EXN Committee Hearing Transcript for 02/05/2009

SENATOR LOONEY: Good afternoon. The public hearing of the Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee will come to order. Today we have seven nominations to be heard. Two House joint resolutions and five Senate joint resolutions.

The first nomination is that of Kathleen P. O'Connor, Esquire, of West Hartford to be a member of the State Board of Education.

Attorney O'Connor, if you could raise your right hand please. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give here today shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: I do.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you. Please have a seat. If you'd give an opening statement and then the committee members may have some questions.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: I do. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Kathleen O'Connor I'm a resident of West Hartford, Connecticut, where I live with my husband and my four children for almost ten years.

I'd like to begin by thanking the Chairpersons, Senator Looney and Representative Janowski, the Ranking Members, Senator McKinney, Representative Piscopo and the other members of the Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee for your time today. I'd also like to thank Governor Rell for putting my name into nomination to be a member of the State Board of Education.

I had the pleasure of growing up as the fourth of six children in Tarrytown, New York, and from a very young age my parents instilled in me the importance of education. I am a graduate of Georgetown University, the University College of London where I received a Master's in Research in Psychology and Fordham University School of Law. After graduating from law school, I had the privilege of clerking for Honorable Thomas J. Meskill on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

I entered the private practice of law immediately after my clerkship, working for a small firm in New York, the Plunkett & Jaffe law firm. Went on to move to Connecticut and work in the Office of -- the legal counsel's office for Governor John G. Rowland. After two years there, I went back to private practice at Plunkett & Jaffe where we merged, almost three years ago with a national law firm, now called McKenna, Long & Aldridge.

In addition to my law practice I currently serve as a Trustee at the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art and I am currently serving as the Governor's Representative on the Judicial Selection Commission.

My husband and I have four children ages three through seven, and we are very active in their extracurricular activities. Two of our children attend Duffy Elementary School in West Hartford, and the two younger children attend school for young children at St. Joseph's College.

I'm honored to be asked to serve on the State Board of Education because I believe that our greatest investment that we, as the citizen's of Connecticut can make for our future, is the education of our children. As a parent, I recognize the importance of families and communities working with schools to contribute to the success of Connecticut's students. The importance of maintaining high standards for our students and our teachers and working cooperatively to close the large achievement gap in our state are critical issues that we need to address.

Although the entire nation is facing very difficult economic challenges, the importance of ensuring that the students of Connecticut continue to receive the resources necessary to be prepared to compete in the global marketplace is essential.

I look forward to working as a member of the State Board of Education to tackle many of these difficult challenges we face, and to work to ensure that every child in Connecticut is afforded a first-rate educational opportunity.

Thank you all again for your time and attention and I'd obviously be happy to answer any questions.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you.

First question I have is, obviously for many of us I think the major challenge facing education in the state of Connecticut is the continuing significant achievement gap between low-income minority students, especially in urban areas and more affluent students in suburban areas and as that gap continues to grow it's, in effect, a threat, I think, to the future well-being of the state and our community.

What do you think that you can do or what should the State Board of Education be doing about facing that challenge and narrowing that gap?

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: I think that the State Board of Education is currently and has recently continued to try and address the closing of the achievement gap. I think if I had the answer I might not -- if I had the answer, anybody did, it would've been done by now. I think that's it's going to take a continued, I think, effort in terms of managing the State's very, very tight assets that we have to make sure that we dedicate all of the essential resources to closing that achievement gap. I think that through the investments and -- that the State is currently making in -- in the education funding system, I also think that we've, you know, recently the -- the State Board of Education kind of put out a five-year plan which talks about early childhood education and three- and four-year olds starting them on the right track and continuing to make sure that they stay on the right track through accountability standards, et cetera.

SENATOR LOONEY: Very Good. One other concern about in Connecticut, obviously, we have a very strong tradition of local control, and sometimes, as we know, that actually proves a barrier to kind of the creative cooperation that you might get in terms of regional cooperation among districts. We're a very large number of school districts, in fact, almost every municipality is a separate school district. We only have a few regional school districts.

Just your thoughts about in the way in which the State Board should interact with local Boards and where should the locus of policy-making be at the state level or at the local level?

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Thank you for the question. I think last night I was unable to attend but I'm from West Hartford and there were over 250 people who showed up for a town hearing in West Hartford on the educational cuts that the town was having to contemplate.

And I think that -- to answer your question directly, I think that the local towns and municipalities should really dictate and be able to determine the fate of the -- and in working in conjunction with the State Board of Education because I do think that in order to effectively, hopefully, decrease the large achievement gap that we see from district to district from, say, Hartford, and again, I'm a West Hartford resident, so my, you know, my perspective is -- is -- is formed through my experiences there predominately, but I think that it's a perfect example of the State Board of Ed working well with the town and the municipality to achieve both the State's goals and the State Board of Ed goals and the town's goals.

So I think that local control is obvious, we have very, on a town-by-town level, in every municipality in the State, I think that we have eager volunteers on the local Boards of Education who run for those offices because they are interested in -- in having significant input, and I think that you -- that many parents also feel like they can have a voice through those Boards, so I think they're very effective.

SENATOR LOONEY: One more question before I turn it over to my cochair and other committee members. What's your view on the issue of teacher credentialing in the state? In other words, is there a close enough nexus between teacher credentialing in terms of teachers getting a Master's degree or sixth-year certificate and is that necessarily tightly enough correlated with the judging teacher's success in the classroom?

We hear all the time that there sometimes may be alternate means to certification that sometimes produce outstanding classroom teachers. We hear about sometimes the miracles worked in classrooms by dedicated, young Teach for America graduates who come into the program with outstanding undergraduate records but not necessarily much in the way of prior preparation specifically for teaching. Your views on that whole process?

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Well, I won't claim to have any first-hand knowledge of the credentialing process or procedures. I have many friends and relatives who are teachers and superintendents who say -- who explained exactly the same story that you just said. You could have a very eager Teach for America young student who hasn't gone through perhaps the Master's or the six-year credentialing process.

I think my belief is that you have to have accountability in the system and some type of credentialing so that -- mostly, just only for accountability but to make sure that everybody is on a level playing field. That all the students who are receiving this education have qualified teachers who are able to meet the State's standards for credentialing. So I think credentialing is important. I can't really speak to the level of detail in terms of one method which would be better than the other.

SENATOR LOONEY: Well, I think that is -- that's obviously a concern is that we need to make sure that our credentialing is not -- that there isn't a disconnect between actual effective performance in the classroom and credentialing, so that if we have a purely bureaucratic system of credentialing that you automatically qualify for higher compensation by virtue of years in the system or graduate degrees attained, even though that may not necessarily measure up in terms of classroom performance.

I think that's a problem. Then we kind of have a sort of calcified bureaucracy in teaching that's not necessarily gauged to real impact on the students. And again on the other hand, the benefits of the traditional system of awarding greater benefits for degrees and certifications at least that's an objective standard.

You can tell whether somebody either has or doesn't have that credential. But the problem is: is that credential necessarily a relevant credential to what it means to be a good teacher? And I think that's something that would ask you as a Board member to pay attention to and try to get that question answered during your tenure.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Oh, thank you.

SENATOR LOONEY: Good. Thank you.

Madam Chair.

REP. JANOWSKI: Thank you. Congratulations on your nomination.

This is a new appointment for you and it's a volunteer position. You have not, as yet, had the opportunity to attend any meetings.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: That's correct.

REP. JANOWSKI: Okay. I have a couple of questions. One has to do basically with and I'm sure you're familiar the No Child Left Behind Law, which basically focuses on a lot of student testing. And what I wanted to get was some comment from you as to whether -- what your thoughts are on this standardized test results and should the test results be the basis for making decisions about students in terms of either promoting them to the next level or perhaps even for graduation?

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Thank you. Again, I think that we need certain standards, baseline standards to make sure that across our very diverse state we have some standard basis for gauging where our students are and where they're going from there.

I had a sister-in-law who teaches second grade at Mary Hooker's School who will tell you that, you know, these second graders who should be reading, you know, when you look at the -- across the state how we have done on the No Child Left Behind I think it affords us an ability as a state to look at ourselves from classroom to classroom and at least affords us a mechanism, whether it be flawed or it should be changed, I do believe that we need some mechanism for gauging how we are doing from district to district and from school to school.

REP. JANOWSKI: But you don't believe that that should be the only method of making that decision?

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: No, I do not.

REP. JANOWSKI: Okay.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: I think there's a lot of factors that go into determining that and I don't think -- in any classroom or in any district that there can just be one up or down for a student. I think that each student, each district, each classroom, each individual child is very different and we need to afford teachers the ability to work within that system.

REP. JANOWSKI: Okay, because that is one of the criticisms of the No Child Left Behind is that it's one test fits all.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Right.

REP. JANOWSKI: And that's creating a huge problems, very big problems and unfortunately some of them can result in sort of pigeonholing or branding a child in a certain direction which I think is detrimental to the -- not only to the well-being of that child but also to their future development, so I do think we have to be careful.

And my other question has to do with, and I think Senator Looney touched on this a little bit, in an effort to equalize education throughout the state of Connecticut we have done a number of things to try to meet the requirements to do that so that there isn't this disparity between the urban schools and the other schools.

One of the ways that this Legislature has been -- one method is of course the School Choice Program which is a program that a number of schools have adopted, which has been working well, since it started, which has been I think three or four years. I could be wrong. It might be a little bit longer than that. It could be five years.

Another method which seems to be predominately the way this Legislature seems to be going is to just build more magnet schools and that, in itself, is starting to create huge problems with funding. And one of those problems has to do with sort of -- a monies leaving local municipalities and now being redirected to magnet schools because municipalities are required to pay 100 percent tuition of magnet schools, and often they get much less than that in ECS dollars. So not only are they losing some ECS money as a result but they're also having to pay over and above ECS amounts, and I envision that the magnet schools, because they're not sustainable by themselves, are going to have to increase tuition rates and those that do not currently charge tuition will have to start doing so in order to sustain themselves.

And I wanted to -- I guess what my question boils down to is what do you see going in with fresh eyes, as a way to solve this issue between the competition that is now starting to -- well, that exists and is starting to proliferate between the public school system and the magnet school system?

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Thank you, Representative. I wish I had a great answer for the solution to that problem. I recognize that that is going to be one of the biggest challenges that we face as we try to cope with, again, closing this achievement gap. While we have great charter schools and magnet schools and choice programs, but -- but how the money follows the student or how that funding stream ultimately works is -- I think going to be one of the biggest challenges that we face as the State Board of Education and as a state, figuring out how to make sure that the -- that, again, the needs of the student, the needs of the child should be paramount, and I think that the system, we have to work the system in such a way that -- that we cannot disadvantage those -- those students but also those schools that are willing to participate in the -- in the -- in the programs that will ultimately, hopefully close the achievement gap.

So I don't -- I don't have the solution to the funding problem, but I'm certainly eager to -- to look and find and work with the State Board of Ed to find one, because I think it's imperative.

REP. JANOWSKI: Thank you. And I'm glad you brought up and that you mentioned charter schools because the difference between charter schools and magnet schools is that the charter schools operate under a state charter --

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Uh-huh.

REP. JANOWSKI: -- and the tuition is totally funded by the state.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Right.

REP. JANOWSKI: Okay. And magnet schools do not operate --

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Right.

REP. JANOWSKI: -- under a state charter, they're private entities and they are -- the municipalities are being required now to pay the full tuition. That's a big difference.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Uh-huh.

REP. JANOWSKI: Thank you.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Agreed. Thank you.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you, Representative.

Are there questions from -- yes, Senator McKinney.

SENATOR McKINNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank you Kathleen for volunteering your time to the state of Connecticut and commend Governor Rell for your nomination. I don't have a question, just a compliment.

As many of you in this building may know, maybe you had a chance to work with Attorney O'Connor, when she was Deputy Legal Counsel to the Office of the Governor, and I'll get myself in hot water with past and present employees, but I have not come across someone as intelligent and as confident as you were. You did a great job for the state of Connecticut then, and you're going to do a great job now, so, thank you.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Oh, thank you, Senator. Very nice.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you Senator.

Other questions? Yes, Representative Giannaros?

REP. GIANNAROS: Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Kathleen.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Good afternoon.

REP. GIANNAROS: Congratulations on your nomination.

Serving on the Board of Ed, in my opinion, is one of the most important positions because we're affecting the lives of future generations in a very significant way. We know how important education is. And the first question that I have is, what do you think should be the role of private education versus public?

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Again, as a parent, I believe that parents need to make very -- choices for what works best for their children, so I think that, you know, we have an extremely robust, very high attendance rate at our public schools in Connecticut. It's -- I mean, it's a compliment to the state and the investment that the state has continued to make in our children that we have such high enrollment rates at our public schools versus -- versus private institutions. But I think that private institutions if they can be self-sustaining and they should be an option for any parent who can afford or choose that option.

REP. GIANNAROS: And I guess what I'm looking for more specifically, should the state be making a strong commitment to public education.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Absolutely.

REP. GIANNAROS: With relation to the Sheff versus O'Neill complications that we have when you look at what has happened in the state of Connecticut it's actually, literally disgusting. This has been going on for 25, what 30 years? 20 years, 30 years, whatever it is that the court litigated the issue and we're still no where close to what we were promised to do -- we had promised to do. We still have segregated educational systems when it comes to the cities. How do you feel about that and what would you do?

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Well, I think that the state -- the most recent comprehensive plan has -- has really attempted to address the problems that we've seen since the Court's decision and the implementation of the plan by dedicating, you know, an office at the State Department of Education, as well as a new office in the district, to kind of implement a day-to-day implementation plan to make it -- you know, to make sure that parents of students in the districts that might want to be in a different setting can get there. Making sure that they know what their options are and are educated on those options.

So I don't disagree with your characterization that we have come not nearly as far as everyone involved in the process would have hoped we could have, and I think that again, it's paramount that we be really focused on how to implement the court's order.

REP. GIANNAROS: And the last question relating to the same thing.

Thank you, Madam Chair in a moment I'll be done.

I guess what I was going to ask is do you really think that we can actually solve that problem without changing the zoning laws that preclude certain types of income groups from moving around.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Yes, I do. I'm confident that we have within the Connecticut State Legislature and within the State Department of Education confident people, and the teachers on the ground and the individuals who are tasked with implementing this new comprehensive plan for Sheff I am, again, this is -- this is my first foray into this, so --

REP. GIANNAROS: So why have we failed?

