Per my earlier post, Supt. Kevin Lyons presents his case for leaving in today's Daily News. See here and here.
12 comments:
Anonymous
said...
i'm cutting and pasting my comments that I posted on the articles.. maybe a bit too late:
Someone has to say this... the guy bailed on us. He sold us on a plan, and then bailed before the plan was done.
He made immensely harder for anyone new comming behind him, because there is no more room for long term thinking. If a new superintendent comes in with a longer term plan, the people will have valid concerns asking if the new person will be around to see the plan through.
Mark my words, if the going gets tough in Hudson, the guy will bail from there too. He never had any loyalty, its only about him, and his motto is that when the going gets tough, find a new gig!
Those of us that believed in his leadership were simply thrown down the river. Whatever happened to the responsibility of leadership?
Just about all supts are like this. They promise the moon, then move on to a place that offers them more money. Many in town bought what he was selling.
He still has not spoken directly to the public. All we've heard is canned statements to the press. If he's been honest, it's only to the school committee in an executive session. Doesn't he owe it to us to explain his decision and answer questions at a public meeting, like a school committee meeting?
Well ... I only know Kevin Lyons a little bit, but enough to know that the way he described Hudson to me, it's the ideal place for him. And I mean it fits him to a 't.'
I'll tell you one thing I know is very important to him: exposing children to ethnic, social and racial diversity. It got lost in all the emotion, but that was one of the reasons he gave for re-configuring the elementary schools.
You'll note in the story in the Current that he gave that as one of the things that appealed to him about Hudson ...
No longer answering questions? Now nice. Sorry, but his public reasons for leaving don't make sense. He offered only generalizations about Hudson. Was the "character education" he noted in Hudson really enough to make him go there? And what is this diversity he's trumpeting to Gillian? That was never given as a reson for the school reconfiguration a few years ago. It was just a budget issue, he said. By the way, he's going from a town that is 98 percent white to one that is 94 pecent white, according to the 2000 census. Diversity? Let's just call this what it is. He's going because he wants to go. (Oh, wait, I forgot: the search consultant and other supts made him go.) He didn't stick around Newburyport for anything he started to be finished. Some may be offended by that, but that's what superintendents do. Let's move on from this guy as fast as possible.
Yeah, I'm not really sure how closing the Kelley has anything to do with diversity, unless we're talking socio-economic diversity. But even that is a stretch, a big stretch.
And I agree with you Clipper about Hudson.
But I really don't have the need for the equivalent of a "Gee why are you breaking up with me" dinner. Really, to what end?
It was given as a reason, at a School Committee meeting. Not the most important reason (budget), but a reason. All the lower socio-economic groups' elementary-age children were at the Bres ... how is that a stretch, Tom? It's important to some people.
Actually, I think it's important to most people if it were a real issue.
I just have questions.
Why would "All the lower socio-economic groups' elementary-age children" be at the Bres? I'm not being argumentative, just ignorant.
And if they were, what percentage difference are we talking about? Again, I just don't know. Are we talking about the difference of a few percentage points? I'm fairly sure the Bres draws from some higher socio-economic families as well. Right?
Finally, was the Bres inferior to the Kelley in some way? Were a certain class of people being denied something by attending their neighborhood school?
For the record, I supported the closing of the Kelley for economic reasons. I had no idea there were supposedly socio-engineering motives behind it as well.
I also don't harbor Lyons any ill will. I see why other might, but I can't seem to muster any.
Tom, re: was the Bres inferior? I don't have statistics (and nothing was ever said about any school being "inferior,") but I think MCAS scores may be a clue.
I also recall getting comments from admin and teachers that you could always tell which kids came from which neighborhood school when the kids hit Nock. Again, no specifics on any school being lesser than another.
As in, the reconfiguration also allowed for a more standardized curriculum because all the kids were in one elementary school.
As for the diversity - I only know what Lyons said at that SC meeting (it was not discussed at all) and what I observed from being in the Brown, Kelley and Bresnahan schools. I believe (I could be wrong) that all the subsidized housing & etc. is on that side of town.
I think he fought for something that just wasn't going to happen here without more struggle and when he got the opportunity to have it without a fight, he grabbed it. And I mean the complete package, not the diversity part.
I mean, really - at least 3 members of the SC send their kids to private schools.
I think the diversity thing was just the icing on the cake, but you know me, I live for controversy.
All that is just my opinion, of course.
I thought a comment on the DN's website that said something about he didn't stick around to get through Newburyport's hard outer shell and to its creamy nougat center was most apt.
This issue is a red herring. When my kids were at the Bresnahan, I learned that the "socio-economic" rankings are determined by the percentage of kids who receive subsidized lunches at a school. That is hardly a reliable indicator. The Bresnahan has always had a higher percentage of choice students from other towns, including one to the north that has a higher number of kids who get aid. In addition, if any neighborhood has a lower socio-economic status then the others, it's traditionally been the South End, seed by the Brown school. The North End and the Route 95 area served by the Bresnahan have had the highest real estate values. Also, you could argue that any differences are minor anyway. Newburyport is considered a relatively affluent town. Ask a real estate broker or the Department of Education. I agree, let's put this behind us and move on. But my point is that it's competely bogus for the supt to even try to raise this as an issue for leaving. He bolted because he could. End of story.
12 comments:
i'm cutting and pasting my comments that I posted on the articles.. maybe a bit too late:
Someone has to say this... the guy bailed on us. He sold us on a plan, and then bailed before the plan was done.
