old?  Crickets.
Category: 0 comments

DE's Institutionalized Discrimination against our Beyond-Complex Students Continues... There is no room in at the Inn.

This story shouldn't sound all that different from the one published last July:  

However, if you happen to be up for re-election, you might want to read through to the end.  The story hasn't changed that much- more students have more severe needs so we send them away to other states. However, on the tails of a scathing report from USDOE that confirms what special needs parents have been shouting for years, it's time we start the legislative fix needed to address ICT and keeping Delaware's children near home.

It's time to end the Delaware Solution of exiling our children - and to build capacity in our state to take care of our own, we must stop sending our neediest out-of-sight and out-of-mind. The Delaware Solution is not a secret:
And all of this is okay with our Governor, his Budget Director, the President Pro-Tempore, the Speaker of the House, and the Controller General.  As it stands, ICT issues one annual report, in February, to the aforementioned state leaders. 

Let's breakdown 2013:

In a room somewhere in Delaware a small committee of agency heads (or their designees) meet to determine the future of some our state's most severely dis-advantaged students. 

These nine individuals and a designated coordinator compose the Interagency Collaborative Team,  ICT, which is charged with determining whether a child's educational needs due a severe needs can or cannot be addressed through the existing resources of a single agency - specifically, the Delaware Department of Education and the programs, districts, and schools who receive their funding through the DOE conduit. 

The Interagency Collaborative Team (ICT) is authorized in Title 14 Delaware Code, Chapter 31, Section 3124. The purpose of the ICT is to provide a collaborative interagency approach to service delivery for children and youth with disabilities who present educational needs that cannot be addressed through the existing resources of a single agency. In addition to planning for individual children, the ICT identifies impediments to collaborative service delivery and recommends strategies to remove them. 
 ICT is comprised of representatives from:
  • Division of Prevention and Behavioral Health Services, 
  • Division of Family Services
  • Division of Youth Rehabilitative Services
  • Division of Developmental Disabilities Services, 
  • Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health
  • Office of Management and Budget
  • Controller General 
  • Exceptional Children Resources Group, DOE
  • Chief Academic Officer, DOE

Collectively, this group charts the future for this very special subset of children and their families. These children are defined as having or requiring Unique Alternative Services. Often, the ICT decisions will permanently impact a family - geographically moving children out of the State of Delaware and away from their families.

In 2013, the cases of 120 children were brought before ICT - 15 more than in 2012. This committee evaluated 43 new cases, while privately placing 117 children and providing three with other unique alternatives, namely deeming these children eligible for 1:1 services in their existing public school setting. Sixty-six of the 117 privately placed children were served in private day programs while the remaining 51 were moved to residential programs.

Of the 51 students who moved into residential programs, 19 were served in-state at AdvoServ, located in Bear, DE.  The remaining children, all 32 of them, were moved away from their families, their homes, and their support systems, and sent out of state by ICT. Ten of these 32 were fortunate enough to be accepted at one of two nearby facilities in Maryland (within an hour drive of the state line).  The rest?  Scurried great distances away, nearly ensuring that these families will never be reunited under one roof for an meaningful period of time.

The annual cost range of placing a student in a residential program:  $107.985 -$441,924.  Collectively, Delaware spent an average of $14,022,680.00 on residential services.  ICT averaged additional costs of $3,291,823.60 on day placements - for a 2012-13 average expenditure of $17,314,504.00.  These costs do not include ancillaries like transportation.
Three million more dollars than in the previous year.

We don't argue against the needs of these students.  We do find fault in a state that fails to develop the service system these children need to remain close to their families. 

Children and youth with severe disabilities, mental health concerns, and significant behavioral needs present unique challenges to schools and families. Gaps in services that support families and children
in their homes and communities continue to exist. This has contributed to an increasing number of students’ placements in residential settings by multiple agencies. Often these students can be provided an appropriate education within the local schools, but their mental health or behavioral needs prevent their ability to remain in their homes with existing resources.- ICT Annual Report FY13

Delaware suffers from a considerable gap in services - a tremendous shortage of in-state private placements for eligible children. Through the educational lens, these placements are envisioned for students whose disability is so severe that it precludes a child from meaningfully participating in the least restrictive environment (LRE) a public school or district has to offer.  In fact, administrative teams are required to prove that every possible environment has been exhausted - including what the layman would call the "most" restrictive environment. Unique Alternative Funding, established by Delaware code and accessed through ICT, was the mechanism by which a child and/or school's representatives could seek a private placement.