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: It could be -- I could be naive, but I'm also an eternal optimist. And I think that --

REP. GIANNAROS: I understand.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: -- knowing the resources that the state has dedicated to the management of this plan, I think it's going to be very difficult I think that it's cost-prohibitive. I think that we're going to face a lot of challenges along the way, but I'm pretty confident knowing that the spirit of it is -- is to get it moving and implemented. If anyone can do it, we should be able to.

REP. GIANNAROS: But we've spent a lot of money and we've failed.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: We have.

REP. GIANNAROS: And we have failed to do it.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Agreed. Agreed.

REP. GIANNAROS: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you, Representative Giannaros.

Other questions from members of the committee.

One other one, since obviously you're an accomplished attorney as well as now a nominee for this position, any thoughts that you might have in regard on the issue that has come up recently in terms of students First Amendment rights in the wake of the Doninger case and the whole issue of internet communications and the way in which now communications perhaps made out of school might or might not have an impact in school or be subject to discipline in the school system; different federal district courts in different parts of the country have now decided cases different ways on that.

So just your thoughts on that issue and how -- how the State Board might go about grappling with that in setting policy.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: It's a very good question. As an attorney it's fascinating to me to watch how, as you accurately stated, different federal courts in different circuits have decided these free speech arguments as it relates to in-school/out-of-school internet/cyberspace communications. This is a whole different ballgame that we are in right now in terms of the ever-changing evolution of communication and the roles that these communications play in the school setting.

I really haven't thought about what policies the State Board of Education should be implementing. Of course, as a parent, I would love to see more parents tell their childrens to leave their phones in their, you know, cars or their bookbags or, you know. I mean, mine are only still under the age of eight, but I fear for the day when any of them get ahold of any -- any device. And so, but my position is I'd like to see cell phones, you know, put back in the lockers and locked until school is over.

And -- and that doesn't address your question of content about school and the free speech issue. But, again, as a lawyer, I don't -- I don't really believe -- I believe it's the legislature's job to really set those laws, the policy -- as it relates to free speech and other issues, and -- and I do think that school districts have to really take a very hard look at those issues.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you very much.

Are there any other questions from members of the committee?

If not, there's one we ask of all nominees. Is there anything in your background that might prove embarrassing to the Governor as the appointing authority, or to this committee or the General Assembly in approving your nomination?

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: No, sir.

SENATOR LOONEY: Well, thank you very much and congratulations.

KATHLEEN O'CONNOR: Thank you all for your time. I appreciate it.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you.

The next nominee is, I believe, Patricia Luke who also wants to be on the State Board of Education. Come forward. Thank you very much. Good afternoon.

If you'd raise your right hand please. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give here this afternoon, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

PATRICIA B. LUKE: I do.

SENATOR LOONEY: Please have a seat. If you'd give the committee a statement, and then there may be some questions from the members.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Thank you.

Good afternoon Senator Looney, Representative Janowski and members of the Committee, I am Patricia Luke of East Hampton, a nominee of Governor Rell for reappointment as a voting member of the Connecticut State Board of Education. It's my pleasure to be here with you this afternoon.

You've been provided with a copy of my resume but I would like, briefly, to summarize for you, my background and experience. I'm a product of Connecticut's and Florida's public school systems, and North Carolina's and Connecticut's college and university systems. I have almost 45 years of experience in the education community at the local, state and national levels.

I've been a teacher in the public schools and in higher education, and I've been an elected school board member and an association executive working with school board members and school. Administrators. More recently, I've served on the Connecticut State Board of Education where I've also served on its Policy Committee and chaired its Finance, Audit and Department Matters Committee.

I'm the parent of three grown and very wonderful children who have taught me some of the most important lessons about life, education and children.

As you can see from my resume, my work with the state school board's association was focused heavily on public policy issues, as was my involvement at the national level where education standards, testing and curriculum were among the most pressing issues of the time. They remain pressing issues today. However, I continue to believe that our efforts in education in those areas and others, cannot succeed unless we can assure that every child comes to school ready to learn and every teacher comes to school well-prepared to teach.

I had a long and exciting work life from which I am now retired. My interest and my work have always been in education and matters related to children. However, I continue to believe that our efforts in education in those areas and others, cannot succeed unless we can assure that every child comes to school ready to learn.

I would be honored to have the opportunity to continue to serve on the State Board of Education and to pursue, with the Board and the Commissioner of Education, a focused agenda for public education that presses forward with the important goals that the Board has set and that I'm convinced will make a real difference for Connecticut's children. That prospect gives me great hope for the future. I'm grateful to Governor Rell for her nomination, and to you for your consideration.

It would be my pleasure to try to answer any question that you might have for me.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you.

This is a reappointment, and you have -- how long have you been on the State Board of Ed now?

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Coming up to eight years, Senator.

SENATOR LOONEY: Coming up to eight years.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Yes.

SENATOR LOONEY: Okay. Since you are a veteran member of the Board and an experienced member of the Board, I'd like to have your thoughts on what -- what the has been doing, or should be doing at an accelerated pace to deal with this ongoing crisis of the achievement gap between urban and suburban minority and nonminority, and affluent and nonaffluent students.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: I think we're -- we're working very hard at it, and our very gifted staff at the State Department is working very hard at it. We are talking about 75,000 children in our state that attend public schools, and our aim to educate every one of them to their fullest potential is -- is a difficult task.

I think if we approach it from the perspective that it's every child that we're seeking to bring to their highest possible level of achievement and we focus our efforts on preschool education for children, all of those who need it, all of those seek it, all of those who want it. And we aim our curriculum efforts and our teaching efforts at that goal. And if we reform our high schools to the degree that they've needed reform for 30 years or more then we're headed toward that direction.

I think if we're working toward every child then that gap begins to close and where it's serving every child, not just some children, not just those who come to school all ready with the background for learning, but every child. And we've been working so hard at those goals and our staff has been working so hard at implementing them. I'm sure that we can do it, but everything that we deal with really swirls around that one issue of raising every child's level of achievement.

And we have to break into that higher education. We need to have teachers who come to school ready to teach every child. That's a daunting task, and so our efforts to bring together pre-K through 12, and then up through 16, up through higher ed into this effort can make a great difference at it. Because in the end, a great teacher in a classroom with a child is what makes the difference.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you. Just another question. In terms of what we now expect of our schools and with the mandates and the concern about the testing requirements and the No Child Left Behind requirements and all that, many would argue that our school day and school year, as presently constituted, are just not adequate to deal with those constraints. That some of the dramatic successes that we've seen in certain charter schools is directly connected to a significantly longer school day.

Your thoughts on that. Should the school day be significantly longer on a uniform basis? Should the school year be significantly longer on a uniform basis? Because obviously our school calendar is tied to what used to be an agrarian economy when the students needed to be home in the summers to help their parents on the farm, and your thoughts on that system of a school calendar both on a daily and a yearly basis.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: I think youngsters have to spend more time in school, and in order to do that I think we probably should be aiming toward a longer day. Probably, or perhaps a day that -- that in many private schools permits children to be there for their extra-curricular activities after a certain time in the school day rather than having orchestra and band and other things during the school day.

So, yes, I think a longer school day, and I absolutely think a longer school year. When we send children home in June and do not bring them back until September, for many of those children, especially those with many needs beyond the average, they've just regressed back, and we have to start all over again, so it makes no sense at all to me to do that. I think rotating the schedule the way some other states have and certainly other nations, where youngsters are in school for a certain period of time, have a certain amount of vacation, go back and continue that cycle around the year, makes good sense to me. And I think we can't do the job without more time. I'm convinced of that.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you.

Representative Janowski.

REP. JANOWSKI: Thank you. Congratulations on your nomination.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Thank you.

REP. JANOWSKI: Glad to see that you've been on this Board for, you said over eight years?

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Not over, but almost.

REP. JANOWSKI: Eight years? Almost eight years.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Yes.

REP. JANOWSKI: Okay, well, thanks for coming back.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: I keep wondering if that's enough.

REP. JANOWSKI: Well, just a couple of questions. One has to do with, and I'm sure that you're familiar with this, the in-house suspension --

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Yes.

REP. JANOWSKI: -- policy that I think we passed last year. I think that is has a great deal of merit. Unfortunately it has and is becoming a problem at this point to implement. What are your feelings on having this put off for another year or two?

PATRICIA B. LUKE: I understand the concerns of locals about how the implement this issue, but on the other hand, I think we're about children and I, personally, don't want to see anymore kindergarteners sent home on suspension for whatever they've been doing in school. We have to find other ways and -- but I understand the concerns. Some districts have concerns about space and how they handle and implement that situation. I think we have to get more creative about it, but -- but I would understand putting it off for -- for another year.

But I think we have to ask locals to look at their own policies and think creatively about how to deal with young children who present certain problems in school. They belong in school, not at home, not on the street, not somewhere else, and -- and we have to find ways to keep them in school.

REP. JANOWSKI: And I agree with you with the -- I was shocked to find out that kindergartners were being suspended. I don't get it. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm just not -- I did not see this program as referring to kindergartens, because I -- there has to be a policy, and I think you're right, I think schools do need to look at their existing policies and come up with something better. I was looking at this program more for probably high school or middle school or, you know, middle school.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Unfortunately, you know, when I was young, those were the folks who got suspended from school. Now, we have, you know, tons of elementary children are suspended from school and we have to perhaps have better classroom management policies and practices and also we have to learn how to deal with difficult behaviors from children in the school setting but children belong in school.

REP. JANOWSKI: And I think the school systems do agree that something needs to be done. It's a question of, at this point, needing a little bit more time to establish and look into facilities and programs, so --

PATRICIA B. LUKE: And I under -- I understand that concern.

REP. JANOWSKI: And the other question has to do with basically I know that we have to meet the obligations of the Sheff-O'Neill settlement agreement, this -- the General Assembly has instituted a number of things, as I mentioned earlier, the choice program which has been working very well. It can be accelerated to some degree, and I would like to see that accelerated, and I was hoping you might be able to give some insight as to what we can do, as a body, to encourage more participation by the public school system with the choice program.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: I think maybe we have to think about some incentives to local districts and I think we're already doing that. I know at the Department we are looking at ways to entice local districts to participate in open choice. I think we have to be certain that we understand the capacities that local districts have in order to do that. Perhaps some of them have more capacity than they're owning up to and I think there are going to be measures of those capacities in order to determine that.

But it's a really difficult issue. As was referred to earlier today, here in this room, we have a tradition in Connecticut of these boundary lines, and people very jealously defend those boundary lines, and feel that -- that -- that they can't or don't want to be pushed by the state to provide what they don't want to provide, however, I think that's changing. I think attitudes are changing. I think there's an understanding that we're all in this together. This is a very small state and we have to reach out and help each other. I think that will help, but I think incentives are important.

REP. JANOWSKI: Thank you. And just one more. You mentioned the importance of pre-K education --

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Yes.

REP. JANOWSKI: -- and I also believe that preeducation is important. My children did have the benefit of having a pre-K education. I paid dearly for it but they did have it, to a certain extent.

My question to you would be, right now, that is not a state mandate that pre-K be provided within the public school system, however, we did initiate some legislation last year to allow the payment, tuition payment of pre-K education in the magnet schools by the local municipalities, and I was wondering how you saw that. Is there -- because I've been getting a lot of complaints from my school system that, you know, why should they have to pay for pre-K education outside their normal public school system if it's not a state mandate throughout the entire State of Connecticut.

So, I've been being pushed that if it becomes a state mandate, then the state should be paying for it. So, if you could just comment on that so I can go back to my --

PATRICIA B. LUKE: That's a difficult problem, Representative Janowski, because we don't currently have the capacity in the state of Connecticut to be able to do what people are suggesting to you that we do, nor do you currently have the funds to spread around out there to do it. And while the Department and the State Board have been trying to move as fast as possible to create more seats out there for youngsters in -- in preschool, we're finding that it takes more time to do that than you think.

And even when we have the money, which we soon won't have, getting ready for that, creating the capacity for that and implementing that takes time. And so, I'd say that that's something that your -- your folks in your area are -- are going to have to understand. Maybe someday we'll get there where every child in the state of Connecticut will have access to public pre-K education. We're not there yet. We're not ready to be there yet, and we don't have the money to do that yet.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you, Representative Janowski.

Questions from other members of the committee? Representative Fleischmann?

We have -- again, under our rules we have the chairs and ranking members of the committees of cognizance are also encouraged to participate in the public hearings of the Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee, and we have Representative Fleischmann, House Chair of the Education Committee.

Representative.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Leader. I thank your for your testimony and for your hard work on the Board to date.

As you know, about a year ago this Assembly granted tremendous authority to the Commissioner of Education to address the challenges faced by schools and school districts that have failed to meet AYP and that under federal law are supposed to be reconstituted.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Yes.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: We've had audits that have been done by those -- by that consulting firm out in Cambridge --

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Cambridge, yeah.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: -- that you all brought in and reports that have been brought to school systems, and some are moving and some, not so much. What's your opinion on the degree to which the Commissioner should be exercising the authority we gave him to step in and reconstitute certain schools or even school systems?

PATRICIA B. LUKE: It's my opinion that we're not at that point yet. And I'm greatly encouraged by the work that's being done out there in districts that have not met the standard.

I must admit that at first I felt that we might be stuck in a dark hole here and that we couldn't get these districts forward fast enough, but I'm impressed. And one of the things that impresses me the most is that we now have a bureau in the department that goes out and assists these districts in creating a plan, and those folks working in that bureau are so impressive and so good at going out there and saying, We're the state, and we're here to help you, and getting people to honestly believe that, and getting them to cooperate with them, and ending up in a partnership that we see when those districts come back to the state board to make their reports on their -- their forward plan.

You see how that's worked. How they have accepted that intervention, and how they have accepted those professionals as their partners in helping them move forward. And it's been a joy to see because there's -- there's one town, that I will not name but I know it well, and -- and there was a real problem there, and trying to help them initially, was almost out of the question. I mean, they were ready to run our folks out of town. And once this bureau got established and these folks went in to help in that particular place, it became a whole other story. So it shows you what the skill and the personalities of certain folks can do to take you forward. I think we're moving forward. I think these districts are moving forward. They have a plan. It looks like it's going to work.

