Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube

By Dr. Rebecca Hamman

After 18 years, Stamford Board of Education (BOE) former and current majority party leaders are finally getting a taste of their own medicine…what goes around comes around. There are consequences for their deceptive political actions. First, the November 2025 BOE elections did not go so well for them. Second, when dictating and budgeting programs their way, it backfired. Third, they weren’t expecting almost 9,000 high school educators, parents, and students to speak out so boldly. These committed individuals are not fooled, and neither are five bi-partisan BOE members. It is time to stop playing politics with our Stamford students.

Public Relations Tour & Media Spin

Now on a desperate PR tour, rogue SPS top leaders are learning, too, that their biased input is falling to deaf ears. The media spin is not working either. The 2026-2027 SPS budget, although now in the hands of Board of Finance, will be sent back to the BOE in April/May, and cuts will still need to be made. The high school interim, 8-block A/B schedule will also move forward, regardless of misinformation shared about reductions.

Stamford families are not blind to the political antics used by BOE and district leaders. Just read local social media where real parents are speaking out—Facebook/Stay Informed & Involved in The Classrooms, Stamford Moms, etc., as well as NextDoor.com. They are listening to each other, sharing input and happily looking forward to next year’s realignment of teaching and learning across all grade levels. It is time for change, and they are taking back control.

Data Bias Concerns

Research studies need to be fully transparent, ethical, reliable and all variables accounted for. Sadly, the quantitative data is very questionable. In conjunction, although cabinet leaders believe this schedule helps failing students graduate on time, lack of curriculum coverage and grade inflation continues to be highly apparent. Most concerning, data was only shared for 9th grade—approximately 1,125 students. Originally, this schedule was initiated to support 14% of students failing annually (158 per grade x 4 = 632 out of 4,500 across three high schools—AITE, SHS & WHS). Despite the flexible ‘hybrid’ schedule being voted out and ended in June, both quantitative and qualitative data sets were still collected at taxpayers’ expense. Why?

Here are some critical points to consider when data is not fully transparent:

1. Schedule comparisons are not equal.

• First semester 2025-2026 Flexible ‘Hybrid’ Schedule = (4x4) 1-4 classes daily over 90 days OR (A/B) 1-4 classes, every-other-day for 45 days/90 days in total. Students taking 4x4 courses were exposed to limited content and had 1-day processing time. In addition, very few freshmen took A/B courses.

• First semester 2024-2025 A/B Schedule (every-other-day courses) = 7 classes over 45 days/90 days in total. A/B students were exposed to all required content and had 2-days processing time—a much more realistic schedule for active teens.

2. On-track graduation rate is not the same for each schedule. Even more important to know, how many classes does a student need to pass to be on track for a total of four years? This was not shared.

3. Course combinations and grade rates are also not the same for each schedule. How many core classes (math, science, social studies, English Language Arts, and world language) were taken Semester 1? Also, what were actual grades for each core class…passing—A, B, C, D or failing—F? Important to note…freshmen take classes that are easy to pass, and many are not core classes (Freshman Seminar, PE, Health, Art, etc.). This was not shared.

4. Attendance rate is not the same for each schedule either. How many absences were allowed before AGR (Achievement Gap Reduction) rates were reached? This was not shared.

Bias has also been cited in the qualitative data:

• The e-mail introduction to minors (our high school students completing the surveys) is worded to induce favorable reviews.

• All surveys are also heavily biased towards positive responses. In addition to priming the language in the e-mail overview, there are questions with agreement bias that are asking about positive effects of the schedule. In the open-ended section, specifics areas are listed, but strangely, the “challenges” question offers no such specifics.

Next Steps

In dealing with the interim high school schedule, what can be done to plan for next year? If the goal is to obtain neutral, reliable feedback to inform policy decisions, this BOE has some serious work to do, especially when school leaders have not been fully transparent—biased information is not acceptable. The new superintendent may have ideas, but it is clear, parents and educators are tired of how SPS children have been treated.

Momentum is building and the Stamford Public Schools (SPS) budget will be the final decision-maker—all program and staffing decisions ultimately have a price tag attached. Remember, the superintendent reports to the BOE and we have the authority to make decisions, not the superintendent. This new BOE can turn the tide and make a difference rather than relying on inexperienced, frustrated leaders.

Educating our students properly should be the vision, not just graduating them. Let’s have integrity and put aside the game-playing—all SPS students deserve the best education!

Dr. Rebecca Hamman currently serves as a member of the Stamford Board of Education. She is a career educator (teacher and administrator) and has worked 11 years elementary and 15 years secondary. Her comments are her own, and do not represent the official views of the Board of Education or its committees.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!'