However, in practice, ICT has become the stop-gap coverage for placing disabled students whose disabilities impede their success at home - the results of which may spill over into the school setting, but that school officials lack the authority to mitigate because they cannot access the genesis of the behavior or impairment.  According to the 2012-13 ICT Annual Report, "Often these students can be provided an appropriate education within the local schools, but their mental health or behavioral needs prevent their ability to remain in their homes with existing resources" - a word-for-word quote taken from the 11-12 ICT Report.

And here is where the devil is in the details, and these children find themselves before ICT -frequently facing expulsion, not just from their schools, but from the state in which they live and the people who love them because this state has failed to invest in or attract the services and providers that these children need to remain here.
In 2011-12 upon meeting the requirement threshold, 23 families were forced to acquiesce to send their children out-of-state for the services they need. In 2012-13, the number of students in need rose to 32.  We sent these children to other states who have developed capacity to serve not only their residents, but to generate income by serving ours.

Last school year, the State of Delaware miserably failed 32 students and their families. This was not new news. Delaware has always lacked capacity to serve its students needing residential placement in their home state.

There is no debate regarding whether or not these children need residential placements.  ICT has repeatedly chanted the mantra that these cost of  residential placements is prohibitive and drain on current resources.  Our state's failure lies in the fact that a state as small as Delaware has been unable to establish nor meaningfully invest in the services that the complex needs of these students demand.
Currently, only one in-state residential program, Advoserv, offers the types of services required.  And this organization lacks the capacity - either the appropriate model or the physical facilities - to absorb additional students.
The data is clear.  In 2004, ICT residentially placed approximately 80 students.  Placements trended downward in the ensuing five years to a low of approximately 30 in 2009 when the state moved away from educational classification as the gateway for special services to the Needs-Based Funding Model currently employed universally across the state. Since 2009, the need for residential placements is scaling upward with FY 12 demanding the same need as FY 07.  FY13 is substantially similar to FY06.  
The need is rising and has been since DOE implemented Needs-Based Funding. Is one tied to the other?

Day program placements have sky rocketed to a 10 YEAR HIGH!  Why?

The road from point of crisis to placement is excessively long in Delaware.  Short-term placements are just that, short in term and lean in services. The families of beyond-complex students fight their way through the red tape to be rewarded on the other side with the message that there is no home for your child in our state. And our statewide leadership has no qualms about sending this message.  They already know what awaits these families - b/c they receive the ICT report annually.
But, the drama doesn't end for these families when their children are ferried away.  Imagine fighting your way into a residential placement for your child, sending him or her off to a facility hundreds of miles away, and then undertaking the weekly or monthly travels necessary to maintain some relationship with that child.  Imagine learning that, after your child has been served in another state for untold years, that if you relocate to that state to be near your child, your child will loose their services offered under Delaware's ICT umbrella b/c he or she will cease to be a resident of the state when you move out of it.
Children seldom improve enough to simply leave ICT placements. That would be akin to a massive miracle cure.  It is far more likely that child that is residentially placed will age out of Delaware's system to be assumed by the home state of their residential provider upon the age of maturity - ultimately shifting the cost of lifelong care out of Delaware.  Again, the devil is in the details.  It's far less expensive to send 32 children out of state today, knowing that there is a determinate end to the expense of their care - 18 or more likely 21 - than there is in committing to assist in funding their lifelong care.
Forty years after IDEA, the State of Delaware has institutionalized discrimination against our most disabled citizens - denoting them to nothing more than second-class citizens.  Where's the outrage?  Where are the politicians?  Where are the resources that are so desperately needed to ensure families have a chance to be families?

And again, the devil is in the details: While the conversations among the varying state agencies are on-going, according to the latest annual report, ICT's hands are tied to the system currently in place - "the provisions of  Delaware Code are specific in their requirements."