We're going to have to wait and see whether they can implement it. But I just don't think we're at a place yet, with anybody that we've seen, that the Commissioner needs to go in and reconstitute.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Thank you. My other question for you relates to a response that you gave to Senator Looney earlier about the achievement gap.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Yes.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: So like you, I'm a strong supporter of expanding access to preschool. Like you, I'm a strong supporter of reforming our secondary school system to set standards that not only narrow achievement gaps in this state but between all the kids in our state and kids graduating in Singapore and Berlin and Helsinki, and so forth.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Uh-huh.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: But when we're talking about the achievement gap those changes are necessary but not sufficient. I mean, you must have a series of other ideas and notions about what we do to close that glaring achievement, right?

PATRICIA B. LUKE: And part of that answer is what you and I just discussed having to do with the plans for those districts that are not -- that are not meeting the standard. We have to help and get into those districts and we're doing that. They have to have better resources not -- and I'm not just talking about money. They have --

PATRICIA B. LUKE: That's a question that's very difficult because we don't find a lot of folks coming out of teacher education or out of their sixth-year training for leadership positions or -- or even with some -- with some differences. Those who want to be the District Leader in our major urban areas where the most help is needed, but we need the best people, and we have to find ways to get the best people there, and unfortunately, some of that probably has to do with money. People tend to feel that if they're going into the most difficult situation they ought to be paid more than everybody else. And the most difficult situation is not the situation that most of our educators want to be in. They want to be in West Hartford. They want to be in Simsbury or Greenwich or, you know, they don't want to go to Hartford. They don't want to go to Bridgeport. We have to find ways to get there. Some of that might have to do with Teach for America and alternate routes and finding people who say, Okay, I'm up for that challenge. We have to get in there and change the way things are working.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Thank you. Well, I do appreciate that response and you focused in on these key factors about teachers and school leaders. It is doable. This is not, by the way, just an urban problem, so you mentioned my district, and my district still has people who very much want to come teach there. But the achievement gap is there in West Hartford.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Yes.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: The achievement gap is there in Greenwich, and in most significantly-sized Connecticut cities that you could name. It's a pretty ubiquitous problem at this point. I appreciate your responses, your dedication, and I would just observe that what you've talked about is attainable.

It's my personal belief that what's happening in Hartford right now is going to demonstrate the way top district leadership can join with school leadership and good teachers and a portfolio of different models can bring about the kind of turn-around that we need, and so I appreciate the support that you and your Board members have shown to the Hartford District, that has done that, and appreciate your testimony here today.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: I'm hopeful about that, too.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you, Representative Fleischmann.

Any other questions from committee members?

Yes. Representative Hamzy.

REP. HAMZY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to thank you for serving on the state Board of Ed and congratulate you on your nomination.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Thank you.

REP. HAMZY: I have a couple of -- couple of questions with regard to, obviously one of the hot topics in this legislative session is unfunded state mandates. Are there a couple of examples in particularly in the education arena I think it's fairly prevalent where, you know, the state, as a policy, issues a directive to municipalities without properly funding it.

Are there a couple of unfunded state mandates that you think could be modified or eliminated in order to help local school districts manage the tight budgets that they're going to have?

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Well, I'd have to say to you, Representative Hamzy, that I'm not focused on those areas, and so my answer might not be terribly helpful to you. But I can say to you that we have seen things in the past, for instance, we're working on a mentor program now that will replace BTSA; the Beginning Teacher and Assessment Program. BTSA worked very well when it was funded, then the funding dropped off and it didn't work anymore.

Well, that's a good example of what happens when people focus in on something that needs to be done, in that case it was support for beginning teachers, and then assessment for beginning teachers, to be sure that what we were putting in the classroom were teachers who could teach. And we had a model program that was recognized around the country as a model program but then there -- there was no more money for it and once that happened it just drifted off into the ether and became a problem program at the local level. And then we had the Legislature asking, you know, What do we have this program for everyone's complaining about it. Let's get rid of it, and let's have something different. Let's have this -- well, the mentor piece is really important, let's do that. So now we're looking at doing that. That's going to come over, and I'd say to you, if it -- if it's implemented properly it will be a help.

Mentoring new teachers is incredibly important because they're at a loss when they arrive in the classroom. And so this mentor program has a lot of good pieces to it and it will probably work well, but when there's no more money for it, it's not going to work anymore and we'll be back here. Well, I won't because I'll be too old. I'll be in a nursing home somewhere, but the rest of you will be back here saying what are we doing this for? It doesn't work and everyone's complaining about it.

REP. HAMZY: As you go through your deliberations about, you know, enacting new policies is there an emphasis on focusing on costs of different requirements or is that secondary?

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Well, certainly, primary for us is what -- what do we think is going to work to educate all kids to their highest level. So that's first.

Certainly we think about how much it's going to cost because if we're asking you to do things that you can't fund, then that's just blowing smoke. Isn't it? So, yeah, we do think about cost, but we -- but first, we think about what will work, and then we figure we can come and convince you it will work and, perhaps, you find the money to fund it if we're good enough at convincing.

REP. HAMZY: And last question. You talked about recruiting teachers to teach in, you know, urban areas, et cetera. Do you have any thoughts on merit pay and whether it's worthwhile or not worthwhile or -- your sentiments on that?

PATRICIA B. LUKE: I'm not going to use the terminology because it's a red flag, but I think you should pay people for what they do, and I think you should pay people who do it better more. So, make of that what you will.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you Representative Hamzy.

Other questions from Committee Members?

If not, the question we ask all nominees, is there anything in your background that might be an embarrassment to the Governor as the appointing authority, or to this Committee, or the General Assembly in approving your reappointment?

PATRICIA B. LUKE: I certainly hope not.

SENATOR LOONEY: Good. Thank you very much. And thank you, once again, for your long dedication and willingness to continue to serve.

PATRICIA B. LUKE: Thank you.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you so much.

The next nominee is Linda McMahon of Greenwich to be a member of the State Board of Education.

Thank you.

If you'd raise your right hand, please, Mrs. McMahon. Do you swear testimony that you're about to give here this afternoon shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

LINDA McMAHON: I do.

SENATOR LOONEY: Good. Please have a seat, if you'll give us an opening statement and then the committee members may have some questions.

LINDA McMAHON: Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator Looney, Representative Janowski, Ranking Members Piscopo and McKinney and other members of the committee. I'm very happy to be here this afternoon and very honored that Governor Rell has nominated me to serve on the Board of Education.

I think you all have my prepared opening statement as it's written. But I really don't wanna read that. I'd just kind of like to talk to you a little bit and tell you a little bit about me and who I am and what brought me here today.

I am the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment. World Wrestling Entertainment is a company that's traded publicly on the New York Stock Exchange. It is distributed to over 150 countries and translated in over 12 languages. So it's a company of which I have a great deal of pride. We have grown it from being two employees to now being a company that has its headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut and employs about 565 people here in the state.

But, a little bit about me. I grew up in a small, little town in North Carolina. I graduated from East Carolina University with a degree to teach French. Never did get to teach French; I married this guy. This guy named Vince McMahon, who's the chairman of World Wrestling Entertainment, and he and moved from North Carolina to Washington, D.C. where he went to work for his father's company Capital Wrestling Corporation, and I took a job as first, a reception at the law firm of Covington and Burling, and had the good fortune of being at the right place at the right time, and applying for a position in the probate department which I was able to land and they trained me there as a paralegal.

That was a great experience for me because a lot of what I did in the paralegal work in the probate unit was relative to intellectual property rights. So that certainly gave me a good background into the business that -- that I'm in today. Excuse me for just one second, I've had bronchitis and I have this medication that's making my mouth so dry. So, Vince went to work for his father with Capital Wrestling Corporation, and in 1982 we had the opportunity to buy Capital Corporation -- Capital Wrestling Corporation and we did.

It was Titan sports. It suddenly it subsequently became World Wrestling Federation, it's now World Wrestling Entertainment. We've had great fun. A lot of hard work and sweat equity. We are absolutely the embodiment of the American dream of being able to take an opportunity and to turn it into something that we just -- so many people on a global basis and puts so many smiles on faces.

The great reward I have of being CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment is that reach. That powerful reach every week on television. Our program RAW which airs on USA Network is the longest running regularly televised series in the history of television. More episodes than Gunsmoke, you know, and it's just a phenomenon. More episodes than Lassie, and we're very proud of that programming and it gives us the ability to cross generation after generation. I can't tell you how many families come up to Vince and me in an airport or in a mall, wherever it is, and say, thank you for the years of entertaining us. My father took me, now I'm taking our kids. And that is really something worthwhile for us to hear.

I am a mother of two. My son and daughter both graduated from Greenwich High School and my reward for having children is now that I have four grandchildren. And two of them live in the state of Connecticut so it gives me a vested interest in education. Education has always been a passion of mine. How do we reach -- how do we reach our young people? How can we keep them in school? How do we connect with them?

And being able to use the power and the popularity of the WWE brand to do that has been very rewarding. We've developed a Get REAL program; Respect, Education, Achievement and Leadership. I directed that this program be developed. Our superstars had such great popularity that they would go into urban schools and they would talk to the young people about staying in school, say no to drugs. They'd walk the walk and talk the talk with these kids and they listened to them. So it was great to have that opportunity.

We then expanded that to the Get REAL Read Program, to encourage reluctant readers. It starts with children, like, in the fall, in October. Team read Week, the competition that has now become the WrestleMania Reading Challenge, and we worked that competition with I think it's about 1800 schools and libraries across the country. It's a challenge. You have to read ten books. You have to report on the books. Your local librarian or your school counselor selects the winner and five winners from around the country come to WrestleMania to compete to be the Reading Challenge Champion. We've actually expanded the program now into the U.K. as well, so this is a way we reach in; encourage reading and encourage literacy.

We've also used the power of the WWE to get young people out to vote with our program called "Smackdown Your Vote." We've worked with the National Association of Secretaries of State, Susan Bysiewicz being one, with that program to register young voters. We have worked with colleges, universities, local businesses. We really turn out the vote for -- for this process. So, we've had good success of utilizing the power of WWE. So I'm happy to be able to take the popularity of the brand to reach into the community on a local basis and on a national basis.

I've been at the floor of both the Republican and the Democratic Conventions for years, and we've actually televised from the floor, take segments of me being there with our WWE Superstars who are talking to delegates, who are talking to members of the Legislature; getting their views, and being, you know, very well spoken about the issues themselves. And being able to make it a little bit cool to be involved with the whole process of being at the Democratic Convention because there was a little bit of a cool factor standing down on the same floor that you saw, you know, other commentators from.

So, it's been -- it's been a wonderful road and having had all this ability to reach these young people, on a personal level, I see young people who come into my company today who don't have skills to compose business letters, don't know grammar, don't know how to spell, not -- certainly not them all, but there are a few.

I get business letters in the mail, cannot compose sentences or paragraphs. I think that's alarming. And so, I look at what aspects, you know, what can we change? I read in The Greenwich Times about three, four weeks ago, it's probably been a couple of months ago now, a quote from Betty Sternberg who was former Commissioner of Education for Connecticut and is now the Superintendent of Schools in Greenwich and the quote from her that I found alarming, and it said that Greenwich Public Schools were not meeting the progressive challenges of No Child Left Behind. I thought, how could that be? Here we are in one of the wealthiest cities in the nation. Where -- is it resources? What is it? What are we missing here?

So I called Superintendent Sternberg and had a good conversation with her and she explained to me about some of the aspects of No Child Left Behind. It opened my eyes, gave me a better understanding. I then called Governor Rell whom I had met a few years before and I said, I have -- I have some time now to give back, to expand the programs that WWE has started, but this is on a personal level. I feel that I can somehow -- I'm not an educator but surely I must have some skills whether in administration or marketing or whatever they may be to bring to the table in some form to aid in education. Can you help me? Can you give me some direction?

She and I had lunch. She gave me the names of several people involved in education. One is Jay Voss who serves on the Board now. Another was a man named Darryl Harvey from Stamford who took me out to visit the Amistad Schools in New Haven, so I got a bit of an introduction to that. A couple of weeks after that the Governor called and said, I have an unexpected opening on the Board. This is -- my appointment would be to fulfill the two years left on one of the members terms. She said, would you be interested in serving on the State Board? I said, Yes, I would. If you think that I have some qualifications that I can bring that would be helpful, I would be honored, and it would be a wonderful obligation to serve on the State Board.

So, I find myself here today, I'm giving you my promise that, I'm not an educator but what you will have from me is my commitment of open-mindedness, my commitment, my passion to education, and I will do everything I can to bring sides together from the community, from the public, from business leaders, and hopefully, from Legislators to make our education the best it can be. To ensure that every child in Connecticut gets the best education that they can get because I think that's our obligation.

So, I thank you for your time this afternoon. I'm honored to be nominated, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you, Mrs. McMahon. Congratulations on your nomination.

Just following up on something you said here and from our meeting earlier today in my office, you mentioned you visited and spent some time at the Amistad School in New Haven, one of the more successful charter schools in the state and a model that is attempted to be replicated in other places.

I wonder if you have any -- any thoughts about what makes that school so successful and what can be done to replicate that model on a broader basis in terms of not only charter schools but we're trying to incorporate the best of that into our standard public school model, because obviously they -- one of the things that does set some of those charter schools apart is that they do have a much longer school day, much longer time on task, and some other -- they're free of certain constraints that the regular public schools operate under. But your thoughts on what we could be doing on a broad-based area to improve public education and what you learned from your visit to Amistad.

LINDA McMAHON: Well, much like Ms. O'Connor, today's my first foray. I've visited the Amistad schools. I've not visited many of the public schools, though, that is my intent. I would like to meet with different superintendents. I'd like to visit other of the public schools. I'd like the opportunity to pop into classes like I did at Amistad. I can't really speak to the comparison. I can only share with you what I observed that particular day, popping into those classes, and that was a level of enthusiasm and respectful demeanor in those classrooms from each and every one of the students who was there.

What I found that each teacher had, was a level of expectation that that child, each child has the same level of opportunity to succeed. They raise the child to that level. They don't assume that because this is an urban or an inner-city kid that their expectation level is here, while another child might have an expectation level there. They challenge those children to rise to the level of expectation. And from the statistics that I saw, albeit, given to me by Amistad, from the statistics that I saw, they are closing that performance gap. It's little by little, but they are making gains and they are making strides.