He made immensely harder for anyone new comming behind him, because there is no more room for long term thinking. If a new superintendent comes in with a longer term plan, the people will have valid concerns asking if the new person will be around to see the plan through.
Mark my words, if the going gets tough in Hudson, the guy will bail from there too. He never had any loyalty, its only about him, and his motto is that when the going gets tough, find a new gig!
Those of us that believed in his leadership were simply thrown down the river. Whatever happened to the responsibility of leadership?
Just about all supts are like this. They promise the moon, then move on to a place that offers them more money. Many in town bought what he was selling.
He still has not spoken directly to the public. All we've heard is canned statements to the press. If he's been honest, it's only to the school committee in an executive session. Doesn't he owe it to us to explain his decision and answer questions at a public meeting, like a school committee meeting?
Actually I don't think so. I'm hoping to post on this at some point, but I think he said enough.
That said, I wouldn't mind him answering questions but I'm not exactly sure what was left unsaid.
Well ... I only know Kevin Lyons a little bit, but enough to know that the way he described Hudson to me, it's the ideal place for him. And I mean it fits him to a 't.'
I'll tell you one thing I know is very important to him: exposing children to ethnic, social and racial diversity. It got lost in all the emotion, but that was one of the reasons he gave for re-configuring the elementary schools.
You'll note in the story in the Current that he gave that as one of the things that appealed to him about Hudson ...
And he's no longer answering questions.
No longer answering questions? Now nice.
Sorry, but his public reasons for leaving don't make sense. He offered only generalizations about Hudson. Was the "character education" he noted in Hudson really enough to make him go there? And what is this diversity he's trumpeting to Gillian? That was never given as a reson for the school reconfiguration a few years ago. It was just a budget issue, he said. By the way, he's going from a town that is 98 percent white to one that is 94 pecent white, according to the 2000 census. Diversity?
Let's just call this what it is. He's going because he wants to go. (Oh, wait, I forgot: the search consultant and other supts made him go.) He didn't stick around Newburyport for anything he started to be finished. Some may be offended by that, but that's what superintendents do. Let's move on from this guy as fast as possible.
Yeah, I'm not really sure how closing the Kelley has anything to do with diversity, unless we're talking socio-economic diversity. But even that is a stretch, a big stretch.
And I agree with you Clipper about Hudson.
But I really don't have the need for the equivalent of a "Gee why are you breaking up with me" dinner. Really, to what end?
It was given as a reason, at a School Committee meeting. Not the most important reason (budget), but a reason. All the lower socio-economic groups' elementary-age children were at the Bres ... how is that a stretch, Tom? It's important to some people.
Actually, I think it's important to most people if it were a real issue.
I just have questions.
Why would "All the lower socio-economic groups' elementary-age children" be at the Bres? I'm not being argumentative, just ignorant.
And if they were, what percentage difference are we talking about? Again, I just don't know. Are we talking about the difference of a few percentage points? I'm fairly sure the Bres draws from some higher socio-economic families as well. Right?
Finally, was the Bres inferior to the Kelley in some way? Were a certain class of people being denied something by attending their neighborhood school?
For the record, I supported the closing of the Kelley for economic reasons. I had no idea there were supposedly socio-engineering motives behind it as well.
I also don't harbor Lyons any ill will. I see why other might, but I can't seem to muster any.
Tom, re: was the Bres inferior? I don't have statistics (and nothing was ever said about any school being "inferior,") but I think MCAS scores may be a clue.
I also recall getting comments from admin and teachers that you could always tell which kids came from which neighborhood school when the kids hit Nock. Again, no specifics on any school being lesser than another.
As in, the reconfiguration also allowed for a more standardized curriculum because all the kids were in one elementary school.
As for the diversity - I only know what Lyons said at that SC meeting (it was not discussed at all) and what I observed from being in the Brown, Kelley and Bresnahan schools. I believe (I could be wrong) that all the subsidized housing & etc. is on that side of town.
I think he fought for something that just wasn't going to happen here without more struggle and when he got the opportunity to have it without a fight, he grabbed it. And I mean the complete package, not the diversity part.
I mean, really - at least 3 members of the SC send their kids to private schools.
I think the diversity thing was just the icing on the cake, but you know me, I live for controversy.
All that is just my opinion, of course.
I thought a comment on the DN's website that said something about he didn't stick around to get through Newburyport's hard outer shell and to its creamy nougat center was most apt.
The creamy center is to die for.
This issue is a red herring. When my kids were at the Bresnahan, I learned that the "socio-economic" rankings are determined by the percentage of kids who receive subsidized lunches at a school. That is hardly a reliable indicator. The Bresnahan has always had a higher percentage of choice students from other towns, including one to the north that has a higher number of kids who get aid. In addition, if any neighborhood has a lower socio-economic status then the others, it's traditionally been the South End, seed by the Brown school. The North End and the Route 95 area served by the Bresnahan have had the highest real estate values. Also, you could argue that any differences are minor anyway. Newburyport is considered a relatively affluent town. Ask a real estate broker or the Department of Education. I agree, let's put this behind us and move on. But my point is that it's competely bogus for the supt to even try to raise this as an issue for leaving. He bolted because he could. End of story.
Fair enough, Clipper.
It does bother me that he signed a contact until 2013, the SC voted on his vision for the district until 2013 and he's not sticking it out.
Just for the record, I did not see him make diversity an issue, although he did bring it up.
Post a Comment