If we want to see a change within the ICT system, we need a legislator to step up for our children and fight for them.  Townsend?  Kowalko? Williams?  These children need you!

Category: 6 comments

DOE Burn and Churn? Sec. Murphy loses both his exec ast. and his aid in June...

  • It's DOE Burn and Churn:
    Read it here:
    Ryan Fennerty, Executive Assistant to the Secretary of Education, resignation, effective June 27, 2014.
    Wendee Bull, Aide to the Secretary of Education, resignation, effective June 6, 2014.
  •  3/21/13
        Wendee Bull, Aide to the Secretary of Education, Office of the Secretary, effective February 21, 2013.
       Ryan Fennerty, Executive Assistant to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary, effective February 1,2013.
Category: 3 comments

What does Colonial School District and Faithful Friends Have in Common?

SB 253, passed by the Senate and out of committee in the House.

Sen. Blevins, McBribe, and Rep. Mulrooney crafted this gem:

Go here:
That "certain real property" is the DMV recently vacated by the Delaware Department of Transportation.

It's all in the whereas...

WHEREAS the Airport Road Division of Motor Vehicles facility (the “property”), located in New Castle County has been vacated by the Department of Transportation; and
WHEREAS Section 111 of the Fiscal Year 2014 Capital Improvements Act provided for public input be gathered before a final disposition of the property; and
WHEREAS the Colonial School District has proposed using the property as a pupil transportation hub and facility; and
WHEREAS Faithful Friends has proposed using ten to twenty acres of the property to construct a Pet Adoption and Community Resource Center; and
WHEREAS the surrounding community has indicated support for these two proposals along with their desire for future transportation improvements to alleviate traffic congestion.

The Cost?  $1.00

Pays to have friends in Dover.
Category: 0 comments

Condolences to Parents of Christina

With a heavy heart:

Education Blogger Harry Curriden has passed away. He will forever be known here, at C&E 1st for his brave advocacy for his daughter, the children of Christina, and the students of our State. No obituary could even come close to telling the story of his character and dedication to his family.  Our heart goes out to his wife, Melanie.  May she and her loved ones find the peace and the strength needed to continue on Harry's mission.  

Harry "Hank" Curriden, age 67, of Newark, DE went to rest on Monday, June 16, 2014.
Hank was a loving and dedicated husband, father, and grandfather. He was an educational advocate for children. Hank was full of pride when he taught Social Sciences at Drexel University. He enjoyed learning about military and native history and loved spending time at the beach with his family.
Hank will be missed by his wife, Melanie; daughters, Katherine Roman (Aaron) and Victoria Curriden; grandson, Jacob; and nephew, John Davis. He was preceded in death by his father, Harry F. Curriden; brothers, Jack and Watson Davis; and sister, Mae Curriden.
A visitation will be held on Sunday, June 22, 2014 from 6-8 pm at the Strano & Feeley Family Funeral Home, 635 Churchmans Road, Newark, DE 19702. A graveside service will be held the following afternoon at 2 pm at Lawnside Cemetery, 1017 Rt. 40, Woodstown, NJ, 08098. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to Strano & Feeley Family Funeral Home for Victoria Curriden's education fund. For directions or to express an online condolence, please visit

It's become a tradition here to share an Owl City song whenever we observe the passing of an inspirational figure.  Today, we'll offer two songs:

Fireflies was a favorite of another brave soul who challenged the status quo and left this world much too soon.  

And When Can I See You Again, a newer song, dedicated to Harry's family...

Category: 0 comments

UnDue Process... from Hearsay to Heresy

Below is my original, unpublished blog post regarding the CSD's Board of Education's Emergency Meeting.  Working on a newer post regarding the latest developments, per the NJ.