So I think that they are doing some things there that certainly are worth looking into, and I can't speak really intelligently enough today to explain what all of those are except that you have mentioned some of the longer school days. I know that they have after-school programs, weekend programs, and that sort of thing; that the teachers really are very involved with the students in.

So, I saw great enthusiasm. I saw a commitment to learning, and it was -- it was quite a day to be at Amistad because it was Inauguration Day, and to be sitting in that school gym with all of those young, bright, eager faces, that was really, really stimulating.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you. And you mentioned also, that as an employer you were sometimes dismayed when you have job applicants coming before you or others who, despite having, at least a high school education, have demonstrated gaps in their ability to use the English language in a written form and a lack of knowledge of grammar.

It's also, I think, an area of real concern. I see the same thing, as an adjunct college faculty instructor, and see the same thing sometimes in students who have come now through 12 years of elementary and secondary education and somehow still have not learned how to do subject-verb agreement and pronoun-antecedent agreement and things of that nature that you'd think should be fundamental elements of English grammar, but -- so, your thoughts on that broader concern we hear all the time from employers, such as yourself, that often a high school diploma is not a guarantor of a certain skill level that an employer expects it to be for the incoming worker and that for that reason they wind up spending a great deal of time on on-the-job-training, covering areas that they should have been able to expect would be areas of competence that the person would have coming in.

We hear it also from many of the community colleges. That many of the students coming into the community colleges from our secondary schools spend a great deal of time on remedial work before they're able to take the college credit work. So that, whereby they might be able -- expected to get an associate degree in two years of full-time work, many students spend a year or two in remedial work at the community college before they get into the -- the degree program work, so they end up spending maybe four years to get a two-year degree because of all the remedial courses they had to take earlier on.

Just your thoughts on that process in terms of building more accountability into the system so we don't have these complaints coming to us regarding poorly prepared high school graduates.

LINDA McMAHON: Well, I think -- excuse me, I think that -- I think that really gets to the heart of the issue and it's what are we doing from -- from pre-K all the way through elementary school, through middle school and high school, and I think that the curriculum really has to be standardized across the schools. I think there is levels of expectations of how they perform. I don't mean that there is not subjectivity of each district to handle it's own program how to get success, but I do think that there is a standard of excellence that has to be met all across the board. And to merely pass the child along because of a socio-economic situation is not the right thing to do.

As I mentioned earlier, I think you have to raise the level of expectation of what that child should be able to do and teach to that level, and have them rise to that level and do the best that they can. And if our teachers are trained well on how to educate, our curriculum is sound of what we're doing, which are a lot of ifs, if the funding is there for the programs that we need to do, I think we can be successful in challenging our students to -- to graduate with excellence.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you very much.

Representative Janowski.

REP. JANOWSKI: Thank you. I do have a couple of questions, and I appreciate your -- I know we met in advance, and I had the opportunity to speak with you previously in my office. I do want to mention that -- well, first let me ask you, you mentioned that you visited Amistad --

LINDA McMAHON: Yes.

REP. JANOWSKI: Which is a wonderful charter school. Correct?

SENATOR LOONEY: Absolutely.

REP. JANOWSKI: As my cochair knows. And, you mentioned that one of the things you observed there was that there was this respect and this attitude that the kids had, that there's an effort to challenge the student so that they rise to the level of expectations, and I wanted to just ask you what you thought of standardized testing that is currently taking place with regard to the No Child Left Behind, and whether that should be the basis for making decisions as to a student's being either promoted or having the ability to graduate.

LINDA McMAHON: There always has to be some yardstick of measurement, and so standardized score -- standardized tests I think have been around for a long, long time. One of the issues that was brought to my attention by Superintendent Sternberg was the fact that all students are given the same standardized tests whether they are an ADD student, whether they might be physically handicapped that would make it difficult for them to sit for long periods of time to take the test, in the -- whether they have a language barrier to the test, each child is given the same test, and under the No Child Left Behind those averages and those scores are accounted for, you know, on the average, not that there would be specific tests for those special education students as opposed to others.

So I think there is a standardized test that has to be around, but certainly there is different applications that ought to be part for different groups. It's just hard to think about every child sitting down to take the same test when it just may not be physically equipped, or verbally equipped to take that test.

REP. JANOWSKI: I have one other question for you at this point, and then if I have other questions I'll save them to the end so everybody has an opportunity to ask questions.

But basically it -- first of all, I did want to mention that we received a lot of letters of support on your behalf. I think everybody has copies of letters, I received a letter from Congressman John Larson, Susan Bysiewicz, U.S. Sun, Metropolitan Washington, Sacred Heart University, League of Women Voters USA, and other letters which basically commended you for -- and the WWE for your involvement with young people in terms of getting them to register and vote and getting the involved in other healthy activities.

I will also bring up that I have also received phone calls and comments with regard to the -- with individuals who had some issues with the image of the entertainment district, and some of the things that the industry and the entertainment does project to young people. And one particular thing that was brought to my attention has to do with a criticism of the industry with regard to the use of steroids.

And I bring that up because I wanted it to be part of the public record, because I did get those phone calls, and also, to give you an opportunity to comment because I know that I do have some -- a letter in front of me that there was some hearings conducted in Congress, I think it was in 2007, and I have a letter as early as January 2009, that still indicates that steroid use continues to be prominent in the wrestling organization.

Can you comment on that? And I believe that the first time that it went to testing it -- the results were 40 percent of all the wrestlers tested tested positive for steroid use and potential other drugs, and I believe that test was done in 2006. So I'm hoping that it's gotten a lot better since.

LINDA McMAHON: We have probably one of the most comprehensive wellness policies which includes drug testing of any -- well, clearly in the entertainment industry I don't think that anyone else has the kind of policy that we do and our policy stacks up very well against NFL, NBA, major league baseball, et cetera.

We began testing in the late 1980s primarily for drugs of abuse. We incorporated steroid testing in our program, and in 2006 we really tightened up our program with more requirements than it ever had before. As a matter of fact, our drug policy is on our website. You can feel free to go there and review that policy. When someone does test positive it is posted on our website, so that those folks who suddenly miss them off the television program know that they've been suspended. They can be suspended for 30 days for the first positive test; 60 days for the second and the third time you're gone.

However, if you have a problem and you come to us and you talk to us about your problem, we are very interested in helping you through rehab and we will do that. The number of positive tests that we have now is very slight, and our program is definitely working. We're proud of that program and very proud to stand behind it. It's administered by third parties. Dr. David Black, who is a forensic toxicologist and has developed the NASCAR drug-testing program, originally worked with the NFL, works with many high schools and colleges around the nation, is the forensic toxicologist who does all the of testing and determines whether or not a test is positive, through all the gastro-spectrometry things that they do today.

The actual administration part of our drug policy is handled by Dr. Joseph Maroon who is a neurologist with the University of Pittsburgh and is also the neurosurgeon for the Pittsburgh Steelers. And he has a direct communication with our superstars, if any of them has any issues, that they can come and talk to him and he can have conversations with their prescribing doctor.

Because our policy is so stringent that if you had an over-the-counter product like Sudafedrine, Claritin D and you had the drug test that day you would show up as a positive. So it is incumbent upon Dr. Maroon to speak with our talent who should have prescriptions for themselves for any drugs in advance of testing.

This is a very comprehensive policy. I'm proud of it. It helps protect the health and well-being of the greatest assets of WWE, which -- which are our superstars. This program encompasses drug testing, cardio monitoring, we have a concussion component that is conducted by Impact, which is also doing all of the concussion testing for the NFL, and again, doing programs with colleges, universities and high schools across the country.

So I think we've developed an incredibly important program to protect the health and well-being of our superstars, not only for their image but, clearly, for themselves to be healthy.

REP. JANOWSKI: Thank you for that information.

I just have one final question. I know that you have what's called a Rock the Vote Program to encourage young people to register and vote, and I know that I've been told it's very successful.

Do you have any anti-drug type programs for young kids that you sort of take on the road with you similar to this, to encourage young people to vote, maybe to encourage young people and give the message that drugs are bad and they shouldn't be doing drugs and that kind of thing, to kind of temper the image of steroid use?

LINDA McMAHON: Yes, we do. In fact, we have done videos which have been posted on different websites, and we have our Get Real Program. As I said, when our superstars go into the community to talk to students it is about saying no to drugs, it is about staying in school and how important education is and they always comment, you know, on good heath, good sound mind and sound body.

REP. JANOWSKI: Sorry, we're just having a little discussion.

Representative Fleischmann, followed by Representative Johnston.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for your testimony here today.

For starters, one of the points that you made during your testimony was that you were struck by the fact that there are pieces of our educational system that seem to be missing and need to be changed if we're to get better results and not have people writing letters to you that are nongrammatical, people showing up for job interviews lacking certain skills.

I realize that this would be your first foray into public policy for K through 12 education, but you obviously have done preparation for this hearing and for this appointment. As you sit here today, what are some of the key elements that you see as needing to be changed or added so that we can start to get the results that we need?

LINDA McMAHON: Well, I really wish I had that plan to be able to lay out for you. I don't. I've seen more effect than I have cause. I'm not quite sure where some parts are broken. I can only see that we're not getting the results and, certainly, that is testified by everyone I talk to, by the Board of Education itself, by the Department of Education, by community leaders. I think it's not just our state, though that's what we're most concerned about today, but I think on a national level.

So, I don't -- I see the effect, I can't put my finger on the cause, but if I have an opportunity to serve on the Board, I think I can be helpful in recognizing those causes and helping to implement different programs that might be successful.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Well, as you testified, you're a parent, you're a grandparent, you have children -- grandchildren now that are in the schools, are you testifying that you, as we sit here now, don't have anything that you can offer us as to ways to improve score results in Connecticut?

LINDA McMAHON: Well, I think, first of all, that our children, really there should be a focus on reading, and I find so lacking communication skills, understanding of language arts. And I think as young as I can offer my experience now with my little -- with my grandchildren almost five, almost three, two and a half, talking with them, reading to them, playing games with them, having instruction with them is all very, very important, so from the pre-kindergarten level, getting ready to enter into kindergarten.

I don't know today how language arts are taught. But I clearly know that some of the basics of language -- I don't know if you get back to diagramming sentences, because I don't know how the basics are taught today, but clearly there's something lacking in the basics to come out with the lack of communication skills.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: And are you familiar at all with some of the new approaches that are being taken in that area such as at the Haskins Lab in New Haven, Connecticut, affiliated with Yale University where they have systems to try to make sure that young children are putting the pieces together and learning how to read properly.

LINDA McMAHON: No, I'm not, but I'm anxious to learn.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: One of the things you mentioned in your testimony as well, was how you were struck by the atmosphere in Amistad, which is an atmosphere that you can see in a lot of charter schools and a lot of public schools in Connecticut that have a real focus on how children comport themselves. That is critical to their to their educational mission.

So in that school that you visited, they teach children to track with the teacher, to keep their eyes on the teacher, to be taking notes and listening carefully. I mean, stuff that a lot of families take for granted, are part of the teaching model in the school that you visited and others. Obviously that's a key portion of their success, and if you go to the schools that are having trouble, often, you can very quickly see that those elements are lacking, that basic civility is lacking.

Would you agree that those elements, that I've just described and you described more briefly, are important to what happens in our schools?

LINDA McMAHON: Yes, I do, because I do think it's necessary for students who are sitting in a classroom with the proper comportment, I think they can focus and pay attention better. They're not distracted by people talking around them or misbehaving. They have the focus, the attention that they need to learn to understand to ask questions about what they don't know, and I think comportment is very important.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: So, that makes perfect sense to me. And the challenge that I'm feeling here today is the disconnect between that perfectly reasonable statement that you just made and the completely, wildly unreasonable things that happen on television through your organization every day.

It would be very hard for me, or I think most people, to see how a child who watches WWE gets any messages at all that promote what we've just agreed are the appropriate behaviors, and it concerns me. If your potential appointment to one of the State's critical economic development agencies that would make perfect sense to me. You're a very successful businesswoman, but I'm having trouble here connecting what you've been doing for many years now in your entertainment life, and what it is you're saying you want to promote as a member of the Board of Ed. Could you help me understand what seems to me to be a disconnect there?

LINDA McMAHON: Well, I think what you have to separate is the fact that the programming on television is scripted, episodic television that runs on a week-to-week basis. It has a storyline. There are good guys, there are bad guys; there are winners, there are losers; sometimes the good guys win, sometimes they don't; sometimes the bad guys win and they cheat. But there are all these little storylines that are woven into it. And WWE captures emotion. It can make you angry. It can make you understand that this is over the top. You can be totally entertained. You can laugh at what happened. You hear great music. You see great pyro, that is all a television product that is on television.

I don't think that has anything to do with my ability to have good administrative marketing skills, to understand how reading is important, to understand how the art of communication and knowing your audience and being able to get things accomplished, I don't see that there necessarily has to be a connection with the product on television versus that. Besides, the product on television reaches about 15 million viewers in the United States every year, and about 64 percent of that audience is 18 and older.

But the great popularity of this particular programming gives us the ability to accomplish a lot of the programs that we have already done. Every year we take our superstar volunteers to the war zone. Vince McMahon, the chairman of the company, actually gets in a Black Hawk helicopter and goes to forward operating bases and has a performance. Our programming is seen on the Armed Forces Network around the world.

So there is something in WWE programming for everybody. Whether you have a more sophisticated level of watching and understanding all the nuances that are happening with the -- with the dialogue or whether you just watching kind of a lot of the action going back and forth. There is something for a great deal of audience, and -- and our live event is a composition of young people and old people. Our television audience is the same composition. So I think that we absolutely have a wonderful product that we can reach so many people which gives us the ability to influence them to vote, to read, to support our troops and to have an active community involvement.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: In this day and age, oftentimes small children get control of the remote control, and there are younger children who watch your programming. Is it your contention that they can catch all the nuance about the different storylines and implications of what you produce on WWE?

LINDA McMAHON: I don't think that all of our programming is necessarily appropriate for all ages, and I think that is a parental decision. And I have no argument with any parent who says, you know what, we think our children are too young.

If you've seen some of the commercials on television we don't have a problem with you guys, but we're going to block you so that you don't come on our television set. There are parental guards, parental controls, which I think are appropriate.

