I live in Granby. I’m here because this board and this community were given the wrong story about why Granby lost the Special Education High-Quality Incentive Grant.
At the Sept. 16 meeting, Superintendent Cheri Burke told you we lost by one point. That is false. According to a source at the State Department of Education, “The score for Granby was 65; the cutoff was 67.5.” We missed by two and a half points.
Burke then told you, repeatedly, that priority districts usually win these awards, and three times she pointed the finger at legislators helping their own towns. This was a merit-based grant. Three groups of independent assessors scored every application against a rubric, and the scores were averaged. Legislators had no say in who won.
And a town like ours could win. East Granby, right next door, was awarded this grant with a score of 75. Granby scored 65. Granby was not cheated. Granby was outscored, by our own neighbor. Burke said of herself and the East Granby superintendent, “We support each other.” Then maybe she should take some lessons from that superintendent, Suzanne Palmieri, who took the job just last year and still submitted a winning application.
I read our application, and it is easy to see why we lost.
First, it promised results it never defined. The executive summary promises “increased participation,” “improved functional communication skills,” and “a reduction in costly out-of-district placements.” By how much? By when? Section B says success will be measured by increased time in inclusive settings, with no target. Family engagement outcomes like “increased family confidence” cannot be measured at all.
Second, the case for need was thin and sloppy. It gives no district-wide figures, no total count of students with IEPs, and no comparison with state targets. One sentence reads, “a significant increase for 5 of the 7 increased inclusion time by 50 percent.” That is not a sentence. Fifty percent of what?
Third, the budget is riddled with errors. Salaries for five positions appear as a single $194,833 line, with no benefits and no individual salaries. Codes 730 and 734 are swapped between equipment and technology, and the ViewSonic board is listed under both. The narrative asks for capital improvements, when Granby applied for programming funds only. The $42,968 for contracted services comes with no vendor, no rates and no cost breakdown.
Fourth, the application calls its own program by three different names.
This is work that would be sent back to a high school student. It reads as if it were done by a team of amateurs, and nobody proofread it. That failure belongs to the superintendent, not to legislators or priority districts. It cost our students with special needs money they should have had.
I expect this board to correct the record on the score, to tell the public who reviewed and approved this application and to tell us what will change before the next one goes out.
Author’s Note: This was presented at the Oct. 7 BOE meeting. Audio difficulties meant that many attendees could not hear it.