If there was one apparent during the recent emergency meeting of the CSD Board of Education, it's that, despite being joined on stage by its legal counsel, the board itself has no formal, or rather legal, definition of "harassment." 

harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker. (See: harass, sexual harassment)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.   -

 Last Tuesday, the BOE condemned one of its own for alleged "harassment."
It has been brought to the attention of the Board of Education that Board Member Shirley Sutton-Saffer is alleged to have engaged in inappropriate behavior by harassing a District employee and engaging in an unsafe act. The Board has not conducted an independent investigation to determine the veracity of the allegations. The Board disapproves of any such alleged actions and does not condone any such alleged actions by any member of this board or any employee of the Christina School District.
In all events, even if the conduct as alleged is true, the Board lacks the authority to remove a board member under Article XV, Section 6 of the Delaware Constitution.
The limited evidence relied solely on the hearsay of the board president and vice president.  They alleged to have viewed a recording of fellow board member Shirley Sutton-Saffer  allegedly walking around a school bus from the door to the driver's window.  Additionally, the board president claimed to be able to hear Mrs. Sutton-Saffer identify herself by name and as a member of the Board of Education. Yet, despite being pressed repeatedly by other board members, the recording was not made available to the board at-large or the public.  (My legal eagles assure me that the recording is perfectly FOIA-able, should one want to request to view it.)

The evening, and I witnessed it in person, had all the makings of political drama, from the president who claimed that he "accepted (viewing the recording) as a burden" on behalf of his board-mates to the infamous esquire who despite allegedly sleeping through most of the 90 minutes of debate, still managed to extoll the last word, a sermon from the pulpit if you will, rambling on about how the "supreme court does not wait (for investigations or evidence, when it) dispenses an order." Which anyone who is mildly familiar with 8th grade history knows is a perfectly erroneous and ironic statement to have come from a member of the bar. Allegedly.

Category: 0 comments

NBC10 Weighs Officer's Response in Glasgow High Altercation Video

The 1:05-minute snapshot of the altercation was uploaded to YouTube last week and has garnered thousands of views and dozens of outraged comments. Some commenters said the trooper was just doing his job. Others contend excessive force was used.

Visit the Link and Feel Free to Come Back and Share Your Opinion.
Category: 1 comments

Dr. Terri Hodges, Ed.D, You Owe CSD and John Young an APOLOGY

Dear Terri,

You owe the residents of the Christina School District an apology. More so, you should personall extend that apology to individual resident and publicly elected board member John M. Young. 

Your organization, through its twitter account has crossed the line of professionalism and jumped face first into catty-girl-fight.  It's more than a disappointment, it's shameful behavior from an organization that claims to be a strong advocate for public education.


Category: 3 comments

Did CSD Board go Rogue on its Admin?

Disclosure:  Thoughts of a former BOE member, gleamed from past experience...

From Delawareonline, posted Friday May 23, 2014, at 3:30 pm:

"The Christina School Board is having an emergency meeting Tuesday to discuss alleged harassment by a board member."
District spokeswoman Wendy Lapham said the board is expected to present a resolution "disapproving of an action by an individual board member," but said district staff have not been involved in that resolution's development or presentation.
This may seem kosher to the under-educated eye.  But, there's more here than appears.  School boards seldom operate outside the assistance of their district staff.  Exceptions might include the hiring and/or firing of their own admin or super.  But, one only needs to review the agenda for Tuesday's Emergency Meeting to see that one of two situations is at hand (and neither involve hiring and/or firing district staff):

1. The CSD BOE is trying to get out ahead of a scandal that about to break in the media; 


2.  The great divide in the BOE is about to widen, with at least one board member going down, possibly targeted intentionally. 

Since I have the honor of having been educated long before RTTT or Common Core zapped critical thinking skills, I think I'm qualified to pick this posting apart (I'm in Green):

The Christina Board of Education will conduct an Emergency Board of Education meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at Gauger-Cobbs Middle School, 50 Gender Road, Newark. The reason a special board meeting must be held on less than seven days’ notice is to address the Board of Education of the Christina School District’s (“Board”) view on a matter of public concern promptly, and before the lack of a response may be construed against the Board. The Board reserves the right to adjourn to Executive Session. 
What constitutes an emergency meeting?  
"Emergency Meetings" are "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety..."
Actually, I tend to think that if this was a true emergency, the meeting would have been held immediately and not scheduled for four days out after a long holiday weekend....