So I don't think necessarily our programming is appropriate for all ages, but I think that's up to each and -- each parent to decide what's appropriate. For the parents who come up to us and say, Boy, I went with my dad and now I'm bringing my kids. I thoroughly enjoy it. Thank you for the entertainment. It makes us feel good.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: So then if the State Board of Education were to consider some sort of policy meant to reduce violence among children, and part of it involved trying to reduce their exposure to violence in the media, you would be supportive of -- of steps that reduced or banned children's exposure to the sort of entertainment product that you yourself produce?

LINDA McMAHON: I will always bow to a parent's discretion, because I believe what goes on within the home and what children watch are all at their parents' discretion. I would not think that our government should dictate programming that should be on air.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: And certainly, I understand what you're saying. That really wasn't my question. My question was about the State Board of Education setting forth guidelines about what's appropriate for children, which is the type of thing the State Board does all the time.

LINDA McMAHON: Well, I could speak -- if I'm on the State Board of Education, I would speak my conscience and my heart, as a parent and a grandmother. So, that would be how I would approach what we put -- what policies the State Board of Education would be involved in. I would approach those strictly from that perspective, as a business person, and as a parent and a grandmother.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: There are so many challenges facing young people today. One of them relates to how children perceive themselves in terms of their self-image, their body image. The shows that you put on television every day definitely set a certain pattern and a certain standard for body image. What's your feeling about that as it relates to what you'd like to see young people in this state thinking about themselves and what's appropriate in terms of their growth and development?

LINDA McMAHON: I don't think I understand your question.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: I'll put it another way. So, every day on your productions you have all sorts of performers who are extremely muscular, oiled up, reflecting in the lights. So muscular, in fact, that it appears that over the series of decades many of them needed to take anabolic steroids to reach that level of bulk.

And at the same time you have children who are watching, children who are forming their sense of identity and what they should aspire to be as young men and young women. How do you square what you think those young children should be thinking about and aspiring to with the product that you're putting on TV?

LINDA McMAHON: Our performers are any where from a midget that's this tall, to a man from India who is seven feet four inches and weighs over 300 and some pounds. They run the gamut. All shapes, all sizes. Some very muscular, well-conditioned, agile, great-looking, terrific athletes. The divas area also very beautiful women, and I think the WWE has some of the most beautiful women on television.

You know, it's a little different when a football player comes out on the field, he's got on a jersey, a helmet, he's got pads and you don't see what's underneath there. Our performers perform in what really amounts to a bathing suit. So you come out, you want to look good. If I'm going to the beach in the summer, it's that perennial thing, I know I'm going to take this ten pounds off before get in that bathing suit and walk down the beach. So these guys and women certainly have an incentive for being on television every week to look their best. They train hard. They have unbelievable -- unbelievable eating regiments, and when they talk to young people about proper diet and exercise and about sitting on the sofa, or sitting in front of their computer all the time, they make an impact because they want to show them that healthy living is also a very good thing to do.

So our performers come in all shapes and sizes. Yep, there's some of them really chiseled, good-looking, and to assume that they're all on drugs is just a wrong assumption.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Like many folks here, I'm a sports fan, I've watched wrestling at the Olympics and the Olympian wrestlers don't show up in speedos --

REP. FLEISCHMANN: -- put out there.

LINDA McMAHON: We're an entertainment company. Our performers are actors in a role. They're not competing in the Olympics, though, we have had a couple of Olympians who did come over into WWE, but they're not -- they're not on a sports field. They're in an entertainment program. They're coming out to music, their own entrance music. They have feathers, they have boas, they have costumes, it's wonderfully exciting with music over the top.

So the fact that we oil up their bodies before they come out, yeah, they look much better on TV. They also stay tanned, because they look better tanned than if they're just milk toast. So clearly, with our business, and with the performers in this industry, yeah, we want them to look good. They want to look good, but there isn't any weight requirement or height requirement or any of that. You are who you are, and it's the role and the character that you play that makes you popular, not necessarily how you look.

REP. FLEISCHMANN: Thank you. And I know there are other committee members waiting to question so I'll just ask you this one last question. You know, it is a tradition of this committee to asks folks who are testifying whether there's anything in their past that might embarrass either the Governor or the Legislature should the be appointed, and I think it is the prerogative of the chair to pose that question, but your testimony here today raises, for me, just sort of the basic question of whether -- what your thoughts are about children in Connecticut's schools should you be appointed to the State Board of Ed, should they or their classmates be going to YouTube and looking at footage of entertainers from WWE, or yourself, or your husband, or your daughter, doing certain things on YouTube or on TV that are clearly the sorts of things that their teachers and parents are telling them not to do.

If you could share with us how you think that could work out and I that as Chair of the Education Committee could be comfortable with, on the one hand, you sitting on that Board and helping to oversee policy in the schools, and at the same time, purveying entertainment that seems to counter a lot of the policies and notions that that Board promulgates.

LINDA McMAHON: Excuse me. I think the really good news about our product is different views that people have about it. It is incredibly popular. It was one of the first programs on network television. Do you know that Abraham Lincoln was a professional wrestler who traveled around on the carnival circuit? Few people know that. Our product is part of the American fabric and it is part of pop culture. So, it is a product that has been exported from the United States. It has great popularity.

I think what you must continue to try and separate is a scripted program, episodic television that is a soap opera that runs every week. And if I have appeared in that program and I probably have oh, three or four dozen times, maybe that many, over the course of a 25-year career in a scripted portion of a show.

Let me give you an example, there is -- there is one YouTube, because I think you've probably looked at those, in which I'm in the ring and I play a role and I deliver a kick to a gentleman, and you might imagine where the kick landed during the show. I'm typically, when I come out, a well-liked character when I come out. I come out to cheers, because it's like, okay, Boy, there's Linda, things are going to be right. I came out to cheers. Did that act in the ring? I was booed all the way from the ring, all the way backstage, audience knows that's wrong. They have common sense. Children watching that know you don't kick somebody else but they look at it, it's over the top. That's wrong. She was wrong. I don't like her anymore.

Don't underestimate the ability of those who are watching programming to understand and take away that that's wrong. That man was in the ring the next week he had the upper hand. It's episodic television that you watch and you stay-tuned for, and that's what goes on in the WWE. Right eventually is might.

REP. JANOWSKI: Thank you. Representative Johnston.

REP. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. McMahon, thank you for coming before us, and congratulations on your nomination by the Governor for this position.

I appreciate you came by earlier this morning, and I had a chance to meet with you and discuss my concerns about your appointment to the Board. I wanted to express those to you so that you'd have the chance to respond again before other members the Committee.

Some of my concerns follow very directly along the lines of Representative Fleischmann's questions. And as I expressed to you, my first sort of exposure as a parent to the World Wide -- it was WWF then, but now it's WWE, was one Christmas when my wife bough wrestling tickets for our two boys and myself to go to wrestling. Actually she bought four tickets, and then told me after that she wasn't going to be available to go, so I said thank you very much. I'll take the boys and we went and I guess, as I can describe it, it's not your father's WWF show, and I found out when I got there. And what I didn't realize, at least at that time, was that it had really morphed from what I remember as a child growing up as the bulky men eye-gouging each other and slamming bodies down on the mats. It had a incredible sexual overtone with incredibly scantily clad women doing only what I can say is basically selling pure sexuality was my impression that night, and I was almost embarrassed.

Subsequently we -- our boys, I think were about eight and ten at the time, banned big-time wrestling in our house for TV. And my concern that I expressed to you is that that has a direction that the WWE has gone in, and doing some research and just looking up the WWE on Wikipedia it's clear to me that you market very strongly and try to bring young children into the brand, and there's even a quote in one of articles from your VP of Marketing, this is a March 2008 article, the quote says: A large percentage of children in America get introduced to our brand from six to ten years old, says Jeff Rochester, Executive VP of Marketing. We have a strong kids' audience. Let's embrace that. We want to have a life-long relationship with these kids.

I went onto your website, just one day this week in my office, and in a very short period of time I was amazed at what I saw on that website, and as I expressed to you today, I couldn't make this up. At one point I was watching what I saw on there, and I got up and walked to the door of my office and I shut the door of my office, 'cause I was afraid someone was going to walk by and think that I was watching pornography on the Capitol computer.

I, as I look at an appointment, and I think the fact that you have a great business background, it would be a strong asset to the State Board of Education and I think that's a smart move in putting someone on that Board with a business background and I think that's entirely appropriate.

I guess what I struggle with is, I think as a Legislator to appoint someone to that board who has made their living off selling things that I think we should not sell to our children. And I understand that everyone chooses what their kids can watch and that you sell to an entire market including adults, but a lot of it gets to the children. That we are sort of saying that that's -- we're kind of putting our stamp of approval in some sort of fashion. And as I balance those scales and determine how I vote to put someone forth, I'm having trouble finding that that scale at the business background to go in that Board outweighs the fact I'm kind of saying selling that kind of product is an okay thing.

And so you were very kind to meet with me and discuss that, and to respond to some of that and I wanted to give you that opportunity before this Committee also.

Thank you.

LINDA McMAHON: Thank you. Well, as you and I talked this morning, I said clearly, entertainment, what each individual chooses to watch and the perception of that product can only rest with that particular individual. The networks that carry WWE programming rate them PG. We don't rate our programming, they do. We have a diverse program for different audiences.

There are some aspects of it, as I said a while ago, that are comedy. There are some that are, you know, that are tense, that is drama, where we're invoking emotion from our audience. The worst thing in the world is if our superstars were to walk out to the ring and get no reaction. They're either going to be booed or cheered. The ability to craft a scripting that pits every-day life in situations that can be confronted in our ring is an ability an have a different and very unique entertainment.

We have beautiful women on WWE. There is sexuality on WWE, because the women who are there are beautiful. They -- they have performing costumes. The often appear in bikinis. But our programming over the last few years has evolved from being a TV for teen-rated program to being a PG program. And we are very cognizant of that, when we produce our television for the Sci-Fi Network, for USA Network, for My Network TV, so cable and broadcast components.

I do not believe that the qualifications to serve as a voluntary member on the Board of Education, which I'm very willing to devote my time and my efforts to do, and hopefully, have an impact. I don't believe that any product that is judged by an individual's taste should necessarily be a governing factor of whether or not I have the capabilities to offer administrative or leadership experience with the Board of Education.

So I -- I would say, first of all, that I'm very proud of our company, but I think you have to continue to separate a product. I mean, I think I raised the -- the example with you this morning, I don't think the folks in California expect Governor Schwarzenegger to come into a Legislature wearing a sleeveless vest and machine guns in his hands. They know that he was an actor playing a role, and that's what our superstars do, but in real life they go into these schools. They get kids to vote. They're on the floors of the Convention. They are doing all of the things that make them responsible citizens and members of society.

REP. JOHNSTON: Thank you. And if I could just end up, I guess, I -- as I try to think about this, I almost think OF some of our professional athletes over the last eight or ten years who have turned to steroids and performance enhancing drugs to get great at what they do, and some of those very athletes do some absolutely wonderful things.

And Roger Clemens, who obviously, during our lifetime may go down as the greatest pitcher of all time, cheated to become that pitcher. Now Roger Clemens has done some wonderful things in his life, and he's visited kids on their dying bed, and he's spoken to school groups and got kids excited about things and all of that, but the damage, I think, that he did by using steroids and sending a message to our youth that it's okay to do this to succeed, I don't think outweighs the good that he might of done by doing some of these public service things.

And so, again, as I contemplate your appointment to a Board, I think some of the damage, quite frankly, that your product has done or may do to -- to the fabric of our society, through the young people that are very impressionable, that come upon some of this, that I don't think is a good influence, I'm not sure weighs to the point where -- and I am incredibly appreciative that you have volunteered for this and come before us to ask to serve in this capacity. But again, that's kind of a scale, again, that I come down to that I think the business that your company is in, and what you might have -- or that you've sold across the world and the country, and clearly, you're an international product, I think has gone over the top, and I have trouble weighing that against some of the good that may come out of it.

So, thank you very much.

And, Madam Chairman, thank you for your time.

LINDA McMAHON: Could I just -- just relative to Roger Clemens, I think it's an important point because you said he cheated. We're not a sport. We are entertainment. It doesn't level the playing field if you've taken steroids or any other drug. It does not make you succeed or get ahead. It is your charisma in front of the audience and how well you can play your role. You know, if you're a bad guy and you can be a bad guy, that's fine. But if you're a good guy, you've to be able to do that. Taking drugs only cheats you as an individual. It does not cheat anything or anyone else. Taking drugs will not get you ahead in WWE.

REP. JANOWSKI: Thank you.

Let's see, Representative Fasano.

SENATOR FASANO: That's okay. That's okay.

REP. JANOWSKI: Sorry, I was thinking of Representative Hamzy.

Senator Fasano.

SENATOR FASANO: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Congratulations on your nomination.

Can you just give me some more detail on this Get REAL read in terms of how you use the product which is WWE in propelling that program forward? Can you give me some examples of the number of kids that you touch with this program? Where they're held, that type of thing?

LINDA McMAHON: Well, I can tell you that the program has been in existence since 2006, and we started with about 504 schools and we're up to about 1800 schools now with about 54,000 students involved in it.

It first started with our reading program in which our superstars would actually go into schools, into the library and sit and read, you know, with the children, and have question-and-answer sessions with them. Just, it was really cool.

How many children would go into a library and expect -- and I'll say names that you probably not familiar with, or may be -- but Mysterio, who is seen on our television show and wears a mask, but he is one of our superb Latin performers and he's, you know, he's about 5 feet 7. And he's very, very popular because of all of the, you know, aerodynamic things that he does. And he comes in and he sits down and he reads. He reads some in Spanish and he'll read some in English. He'll have a conversation, you know, with these students. They become engaged in the fun of reading. They're happy he's there.

We have turned that relationship into the WrestleMania Reading Challenge. In which, I think, I was explaining earlier that it starts in October, working with these schools and libraries on the team reading week, and between then, and I believe it's the end of January, they have to read ten books. They have to report on them, and their high school counselor or local librarian selects the winner in different districts, and I forget how it boils down to -- to wind up with five who, who are finally chosen to go to WrestleMania. Their expenses are paid, you know, to get there. They have the championship challenge, and one is -- one is named, you know, the champion, with a great deal of pride. That young person goes back to school and takes the championship. And our wrestling superstars are on posters that are posted in the libraries, you know, it's cool to read. It's fun to read. This is what John Cena says about it.

So the celebrity of WWE has a great influence, a great positive influence on getting these youngsters, you know, to read and to be involved in the program. So, as I said, I think we have about 54,000 students involved this year to go to WrestleMania, which is like our Super Bowl.

