The April 10 special meeting of the Stamford Board of Education was held to discuss the contents of a letter to the editor, “Transparency Issues in Stamford Public Schools,” written by Board of Education Commissioner Becky Hamman and published in 2006. I listened with great interest. CT examiner.
As editor of the CT Examiner, I have published many letters from Hamman. And we extend that privilege equally to all other members of the board. From my own point of view, I find Haman to be knowledgeable, honest, down-to-earth, and a bit of an eccentric duck. Hamann is partisan, but he's not inflammatory unless you're into three-part arguments and bullet points. She is not a “bomb thrower”.
So, in response to Mr. Hamann's letter, which essentially pointed out that the Stanford Board of Education and school administrators had failed to have a proper discussion, President Jackie Heftman and board members I have to say I was surprised to see so much denunciation. There is a clear disparity between the low academic performance and high graduation rates of Stamford Public Schools students. Buried beneath her four bullet points emphasizing her point, Hamann writes succinctly:
And with the number of Stanford Public Schools graduates far outnumbering the number of students achieving grade level, the central office appears to be sending mixed messages. Why hide it?
Please read this letter in its entirety for yourself. On a fair reading, does Hamann's use of the term “concealment” claim malice or amount to defamation?
Personally, I don't want to push myself too hard.
To hear school board attorney Tom Mooney, perhaps the most powerful education lawyer in Connecticut, imply defamation as “observations” rather than “legal advice” to the board, Mooney I can only think that he is making a distinction. According to legal advice, that amounts to medical malpractice.
Let me be clear: The idea that Haman's letter amounts to defamation, and that the CT inspector is implicitly complicit in such defamation, is frankly disingenuous. It's even dangerous.
That said, they are elected officials, and the issues raised by Hamann are salient and put them at the forefront of rethinking how Stanford balances measures of equity and academic performance. When you think about it, anything that amounts to a blatant attempt is not strange. To shut Haman up by punching him in the eyebrows and discouraging him from writing about matters of public interest in this publication.
I was also not impressed when Heftman and board members demanded that Hamann prove a “cover-up.” In fact, given that it's basically impossible for her to prove anything that doesn't exist, there's a serious question as to how the city's public schools can reconcile with students who are overwhelmingly below grade level. It's a discussion. We have a track record of high graduation rates.
Apparently under duress, Haman recanted her words. I don't.
And while I have never endorsed or signed this document or any of Hamann's letters, in convening this special meeting, Heftmann and the members of the school board, through misdirection and subterfuge, I am vaguely saying that I am hiding what I should be doing. We need serious discussions about grading, social advancement, and how to best serve Stanford families and children. If calling it a cover-up is defamation, please sue me.
—
The author is not only the editor-in-chief of CT Examiner, but also comes from a poor, majority-minority public school system in Rochester, New York. Stroud later earned a bachelor's degree from Oberlin College and a doctorate in history from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Before starting CT Examiner, Stroud taught history and literature at Bennington College.
