What We Know, What We Think We Know, and What We Want to Know....

A number of readers have been calling into question our sources of knowledge, identity, and purpose for creating this blog. While we have expressed our concern regarding revealing our identities, many questions still linger. Many who are against this blog want to portray us haters of the school, union folks, or individuals out with a personal vendetta against the school. We have tried to assure you that we are none of those but have had an epiphany regarding our identity; that if we clarify what we do know versus what we think and want to know, it may help others to trust our very positive intentions and remove the need to know our identify as this information can be confirmed.


To that end we have begun with documenting what we know to be valid issues. These issues are based on laws and regulations that govern charter schools and special education concerns. To provide the 'proof' that many anti-bloggers have requested, we have provided the source of our information (i.e. links and quotes to various laws and regulations, as well as a link to the DESE 2008 site visit report that addressed THEIR directives, issues, and concerns. Additionally we have included information from current and former staff members who have contacted us (and that we were able to verify their employment within the school) with their own issues and concerns.
We will start this post with simply what we know, what we can provide documentation to and/or specific references. Meanwhile we ask that should any of you have additional information that you know (and possibly provide us with proof or a way for us to verify it), we welcome your concerns. We also ask that if you have questions you would like answered regarding the school and think we may be able to clarify or research, we also welcome those. Our hope is that once we have identified the major issues that we can compile ideas on how to best rectify the issues that are having the most negative implications to our students and their futures.
We thank the many of you who have continued to support and defend us, as well as those of you who are still questioning our intentions yet willing to keep an open mind in the best interest of all of our children.

What We Know:
·        The school is in violation of conflict of issue and code of conduct laws (Mass Government Ethics Conflict of Interest Laws & Mass Government Code of Conduct Laws: 

• "You may not hire, promote, supervise, or otherwise participate in the employment of your immediate family or your spouse's immediate family."
• "You may not take any type of official action that will affect the financial interests of your immediate family or your spouse's immediate family. For instance, you may not participate in a licensing or inspection process involving a family member's business";
• "You may not take any official action affecting your own financial interest, or the financial interest of a business partner, private employer, or any organization for which you serve as an officer, director or trustee. For instance: you may not take any official action regarding an "after hours" employer, or its geographic competitors; you may not participate in licensing, inspection, zoning or other issues that affect a company you own, or its competitors; if you serve on the Board of a non-profit organization (that is substantially engaged in business activities), you may not take any official action which would impact that organization, or its competitors"
• "You may not use your official position to obtain unwarranted privileges, or any type of special treatment, for yourself or anyone else. For instance: you may not approach your subordinates, vendors whose contracts you oversee, or people who are subject to your official authority to propose private business dealings."
• "Section 23(b)(3) prohibits a public employee from knowingly, or with reason to know, engaging in conduct which would cause a reasonable person to conclude that any person or entity can improperly influence the employee or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, or position of any person."
• Examples of these violations include:
• The hiring and employment of:

§  Kathy Kinnon

§  Greg Kinnon

§  Burt Shapiro

§  Christopher Finn

§  Anthony Chicurelli

§  Martin Gately

§  John Baglio

§  Francis Brown - Board Members with Repeated Appointments

§  Thomas Brennan - Board Members with Repeated Appointments

o   ‘You may not represent anyone but your public employer in any matter in which your public employer has an interest. For instance, you may not contact other government agencies on behalf of a company, an association, a friend, or even a charitable organization.’

§  Roosevelt Park & General Facilities rentals

o   o   Code of Conduct:

§  Lottery & Waitlist Issues:

·        We have confirmed that relatives of Chris Finn were readmitted.

·        We know of a number of families who were assured of entry into the school through the lottery system.

§  Jordan Shapiro retained as attorney;

·        Served on numerous committees (including YMCA in the past)  with Neil Kinnon;

·        Son is employed at school .

·        Violations of the laws that govern Charter Schools:
o   The school has a very low number of certified teachers compared to other districts and schools yet are required to hire certified teachers.

§  As a side note the school must submit to the DESE a proposal as to how they plan on addressing the high turnover and low retention rate that plaque many charter schools

• Special Education Issues: These were compiled using emails from staff and information from the site visit report from the 2008 DESE site visit (DESE Special Education Review 2008):

o   IEP’s (Individual Education Plans for students with diverse learning needs) are lacking in that they do not specify students ability at time of evaluation and/or reviews, nor are annual reviews conducted in a timely manner. Additionally, IEP’s and 504’s do not typically identify the explicit method or learning needs of the student.

o   We have from numerous individuals (both parents & staff members) of the Administration informing parents during and IEP meeting that ‘this is how we do it here and you knew that when you signed on’ when questioned regarding their child’s progress. It also appears that the school is unwilling to identify specific learning disabilities within IEP’s and have informed parents that that is a common practice, which it is not.

o   Mystic Valley Regional Charter School is a Commonwealth charter school and by law, is not required to have licensed special education teachers. 

o   Although training is provided during the week prior to the start of school, the school does little to assist or coach new teachers or paraprofessionals in addressing the learning needs of students on an individual basis. We have heard of newer staff members not receiving copies of IEP's or even knowledge of a students needs for accomodations. Any training that is done is conducted in a large group setting where the Director of Special Education (Kathy Kinnon) reads aloud from a power-point presentation and out of respect for the students, teachers are not able to ask specific questions. With the high turnover, new teachers do not have the benefit of consulting their peers as to how best to ensure student success.

o   Although the school does perform training on subject matters required by the DESE, a number of staff and former staff members wrote in regarding the schools unwillingness to follow these laws. As the school outsources their Psychological services, the School Counselors they contract with are limited by the restrictions placed on them by the school.

§  Any threats of students doing harm to themselves or others and/or suspicions of neglect MUST be reported, parents notified, and the appropriate authorities contacted. A number of teachers made mention of reporting these types of incidences to the appropriate Administrator only to have nothing done or to be forbidden to follow the laws. By law in either of these situations, parents must be notified, psychological evaluations performed (if applicable) and the correct authorities are to be contacted.

o   Little oversight or evaluation is performed by independent, highly qualified individuals who are well versed in meeting the needs of diverse learners. Further, the school does not perform self-evaluations on their program or services. This is alarming considering that a number of students have been retained on more than one occasion and that it appears as though the Director of Special Education has had little experience outside of Mystic Valley.

o   Amazingly the school has not required the implementation of an English Language Learner program as it has not had any ELL students enroll. This was partially due to the lack of recruitment and promotional materials being translated for residents whose native language is not English. Additionally, the school does not appear to have any staff with experience in educating ELL non-native English speaking students.

• According to Department guidance, English learners who wish to participate in a transitional bilingual program or receive some other type of language support may not do so unless they have received a waiver from the requirements of G.L. c. 71A from the school in question. The letters submitted by the school either document the refusal of ESL services by the parent or request an exception for the school year for students 10 years or older. A procedure addressing students who are 10 years or younger was not provided by the school.

o   The school’s student and parent handbook does not contain 1) a nondiscrimination statement; 2) the school’s procedure for accepting, investigating and resolving complaints alleging discrimination or harassment; 3) the inclusion of students with Section 504 Accommodation Plans in the section on procedures for the discipline of students with special needs.