SENATOR FASANO: And how long has the program been in effect?

LINDA McMAHON: I believe since 2006.

SENATOR FASANO: So a relatively short period of time.

LINDA McMAHON: For -- for the aspect the reading challenge, but of having our superstars going in to schools and read, that's been much longer. It's kind of how we get the idea of doing things by starting them, and then realizing there's a real program here. We think we can have an impact. So we work with the Young Adult Library Services Association, YALSA, which is the youth division of the American Library Association, to put these programs into effect and get the posters distributed to schools, libraries and to homes.

SENATOR FASANO: So you start off in something small by having these superstars go to the classrooms and --

LINDA McMAHON: Yes.

SENATOR FASANO: -- from there it expanded on the idea which now developed into the program REAL, I guess. Is that correct?

LINDA McMAHON: Get REAL was the first program. That was our superstars went into school and talked about staying in school, saying no to drugs. And our superstars have actually mentored some young children in -- in urban schools.

We had -- I'll never forget the example of one of our superstars said, look, I'm up there and I'm talking about what are your long-term goals, stay in school. This kid comes up to me afterwards, he said he's about 12 years old and he goes, My long-term objective is to be alive next week. He said, I'm not focusing right now on school, I just want to be alive next week. Can you help me? And our superstars have actually mentored some of these children; give them their cell phone number, call me if you've got an issue or a problem.

We've had superint -- principals of schools who've written to tell us what a positive impact it was having our superstars go in, and have these kids feel like they can actually have a mentor out there. So, I'm -- I'm very happy about the impact that -- that our superstars can have.

SENATOR FASANO: And I heard Representative Johnston, and I have a little different take on this. I too, I have a son now who is a senior, but when he was -- in high school -- but when he was growing up he was very much into, I don't know if it was WWF or WWE, I don't know when the name change came in, and I also went to, admittedly reluctantly to one of the events at the New Haven Coliseum, but I think the kids recognize that it is a product. I think that kids recognize it is entertainment. Certainly my son understood the good guys from the bad guys and he had the action figures, you know, I don't remember all the different characters now, but certainly I did back then, and I think kids recognize that.

But I think what we have here is a unique opportunity because by bringing in a business atmosphere, we talk about reforming government, we talk about how we're going to get our educational system on the right track, how we're going to meet those tests and those standards and get our kids ready for the future. And I think part of the answer is, how are you going to get the kids to buy into our programs, if you would, and I mean the school programs, to understand how important it is to excel. And you have to have a niche and you have to have a product that you're going to sell, and you have to have an idea, and you've got to understand how to reach people, and you've got to understand how to package it, and you've to understand the audience that you're packaging it to.

WWE did that, albeit, in the wrestling world, and whatever the complaints or concerns or criticisms are, you had a product that you're trying to sell to a group of folks that you manage, as a industry, to figure it out what does get those people entertained. Different storylines. Different characters. Characters that don't work, we change their character. Storylines that are not good, we get rid of that story, we start a new story. But you understand that that is the key to getting people to be a part of WWE.

Well, state education is no different. We have to come up with the plan to get our kids involved in education. You've got to come up with a plan where the kid gets up and wants to go to school. That means we're going to have to make changes. We're going to have to make it more exciting for them. We've got to come up with a plan. We've got to come up with the marketing. We've got to come up with the product that the kids buy into. To assimilate what you're doing in WWE to say, well, that's what I expect this person's going to bring to the State Board of Education, I understand the fears, but I think when you think it more thoroughly, you'll find that what we're talking about is not the details for which created WWE. We're talking about the concept of business. The concept of doing things in a goal to reach the people that you're trying to reach. Because no matter what we do with this educational system, if our kids don't buy into it and if we don't have a package that they agree with, we'll sit there and stuff their brains with what we've got to stuff with, but if they don't care, they don't care. We're not getting the job done. And our testing scores show that we could do better. But to do that we've got to think a little bit more outside the box. We've got to think of repackaging our ideas, and I think that's what you bring to the table. And I think it's important to understand that this is a business, this education is a business. And if our old tools aren't working, we've got to think of new tools, which means we may need a little bit more information from those people, understand the marketing part of it, understand the packaging and understands the follow-through of all of that.

So I think that's where you become a welcome addition. I understand the fears. And Representative Johnston and his questioning, you know, I respect everything when he votes, I listen and I pay attention to his words, and I understand his concerns. But I think there's another level we have to look at which is the idea aspect of it. You have to separate WWE details, but look at what you did to achieve that result.

And on another note, I want to thank you for staying in Connecticut as WWE because we can use your business. But I also believe that we need to get that marketing aspect to the forefront of education.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

LINDA McMAHON: Thank you.

REP. JANOWSKI: Representative Dargan followed by Representative Giannaros.

REP. DARGAN: Madam Chair, although Senator Fasano, I share some of his comments, Linda, I do have to confess, though, years ago at the old New Haven Coliseum that Senator Fasano and Senator Looney, who had much better seats than I did at SmackDown, were on top of their chairs during one of those events, so we might have some of that on YouTube also, Linda.

I also must apologize, as Senator Fasano said, that you actually run a successful business, and corporate headquarters is in the great state of Connecticut.

LINDA McMAHON: And I pay my taxes.

REP. DARGAN: So we're happy for that. I think what we, as elected officials have to do, I know some people talked about it being on TV, I know there's some parents that probably don't like their kids seeing us on CTN or the Federal Legislators on C-SPAN either, so that also might actually also be blocked.

But I think we, as elected officials, have to differentiate between a successful business in the state of Connecticut, the entertainment business and her willing to serve. Her willing to serve to drive up from Greenwich, to come to monthly, weekly meetings to the State Board of Ed. And if her company has been so successful in marketing the WWE, I ask her today that maybe her marketing department can help our State Board of Ed of getting up test scores up.

And if you could do that by the entertainment industry, which I know for somebody that's been in athletics all his life, the positive component of a professional athlete is to somebody within our school systems, whether it's in my area, with the Walter Camp Foundation where they have a very great weekend at Yale or all the All-Americans, College All-Americans, come to the different hospitals to go talk and mentor to the students throughout the Greater New Haven area. I'm sure that the WWE, in your capacity, could come up with some suggestions to further education within our great state.

So, I applaud you for being here. I applaud you for listening to some criticism that might become before you, and I wish you the best of luck.

LINDA McMAHON: Thank you.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you. Representative Dargan.

REP. JANOWSKI: Representative Giannaros.

SENATOR LOONEY: Yes, Representative Giannaros.

REP. GIANNAROS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Linda, and congratulations on your appointment.

LINDA McMAHON: Thank you.

REP. GIANNAROS: We had a chance to speak -- to talk just briefly outside of this committee room earlier on today, and we didn't really have enough time to get into a lot of the things that I wanted to ask. But let me just say up front you see some concerns, some nervousness on behalf of some of the Committee Members, partly because of what is already happening here.

What's happening here is we're talking about wrestling rather than education, and soft-sex entertainment, frankly. And the question that we all have is, really, how is that going to impact on young, soft-developing minds when the conversation in the classroom or at the school level is, Oh, do you know, one of our decision-makers in our curriculum promotes this kind of business. And I have to say that, I am very impressed of you as a CEO. I have to admit that, because you're very innovative and came up with a -- developed a program and a business that is innovative, and I have no problem with innovation in business. But here we're talking about education, and that's where the issue is.

Let me ask you this, Linda, do you -- can you tell me what's your background in terms of educational background?

LINDA McMAHON: I graduated from college with an undergraduate degree in French with a teaching certificate, so my goal had been that I would be a teacher.

REP. GIANNAROS: Okay.

LINDA McMAHON: But an unexpected baby --

REP. GIANNAROS: Uh-huh.

LINDA McMAHON: -- came along, and at a time, right in the middle of the school year, so I didn't have the opportunity then to go into teaching and took a position with the law firm in Washington instead.

REP. GIANNAROS: Have you been involved in the lower education in any other way?

LINDA McMAHON: No. I don't come before you today as an educator. I make no bones about that. I am not here before you as an educator. What I bring to the table are not skills which I think -- I recognize in so many other members of the State Board who do have a good, thorough education background and been involved in the system. The lady who was testifying, you know, just ahead of me, it will be almost eight years, has a full understanding of all the educational components, and I think that is the strength of the Board that is there now.

But I think -- I think I bring something different. I brought something different to the Board of Trustees for Sacred Heart University because most of the time I was raising my hand saying, I'm sorry, could you explain that to me? And I think by some of the questioning and not understanding everything and why it was done, caused it to be looked at again. It was not in a pejorative fashion. It was just simply, I don't understand. I'm just a lay person who's in, I'm not part of the world of academia.

I would hope that there would be some of that sort of ignorance that my prod, explanation and to revisit and to look at a policy or a standard that might already have been made and accept it as, boy, this really is the way we ought to do it. We did it this way before, or it's a new and innovative program and the reasons for that are X, Y, Z, and I go, Wow, I get that. That's -- that's awesome. We ought to really push that and be able to move it because I don't think that people know about that yet.

How do you get the word out? How do you communicate best? To have people understand, to embrace and move some of these programs forward, because I'll tell you it's our kids who are suffering. It's not parents talking about who's on the Board of Education. It's our kids. And these preschool kids who don't have an opportunity -- they don't even have enough money for lunch, and that performance gap is just growing and growing and growing. They're suffering. Time to stop. Time is now. Let's get moving. Let's break out of the box a little bit. Let's -- let's take a look at it anyway, and have somebody ask about it.

So that's what I hope I can do, and not -- I'm not trying to pat myself on the back at all. I don't have any answers but I have an open mind. And I think I have the ability to quickly ascertain how things work and to sort of, maybe, maybe -- maybe make some suggestions along the way. I think that's one of the things that Governor Rell had hoped when she nominated me to be on the Board.

So I would so appreciate the opportunity to serve, and you'll see the same kind of passion and commitment that I bring to the table.

REP. GIANNAROS: And what do you see as the problems in education at this point, and I know you have not been involved directly in --

LINDA McMAHON: As I mentioned earlier, I -- I don't know causes, I just see effects. I see the effects that we're not graduating as many students as we should. I see the effects of this growing gap between socio-economic, ethnic diversity, et cetera, and the performance in our children. I think that every child ought to have the opportunity for equal education. That means that their teachers should be equally prepared to teach. That the curriculum ought to be the same across the board for those who are able to have it. And that the facilities ought to be equal so that the students can grown and flourish. I think that is their right to ask for and demand the best education that we can give them with the best teachers to turn out the best product. And that's just all I'd I strive for. That's my philosophy that I think is pretty simple and just kind of common sense.

I don't know how to get there, yet. Ask me in a couple of months, I might have a better idea but, as of yet, I don't have those answers, but I have an inquiring mind.

REP. GIANNAROS: One of the biggest problems we have I think, after hundreds of years of existence as the state of Connecticut, we still have one of the greatest segregated school systems in the country, and I'm talking about city segregation schools. How do you feel about that, and what would you perhaps consider doing about that?

LINDA McMAHON: Well, I that follows what I just said about equal opportunity education. I think that Sheff versus O'Neill clearly put a mandate on the table to -- to eliminate that. And the goal is to, you know, whether it's by, you know, open choice or whatever the factors are that move these children and get them into better facilities, and some of that, you know, some of that's marketing. I know Representative Janowski had some concerns with, you know, with magnet schools because the cities are expected or the municipalities are expected, you know, to fund them. And she and I had a conversation yesterday on, you know, unfunded mandates, and hopefully, I think, Governor Rell addressed some of those issues yesterday. But I do think that we should not have segregated schools, and I think that, you know, Sheff versus O'Neill is a goal that we all have to strive to continue.

REP. GIANNAROS: But -- one more question on that particular topic because it's obviously very important to me as my colleagues have found out since I arrived on this Committee, and partly because I'm and educator, and partly because I see the damage that is done as a result of segregation, because these are the people who will be actually the leaders of the future, hopefully, and the people who will actually help me in retirement. And we have to make sure that everybody is optimally educated, that is up to their maximum capacity. You know that the Sheff versus O'Neill ruling took place 1977 was it?

LINDA McMAHON: I though it was '96. I thought it was 1996.

REP. GIANNAROS: Seventy-six.

LINDA McMAHON: Seventy-six?

REP. GIANNAROS: Ninety-six?

LINDA McMAHON: Ninety-six.

REP. GIANNAROS? No, no, I'm talking about the first --

A VOICE: (Inaudible.)

REP. GIANNAROS: Oh, okay, maybe that's what I'm thinking, yeah. So it's relating to the same issue.

And we spent tens -- we've spent many, many millions of dollars trying to -- hundreds of millions to try to correct this problem, but nothing has happened as a result of just spending and twisting and changing a little bit here and there, tweaking, rather. So, is there anything that you can see possibly that can get us out of this kind of situation?

LINDA McMAHON: I don't have the answers today. I can -- I can just, you know, reaffirm that I think segregation of schools is wrong and inappropriate and every child ought to have equal opportunity.

REP. GIANNAROS: And how do you feel about the role of the State with relation to education versus private education?

LINDA McMAHON: The role of the state of?

REP. GIANNAROS: Connecticut.

LINDA McMAHON: Public school versus private school?

REP. GIANNAROS: Yes.

LINDA McMAHON: I think there's a place for private schools. I certainly think that if parents opt to send their children to private schools and they can afford it, then that's fine. Private schools have always existed, and I think will continue to exist.

I think public schools have the obligation to educate each child to the very best of its ability. And I applaud all the school districts that strive to do that, especially in these budget times. It's very difficult, and you can't wave your magic wand. But there's room -- I think, you know, children have the right to be educated with whatever format. If it's a magnet school, if it's a charter school, it's a public school, it's a vocational school, it's adult education, all of these programs, we need to start younger. Get them in pre-K at three to four. I see my little grandchildren, they're like sponges. They just soak up everything you want to tell them, and if we can spend time with them and get them ready to enter into kindergarten, then each successive grade will be that much smarter and that better performing.

REP. GIANNAROS: And to carry another -- I'll stop right after this question because I know I'm taking too much time. The forecast that I read recently indicated that I think in 2030, 50 percent of the population in Connecticut will be the so-called underrepresented populations, what we call today minorities. If that statistic is true, you see why I am concerned, and I may not have a good retirement unless these children are educated to the maximum, and I guess, what I'm struggling with is how are you going to make a big difference on this given your background, given the industry you're in versus somebody else who may have qualifications that relate to curriculum, qualifications that relate to education systems, qualifications in terms of advancing the interests of the minority groups?