However, CSD has covered its FOIA bases by explaining that this is a special meeting (although it should technically be noted that it is a "regular meeting of the board" occuring with less than seven days notice.)  Thus any FOIA challenge to the "Emergency-ness" of this meeting is likely to fail.  

The reason... is to address the Board of Education of the Christina School District’s (“Board”) view on a matter of public concern promptly, and before the lack of a response may be construed against the Board.
Here's your meat and this is where we see lessons have been learned.  We need only think back to Zack Christie, the silence that followed his alternative placement, and the public fury that filled that silence.  Straight up:  It appears that one board member has done something that is of "public concern" that other board members feel could reflect upon the full body.  These "innocent" board members are seeking to meet to denounce the action of the rogue member before that action can be construed to reflect upon the "innocents."

Now, I can tell that generally there are no innocents on any school board.  Early on in my term, I used to think to myself, "how on earth am I going to get through four years without their muck rubbing off on me?"  And because these boards are political hotbeds that bring the best and worst out in people, even good ones, I got pretty "mucked." I can look back and say with all honesty, I tried my best, but I made mistakes and there are votes I wish I could take back.

And knowing most of the members elected to the current CSD board, I am confident saying that most have from time to time fallen on the wrong side of "just" and found themselves "mucked." But, I've digressed. 

Tuesday's meeting will be called to order and open with public comment.  This is another key to decoding what's actually happening.  The board is tight-lipped on this topic - even drawing the ire of the DE PTA (although the PTA expressed this pretty shamefully.)  BTW, Terri Hodges, you owe John Young an Apology.

So, we have to ask: Why go into Public Comment immediately when it's clear that this board meeting is not about engaging public discussion but rather condemnation of one of its own? Who will speak during public comment?  If this meeting plays out as expected, the comment period will attract only the accuser or his/her representation.  Which leads one to ask, is the BOE getting ahead of a scandal or creating one? 
The language is loaded. Contemplation of "disapproving of an action by an individual board member" is really about Censureship.

Definition of censure (n)

Bing Dictionary
  • cen·sure
  • [ sénshər ]

  1. disapproval: severe criticism
  2. official condemnation: official expression of disapproval or condemnation, e.g. of a legislator by the legislature
  3. criticize somebody or something: to make a formal, often public statement of disapproval of somebody or something
  Bing. Bing. Bing. A, B, and C. 

A little extra reading might be due here:

School Board Censure

By Edwin C. Darden
School board members around the nation are admired for their outspoken ways and no-holds-barred defense of sincere beliefs. But sometimes verbal sparring goes too far and triggers a back draft. The collective disapproval of peers --  in this case, fellow board members --  can be communicated via a censure, a reprimand, removal from board posts, or another authorized rebuke.

The offending official usually responds in one of two ways: accept getting burned or fan the flame via legal or administrative proceedings. School boards have a legal or policy right, and sometimes both, to police their own. But members have options in how to go about it.
The scolding can happen informally, such as when the board president or trusted ally takes the person aside for a conversation. Another discreet alternative: Several board members (but not a quorum) perform a private “intervention.”
When admonishment happens formally, however, it usually means the behavior was so egregious or well-publicized that board colleagues feel that a public response is warranted. Formal actions are rare and titillating, and they inevitably spark citizen and media interest. Public shaming also could generate a lawsuit.
This is what it all boils down to:  Despite an ongoing internal investigation (noted in the NJ), the board leadership (notice only vice president Polaski spoke with the NJ regarding the meeting) believes the evidence it has is causal to censureship. 

We all know that a meeting this "titillating" won't end at adjournment. A posting like this one serves as an engraved invitation to the media to start digging for dirt on all seven members.  (Which, surprisingly, isn't all that hard to find - can anyone say "legal for gun-play-inspiring-club-house-closing-edu-organization?" Now, that's definitely censure-worthy!)

What does censureship really mean down the road?  Is the board getting ready to diss one of its own and deny them legal representation should he/she be named in a coming lawsuit?  As legal representation is generally an accepted given for school board members.  But, a board could turn on a member and vote to deny them representation.  Is that where CSD is headed?  Will it be the first Delaware district in modern times to take that drastic action?

Because, frankly, what's about to happen, in any case, is pretty damn rare!

Category: 2 comments