LINDA McMAHON: I think the issue you raise, even though you've talked about that it would -- 50 percent of the population would be this unrepresented minority group. What I would like to say that if we don't educate our children, it doesn't matter what race, what language, whatever they are, all our of futures are doomed, because these children, Caucasian, Hispanic, wherever they come from, they are the future leaders and citizens, not only of our state but of our country, and if we fall down in our ability to educate them then it's not just about 50 percent of an unrepresented group, it's all of them and that's our responsibility.

I don't know if anyone with more credentials in education would make a better difference. I think we have a mixed, diverse board. I would hope that all of those areas of expertise get brought together to help decide policy and I don't have a magic wand. All I can promise you today is my commitment to this effort, and trying to understand, as best I can, all that we can do for our children to educate them.

REP. GIANNAROS: Thank you. I wanted to ask those questions, because those are more relevant than some of the other things that -- thank you.

LINDA McMAHON: Thank you.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you.

Representative Giegler.

REP. GIEGLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And welcome. I appreciate the time that you've taken before this Committee, and I think one of the things that we have to look at is that we're not putting WWE on the Board, we're putting you on the Board, and we have to look at what you're going to bring to the table and how you can benefit the children of the state of Connecticut. And we know that education is so crucial, and the programs that we're putting out there are so crucial to the success of our children. And we have to look at -- and I would like to look at some of what you have done, actually what WWE has done with their corporate responsibility programs.

And I just wanted to ask you bullying has been such an issue in the schools through the years, and we, as a Legislature, have addressed some of those issues. And I'm just wondering if any of the programs that you've put forth address bullying in your Get REAL or any of those programs?

LINDA McMAHON: Not specifically that I'm aware of. I think there are questions that come up to our superstars in some of their environments that do talk about, you know, what do you do with a guy who comes out and punches you in the nose. That's a tough question. First response, hit him back, you know, but it's not -- that's not the way you handle bullying. But we don't have a particular program in place, you know, relative to bullying. It might be something that we should look into because I think it is a strong message.

We have recently launched a kids.com, wwe.kids.com website, and part of the -- and a kids' magazine, and part of the reason for that is this edu-tainment component that we want to utilize, again the popularity of WWE. For instance, if you want to teach geography, we have a map of the world with all the locations where WWE is going to appear over the next six months. It's states throughout the United States. It's in Europe. It's in South America. It's in Asia. And the students see and learn by location where their superstar is going to be their favorite, and we have little elements from that program that we put back on our website that gives a little culture of that area.

So we don't have a specific program for bullying, but we develop specific things to capture the imagination, I think, of the kids. And I think bullying might be something we should look at. I think it's a good suggestion.

REP. GIEGLER: Well, I thank you very much. And I think one of the comments that you made about thinking outside the box, I think that's what we do need now and I think some of your programs reflect that, and I hope that when you get to the State Board of Education that you will use that thought process of thinking outside the box, and maybe improve some of what's going on within our schools to make successful students, and I thank you very much.

LINDA McMAHON: Thank you.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you, Representative.

Senator McKinney.

SENATOR McKINNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mrs. McMahon thank you for dedicating and offering your time to the state of Connecticut.

We haven't met before. I do represent the town of Fairfield, and know Dr. Cernera very well, and he has commented on how well you've done on the Board of Trustees at Sacred Heart University, and I think that experience will help you well on the State Board of Education as well.

Just some random thoughts, and I'll try to be very brief. One with respect to your background as a CEO of a successful company. You mentioned getting resumes and having employees who don't know how to put sentences together. That background, in and of itself, can be critically important to out State Board of Education.

My own three kids are in public school in Fairfield. I've a middle schooler and two elementary school kids, and I don't believe they are taught sentence structuring, the way I was taught, at least not in our school system. They do a lot free-writing. They do more writing than I did, but there isn't that diagramming by sentence. I don't know whether that's good or bad, but with the use of computers and e-mails and text messaging, we're not even using whole words anymore to communicate with one another in today's society.

And so, how employers look at potential employees is important for our education system to understand that, because we want our kids to be educated, but we also want them to be able to go out and get jobs as well. So I think that maybe you could look into how sentence structuring and writing is being taught because it is -- first impressions go a long way, and a first impression for an employer is someone's resume and a cover letter, so...

LINDA McMAHON: And there's a difference between a typo, which also shouldn't happen, but there's also a difference between a typo and just not knowing how to spell the word.

SENATOR McKINNEY: I agree. And since I used to practice law, typos were probably worse, but that's all right.

But I also just want to say that, you know, my two cents, I appreciate the fact that you're willing to open yourself up to a lot of criticism. Our last meeting we had, we approved people for the Department of Public Utilities Control, and there was a woman appointed by the Governor who did not have a background in the energy field, but she had an extraordinarily diverse background. She had the qualifications to do most anything, and that's what I look for in people that volunteer to serve on Boards and Commissions. Do they have the qualifications, the skill, the ability to do that? I do support Governor Rell's attempt to add those different, diverse voices because we don't want just educators. We don't want all of one type of person. I think we need a full range, and so I think you bring a different and unique background to that as well.

And again, just my last comment, I actually used to watch the WWF. My 12 year-old son does not. So that's -- sorry for that. But I don't believe that what you do in your entertainment field impacts on your ability, as an individual, to serve on the State Board of Education any more than I believe that my voting for you is a stamp of approval for what you might do at WrestleMania.

You know, the state of Connecticut, and most of us are proud to talk about the fact that we've passed very aggressive tax credits to bring in the film industry. I don't know if they've helped the WWE expand business in Connecticut, I hope it has, but there wasn't anyone, Representative Fleischmann included, who stood up and supported that and who put prohibitions on whether they could be R-rated movies or soft-porn movies or anything. They're film tax credits. It's not a stamp of approval of the content of the movie. It was intended to bring in business to the state of Connecticut.

So I think you got caught up in a little bit of politics today. That's the nature of the beast. You're probably -- I've commented to my colleagues here, that you've handled the questioning with dignity and class, and I appreciate it. And, you know, I think we have to be careful, as a State, when we want people to donate their time and help the people of the state of Connecticut that we can't go too far.

We've had a lawyer come before you earlier. We didn't ask the lawyer who their clients were. You know, we don't ask people, you know, if their businesses sell fatty foods or sodas and the like that may be bad for our kids. Someone made a comment of whether or not you'd be faced with banning children's access to violence. I hope the State Board of Education isn't in the business of banning, whether it's books or TV shows. That's our job as parents to do, and maybe this lengthy hearing will actually inspire some Legislators to talk to their constituents or their own kids and have this conversation because that's what parents are supposed to be doing with their kids is having a conversation about what's on TV, what's on the radio, what hits them everyday. And there is a heck of a lot more people who watch the Super Bowl who saw 300 pound athletes and entertainers than who watch your show. You might like to reverse those numbers, but, so, I just -- that's a little bit longer than I wanted to go, but I think there's been a little bit of unfairness, and it's sort of politically motivated to you today, and I appreciate the dignity with which you've handled it.

LINDA McMAHON: Thank you.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thanks, Senator McKinney.

Just a couple of follow-up questions, Mrs. McMahon. One of the things that many of us are concerned about, and it's something that I hope that you'll look into. As you said, coming to the idea of the Board with a fresh perspective and having built a successful business and all of the accountability and careful attention to detail that you have to do in that, I think that will be a significant help with the Board, but one of the things that many of us are concerned about is the high dropout rate from high schools, again, especially in urban areas, that's part of that -- of the achievement gap that we're worried about.

But one of the things that I think that makes it even more difficult to get a handle on that is that drop-out statistics are not necessarily uniformly handled from district to district.

For instance, I'm aware that some school districts when students leave the high school and enroll in adult education instead and then dropout of the adult ed program shortly after entering that program, they're not counted in the dropout statistics from the high school because they, in fact, transferred to adult ed from high school even though they might have dropped out the very next day, so that actually our dropout numbers may be actually worse.

SENATOR LOONEY -- on reports and balance sheets that are giving you, and analyzing statistics with a critical eye, and I hope that that's one of the things that you'll look at and pay attention to on the board.

LINDA McMAHON: Well, I can tell you that I think in forming policy, when you look at any statistics, you have to compare apples to apples. So if it's not consistent then yes, we need to look at that and understand it.

SENATOR LOONEY: Good. And just one last question. Noticing that you have served for the last more than four years now on the Board of Trustees of Sacred Heart University, if you could tell us a little bit about what you've learned about higher education in Connecticut during your tenure on that Board and, in particular, about private higher education.

LINDA McMAHON: Well, Sacred Heart University is, first and foremost, a Catholic University, so there is a good focus on the Catholic Tradition as part of that University. However, all of the professors and teachers there, you know, are laypeople. They're are no members of the clergy as part of that, so I have learned that the excellence of education standards that are implied in Sacred Heart are really high. And it makes me very proud to be there and see all the course work is going into it.

Sacred Heart is -- also is the beneficiary of being located so close to GE, and the new school of Business, the John R. Welch School of Business, has just recently been established. We'll be building new buildings. And I think what I've learned about higher education is that it's -- it's no different from any other business. There are those who have certain thoughts and ideas about what the curriculum should be, challenged in the environment, looking at professors, trying to attract good professors to be there and to stay there. All of the different issues that have come up on college campuses like safety. I mean, we've put in measures there that you really had to be concerned about the safety about the young men and women given kidnappings and things that have gone on in some colleges and universities.

So higher education really, to me, so far, has been that it is certainly an extension of what we are trying to accomplish through preschool and high school and it's that next level. Now it's -- it's the opportunity for kids, who are fortunate enough to come to a college or university, to sort of spread their wings a little bit and have a little independence while they still have some governance over them. And, at the same time, prepare for what they believe is kind of their chosen field and focus on that chosen field.

It's interesting to see these young people who, you know, they -- they communicate strictly just like high school kids do and middle school kids today, you know, with cell phones, et cetera, et cetera, so how do you utilize all this technology? It's a little bit, no different than WWE. We get our product to our fan when they want it, how they want to get it. Okay, can we get education to our students in the methods and the means that they understand and they can actually relate to. And it makes it a little bit cooler to know the answer to the math problem tomorrow. You know, when Mrs. Smith calls on me, have you got it? Yeah, I know just how that works.

So I think there is a lot to incorporate, and it's a little bit off the pace of your question about higher education, but to me, it's just all, you know, an extension. It's all very different at an independent, you know, private school. Especially in today's economy, we're worried about how many kids are actually going to be coming back. Are there, you know, are the school loans going to be available? I'm very pleased with Governor Rell's, you know, statement yesterday about the private funding continuing. So all of that, I think, bodes well for good education in Connecticut.

SENATOR LOONEY: Okay, well, thank you.

I think that will be a valuable perspective to bring to your work on the State Board dealing with the elementary and secondary ed because we had Higher Ed Commissioner, Michael Meotti before us on Tuesday for an appointment to serve on the New England Board of Higher Ed, and pointed out the disturbing statistic from research down there that Connecticut is projected to perhaps have a lower overall percentage of college graduates in its population by 2020, than it does now, which would be very damaging for our prospects in terms of --

LINDA McMAHON: Yes it would.

SENATOR LOONEY: -- being competitive in the international markets in which we have to compete, and that Connecticut has always prided itself in having the best-educated workforce and the most-skilled people, so that we'll encourage businesses to locate here and employee Connecticut people who will be productive. So anything that threatens that will be damaging to our long-term future, so I hope that you'll be vigilant to that in your new capacity as well.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions from Committee Members?

If not, the last question we ask all nominees: Is there anything in your background that might prove an embarrassment to the Governor as the appointing authority, or to this Committee, or the General Assembly in approving your nomination?

LINDA McMAHON: Not that I'm aware of.

SENATOR LOONEY: Good. Well thank you very much.

LINDA McMAHON: Thank you.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you.

Next is Theresa Hopkins-Staten of West Hartford, to also be a member of the State Board of Education.

Good afternoon.

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: Good afternoon.

SENATOR LOONEY: If you'd raise your right hand please. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give here this afternoon shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: I do.

SENATOR LOONEY: Good. Please have a seat.

If you'd give the Committee an opening statement and then there may be some questions for you from the members.

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: Okay. Good afternoon, Senator Looney, Representative Janowski, and members of the Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee. I am Theresa Hopkins-Staten from West Hartford, and it is an honor for me to appear before you today as a nominee of Governor M. Jodi Rell for reappointment as a voting member of the State Board of Education.

While professionally trained as an attorney, education has always been a passion and priority of mine, and it continues to be my fervent belief that providing every child with a high-quality education is one of the greatest contributions that we can make to our society and to our state.

As my resume reflects, my past career included managing a foundation and education was an area of priority. This enabled me to provide financial support to a variety of -- of initiatives that helped students throughout Connecticut.

One grant that I continue to monitor was made in 2004 to R.J. Kinsella Magnet School of the Arts in Hartford. This grant funded a program called PEAC, an acronym for Parental Involvement, Etiquette Enrichment, Academic Enrichment and Character Development. At the time Kinsella received this grant, the school had not made adequate yearly progress under the No Child Left Behind Act, ranked 33 out of 33, and was slated for closure.

As a result of a tenacious and determined principal by the name of Pamela Totten-Alvarado, a devoted staff of high-quality teachers and administrators, and yes, additional resources, Kinsella experienced a dramatic transformation. Today, Kinsella is ranked 16 out of 42, and was recognized by ConnCAN as a top 10 Connecticut school, based on the academic improvements made by its students. Additionally, Ms. Totten-Alvarado received the coveted Ambassador Award from MetLife Foundation for the school's notable achievements.

Clearly, there are success stories. However, more work is required to close unacceptable achievement gaps that continue to widen among students who differ in gender, race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

Over the past four years, I have had the privilege to work on the State Board of Education with colleagues equally passionate about educating the 575,000 students attending our public schools. I also serve on the Board's Policy Development Committee and Connecticut Technical High School System Committee. We have worked on, among other matters, a five-year comprehensive plan, developing policies to ensure our students can successfully compete in the globalized 21st century, secondary school reform, and have reviewed and approved several district improvement plans.

While much has been accomplished by the Board, there is still more work to be done. I am up to the challenge, and would be honored to continue serving the people of this great state.

I appreciate your attention, and welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you very much and congratulations on your renomination.

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: Thank you.

SENATOR LOONEY: A couple of questions. You've been a member of the Board now for four years. Is that correct?

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: It will be four years in May.

SENATOR LOONEY: Four years in May. What is it, -- do you think, what progress has been made? I see you've talked about particular relation to the Kinsella School, but also, overall, what has been done and what more should be done to close this just terrible problem of the achievement gap that we see widening all the time between affluent or nonaffluent, urban and suburban, and minority and nonminority students, that is really a plague in Connecticut and is something that probably is just of the gravest concern or should be to all of us? And, what more can the State Board do or what should the Legislature be doing or school districts doing to narrow that gap and make sure that we have productive education at all levels for all incomes?

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: Wow. I can tell you that the State Board has adopted a five-year comprehensive plan. We did so in January 2007 which I know was shared with the -- the State Legislature. And that plan has three priorities, high-quality preschool, increasing and enhancing the standards for all of our students in the state in the areas of reading, math, science, and secondary school reform. I think that we've made a lot of achievement in terms of developing curriculum around those initiatives.

The -- Commissioner McQuillan has certainly extended his hand to number of key constituencies and stakeholders within the state asking for their support of the secondary school reform and other initiatives that we are working on. But it takes time. It takes resources.

One of the challenges that we have is that it takes resources. As we listen to several school districts come before us with their district improvement plans, it was clear to me that there was a commitment there. It was clear to me that they understood the magnitude of the issues that they were confronting, but it was also clear to me that it required additional resources to help position them to get to where the school district needs to be.

That's not to say that there aren't things that are being done currently within some of these districts that we need to tweak and refine and redo. I think everybody understands that. But a lot of the initiatives that were -- were brought forth required some additional resources. And some of them -- they, the State Department of Education can provide them. Professional development, sharing best practices, research, all of those things the State Department can and has worked with a number of these school -- school districts on, but there's more to be done.

I think that I've heard a lot about parents and what their roles and responsibilities are. And I think for those of us in this room who are parents by nature or by nurture, we do those things but there's a segment of our population that does -- of children, that don't get that on a daily basis, and unfortunately, those are also the children who are struggling in school. So, we can't assume or -- or always expect that kids are getting it at home. These are children coming to us with nontraditional challenges. So we have to be nontraditional in the way that we try to address these challenges.

I reference the PEAC program. One of the reasons PEAC has been so successful is because it's a holistic model. We not only work with the students in terms of tutoring, homework clubs, meals, extracurricular activities and mentoring, but we work with the families. There was a woman who was hired to work exclusively with the families understanding the needs and the challenges that the families and those children were confronted with daily, and as a result of that and being responsive to that, the parents became engaged in their education. Some of the issues were resolved because they were referred to various health and human service agencies within the state, and the entire child was being serviced.

I think that for us to look exclusively at the State Department of Education and teachers as -- as the be-all and end-all to resolving this, it's not going to happen. I think that we have to zoom out and we become more inclusive in terms of who we engage to help us with these issues. Faith-based involvement, business involvement, State Department of Ed, it's going to take all of us to work collectively and collaboratively to address the solution, and it's going to take time.

I think that we've done a lot. There are a number of initiatives that we're working on but it's going to take all of us working together to get this issue addressed or to address the issue in an adequate way. Because our children's future is at stake, and we only have one bite at this apple. If we do it well, we will produce a young man or young woman that can go into the workforce, know how to craft that letter that was just referred to, or go on to college. They'll have a sense of purpose and they'll be successful. If we don't get it right, then the choices or the opportunities that that child will have are those that none of us would want for any of our loved ones.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you.

Just a couple of questions on more specific and detailed aspects rather than the broad overview. The issue of teacher certification and preparation, that's one thing that, I'd like to hear your views on whether what we do in terms of teacher credentialing is really sufficiently connected to high-quality classroom performance and impact on the children.

In other words, you know, is it enough to say that if someone gets a Master's degree of a sixth-year certificate that that is, in effect, a guarantor of a certain level of performance that should be rewarded in terms of compensation, or should we have more of an evaluation standard based upon the outcomes that are demonstrated by the children taught by that teacher as opposed to the degree credentials of the teacher?

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: One of the things that -- and I'm sure that you're familiar with the BEST Program, I think even teachers that get all of the requisite credentials that come into schools systems, there's a -- there's a level of coaching and mentoring that that teacher may need, because when you're right out of school even though you have internships, it's different. Having said that, there's a level of accountability and responsibility that each teacher has, and there needs to be some assessment based on outcomes whether or not he or she is doing the job that they've been hired to do. I think that the MAP program which is replacing BEST, the mentoring program that's being established is a piece of that, but I also think that there needs to be -- it needs to be outcome driven.

If, in fact, you have a teacher that has not been or a class that is not been producing and not just on -- on standardized tests, but their grades and overall scores, a combination of things, they're not meeting the mark, then that teacher needs to be looked at.

I also believe that we have a lot of teachers that want to do the right thing, and that they go to school with the mindset to teach our children and to provide them with the high-quality education that they're entitled to receive. But I've also heard from teachers that they're encountering situations that they've not been trained to deal with or handle.

So, again, I think some of these issues that some of our teachers are experiencing addressing are unique and teachers have not been trained to do that. So whatever assistance that they can be provided to help them, as the State Department of Ed, we need to be a resource but then there are other opportunities for other organizations to also be involved in that.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you.

To return to the question that was asked earlier of Ms. Luke, on the issue of suspensions, I think that everyone is somewhat appalled and concerned that young children, as young as kindergarten in some cases are being suspended. I mean that seems to some to indicate that it's kind of just a throwing up of hands of responsibility. That if the class is -- if the classrooms aren't able to handle children that young what are they being prepared to do?

Just your thought on the suspension issue. That typically, you would think that a suspension would be a 140- or 15-year-old high school student that might be getting rambunctious, but when you hear of a suspension being applied to five- and six-year-old children, that seems to be, to many, a sort of abdication of responsibility. Your thoughts on that.

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: I was quite -- quite honestly, I was surprised to see and hear about children in kindergarten being suspended from school, because you have to ask yourself what could that child have possibly done that would warrant that type of response and reaction. Children go to school to learn. And children go to school with a number of different issues and to -- to resort to suspension to get that child out of school is not where we want to be. In-school suspensions, and I know that there were a number of positions and opinions about that, resources, where do you put them, the teachers that are going to have to man the class and those are all things that we have to work through.

But ultimately, kids need to be -- students need to be in the -- in the school setting to learn. If you have a child that has additional issues or problems that warrant that, that's not to say they're never to be suspended. But overall, students -- our objective and goal should be to keep students in school.

The other thing that I was somewhat surprised by, and I -- there was a graph that was shared with the Board, was the disparity in the suspensions where they took place. The students attending schools typically were suspended at a lot higher rate than other students. And as we look at that and examine that, some of it was justified, and some of it was not. It was an easy solution, and easy out.

So I think overall our goal needs to be to keep our children in school. And, obviously, if a child presents a health or safety risk to the student body, we're not saying to ignore that, but let's keep our kids in school and teach them because that's what we're there to do.

Out-of-school suspensions are not that effective, at least they don't appear to be. At least, if they're in school, it's a structured environment, there's still learning that needs to take place, but the child is still in an environment that enables him or her to learn.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you. Just one last question before I turn it over to other members of the committee.

On the issue of school dropout rates that mentioned, that is something I think that is a great concern about the lack of uniformity in how those statistics are calculated. As I mentioned, we've heard of a number of districts that if a high school student drops out of the traditional high school and enrolls in adult ed instead and then drops out of adult ed shortly thereafter, that child is not counted as a high school because he didn't drop out directly from school, but into an alternate program and then left. And so that, in effect, that may mask what the true dropout rate is and in some districts may be significantly worse than the reported rate. Just your thoughts on that.

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: I was in Alexandria, Virginia, just two weeks ago, because I had been appointed to a national task force to look at this very issue. There's inconsistency across the country. And one of the charges of this task force is to come up with a model that can be used by all school districts and under the No Child Left Behind Act there is a model that we will all have to adhere to.

But you're absolutely right, some of it's the inability to track where people go. If, in fact, a student leaves to go to a different school district, the information isn't always -- isn't always accurate, so, some students may be labeled as having dropped out when, in fact, they'd be in -- may be in a different state or in a different school district.

But we're all counting differently, even in the state of Connecticut. And actually the showed each State's statistic, their number, and there was a ten-point difference between how we report our dropout rate versus how the federal government reports it. So there needs to be better alignment and consistency and better tracking as to where these students actually go.

SENATOR LOONEY: Very good. Thank you very much and congratulations on your nomination.

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: Thank you, Senator Looney.

SENATOR LOONEY: Representative Janowski.

REP. JANOWSKI: Thank you. I just have one question. Senator Looney asked some of the questions I was going to ask so -- and it relates to the Kinsella School that you talked about.

You mentioned that it rated very poorly under the No Child Left Behind Act, and within a short period of time it came up and is now a highly-rated school.

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: Yes.

REP. JANOWSKI: Is that an elementary school?

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: It is. It is and actually the principal is here today. It is an elementary school.

REP. JANOWSKI: Oh, okay. And where is that in Hartford? I grew up in Hartford and I don't remember Kinsella School.

A VOICE: By Pope Park. (Inaudible.)

REP. JANOWSKI: Okay, now I know where it is. How did you do that? I mean, how -- what -- you know, the comments I'm getting from schools is that, you know, in order to pass the scrutiny of the No Child Left Behind you have to teach the kids how to pass the tests. Train them to pass the tests.

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: Yeah.

REP. JANOWSKI: Is that a combination of what you did among other things? How did you do that?

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: It took about a year to get this agreement drafted in a -- in a way that we were able to sign it with Ms. Alvarado. But it focuses on pre-K, so students that came in to assess them, any support that they needed, to give them that support very early on, and we tracked the same group of students for four years. So it was early intervention, early assessment, early intervention, and it's not just teaching to the test. I firmly believe that literacy is the key and opens the door to many things. If you can't read, there's going to be very little that you'll be able to accomplish or do. So we focused on literacy, reading, tutorials and providing whatever support that those students needed, again, very early on in the process.

We also worked with first and second graders. And many of them were deficient in areas, particularly in -- with respect to literacy, and that's what we honed in on. And I think a lot of the success that has been experienced at Kinsella is due to the fact that we turned things around from that perspective. When you get a child reading and excited about learning, there's -- there isn't much that you can't give them that they won't be able to grasp. So I think a lot of it was the fact that it was early intervention and assessment and it was a lot of it was literacy-based and focused in addition to the parental piece, the fact that we involved the -- looked at the entire family, assessed needs, and also got the family resources that they needed. And there was mentoring, homework club. We did trips. They were exposed to different things that they had not been exposed to previously, so their eyes opened up to a different world, a world that they had not known. And they're all doing exceptionally well. They put on a performance at my company, Northeast Utilities, a month or so ago, and you would have though you were sitting in the Bushnell. The children were just phenomenal, and it can work and it can happen. But again, it has to be a holistic approach I think.

REP. JANOWSKI: Thank you. I'm glad you mentioned mentoring and parental involvement.

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: Yes.

REP. JANOWSKI: Thank you.

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: That's key. Thank you.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you, Representative.

Other questions from other members of the -- yes, Representative Giegler?

REP. GIEGLER: Yes. Thank you for your willingness to serve.

I just have one question. I know we've had -- I've had a number of parents contact me. I think it's the DRA 2 test, the reading comprehension test that the -- given out in this district. And the concern is that it's focused on speed rather than comprehension. For those that are trying to get children to read, enjoy reading and be proficient at it, I think it's become a frustration level instead and it's having the complete opposite effect, just wondered what your take on that was.

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: Some students require more time, and the more time you have the better you can take the test. Unfortunately we are in a society that puts a lot of weight and stock in -- in test taking, and there are time limits that are -- that have to be adhered to by -- by everyone that takes that test.

It's just a matter of practice, and one of the things that we've encouraged, at least at the vo-tech -- vo-tech level, is to get students taking tests earlier and often, so that they can develop a style and a comfort with test taking, because a lot of it's nervousness and if you're not accustomed to taking tests, you don't take them well. But the more you do it; I think the better at it you'll become.

In terms of the time restrictions and limits, I don't know that there's anything we can do about that necessarily. But I understand the point of the parents that you're hearing from but, I think the more they take -- the more tests they take, the more proficient they'll be at test taking. And, but it's that type of issue, that goes -- where you can't -- it shouldn't be viewed as -- or the sole determining factor, in terms of a student's capabilities, because it's a snapshot in time, and so if they don't perform well on the test, that should not be how they are assessed or what determines their ability for success. It's just one data point because people don't always test well.

I didn't test well when I was in grammar school. My mother was told that I was retarded. I'm a high level but, you know, I scored very low. People don't always test well. So that can only be one data point when you're assessing the success and abilities of a student, and I think teachers understand that.

As far as changing how the tests are administered, I don't know that we have any say over that. But it shouldn't be the only thing that a teacher or anybody looks at in terms of a student's ability.

REP. GIEGLER: Well, I thank you for your answer because, just one of the concerns that I have is that the number of tests now that are required, you know, I know, primarily in elementary school, it really takes the teacher out of the classroom.

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: Uh-huh.

REP. GIEGLER: And I don't know if that's what we want to do. You know, we end up taking the teacher out of the classroom to meet with individual students and then we put a substitute teacher in to man their classes. I mean, are we really accomplishing anything by doing that? And there are a lot of people -- I, too, was one that didn't test very well.

The state of New York, you know, you had the New York State Regents Exam and you could've had great tests, you know, great grades all year. You took that New York State Regents and your final grade was destroyed by that. So I mean, I think for a number of students that are frustrated and get upset with testing, I don't think we're doing them a favor, you know, by implementing all this testing. And I think we need to, in some ways, go back to some of the basics cause I think that's how kids learn, that's how we learned. And I think it's showing that and I just think it's something that -- and I know No Child Left Behind was -- so much is driving the wheel --

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: Yeah.

REP. GIEGLER: -- but, it's unfortunate I think.

I thank you for the time you spend, and I know you're putting a lot of work into what you're doing.

THERESA HOPKINS-STATEN: Thank you.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you, Representative.