Chariho School Parents’ Forum

November 15, 2007

“Misinformation”

Filed under: bond — Editor @ 12:11 pm

Us “Nay-Sayers” are often accused of spreading “misinformation.”  This is one of the reasons I started this website.  With the power of the Internet, verification is very easy.

 On Monday (Westerly Sun People’s Forum), a Chariho employee (and Hopkinton resident) chastised Hopkinton for failing the bond and said:

“Teachers are lucky to get a 1 to 4 percent raise. Chariho teachers are paid state average (middle-of-the-road pay) for being among the highest performing. You don’t believe me? Look at the books.”

The contracts are available on the links to the right and you can calculate the raises yourself.  Or you can wait as I will be doing that soon.  

As for “highest performing,” here is a reminder of data covered previously – besides, everyone loves charts.

This first chart shows the percentage of Chariho students who scored in the top 25% of the NECAP test and compares that percntage to our peers.  Level 4, “proficient with distinction”

8th-level-4.jpg

This next chart shows the percentage of Chariho students who scored in the bottom 25% of the NECAP test and compares that percentage to our peers.   Level 1, “substantially below proficient”

8th-level-1.jpg

The data clearly shows that we have more students who perform at the lowest level and less students performing at the highest level than our peers. 

What the Chariho employee has done (or whomever gave him the information) was simply look at the proficiency standards. 

Here’s how it works.  The federal gov’t requires the state to report the NAEP scores.  These scores produce a statewide score.  This is what is reported as RI’s test score.  RI ranks between 31 and 41 depending on grade and subject

However, individual schools report the NECAP test scores.  This is where the term “proficiency” is determined.  Just about all schools are proficient when looked at by this measure.  Basically, the numbers are paded

What do I mean by that?  You can look at the above linked analysis but in layman’s terms, it is as follows:  Each state reports the NAEP test but individual school scores are not reported.  Individual schools report the NECAP test and since other states use different tests, we cannot compare a RI school to those in other states, or even a state average.  Thus we only compare ourselves to ourselves.  There is no comparison to DIFFERENT school models.

So the question to ask is, can you compare my NECAP score to the Massachusetts NAEP score (the highest in the country) or an individual MA school MCAS test score.  If the NAEP and NECAP tests were equivalent in measuring student achievement, it could be assumed that the total RI NECAP test scores, when averaged, would be equivalent to the reported NAEP score of RI (there are some curve variations but this is the base of the theory).

Dr. David Anderson, a Fellow on Education Policy over at my day job, is in the process of performing these types of analysis throughout the country (PA is the latest state to contract the analysis).  What he has found is that MA, which has been the top performing school in the nation for two years running, reports nearly identical test scores.  In other words, if you add all MCAS test scores in MA, the average is very close to the reported NAEP score.  However, in RI we nearly double the scores.

So when we hear our schools are “high performing” take that in the appropriate context. 

But even putting all that aside, when you compare Chariho to our geographic peers, even by that comparison we do very poorly.  How do you think we would compare to MA?

I would suggest that Chariho stop telling us everything is rosey and start addressing the problems.  Maybe then the parents will feel an allegiance to the district.  Just be honest with us.

Advertisements

24 Comments »

  1. Does anyone know where and when the meeting with Mr Ricci and the town councils will be? I would sure like to be there!

    Comment by Dorothy Gardiner — November 15, 2007 @ 3:35 pm | Reply

  2. The bond is rejected but the lies continue.

    Comment by Curious Resident — November 16, 2007 @ 12:59 am | Reply

  3. According to Maria Armental of ProJo, the three Town Council presidents will be meeting with Mr. Ricci tomorrow morning plotting to overturn the recent vote. You can read Ms. Armental’s article here:

    http://www.projo.com/ri/richmond/content/SC_CHTWN_NEWVOTE15_11-15-07_KA7SAJF_v78.2ada1a3.html

    Here’s my analysis.

    The meeting of the three stooges and the dictator has supposedly temporarily suppressed talk of a district breakup. Since we’ve done little else since the vote, I don’t know who has been suppressed?

    We are then told – LISTEN TO THIS – “officials learned that state aid for the project would still be available until JUNE 2010″.

    Imagine that…these people suckered voters into supporting this bond by lying about state funding. Does anyone really believe that they only just learned about this? Was there an announcement of this extension by the state? Of course not, it was a lie. Mr. Petit can continue to deny that the flyer was propaganda, but how does he explain this sudden revelation? I’m sure he has some excuse.

    Next comes the blow to the stomach of our democratic process. The article talks about a “new vote”. Yep…we didn’t like the outcome so lets vote again. This “new vote” does require an approval from all three Town Councils, so hopefully Mr. Buck, Mrs. Capalbo, and Mrs. Thompson will stand together in opposition to any attempt to subvert a legal vote.

    Charlestown has already thrown their hat into the ring as they voted on Tuesday to “delay plans to create a committee that would negotiate with Richmond”. They want to give Hopkinton “one last try”. How generous of Charlestown to give Hopkinton a chance to admit our mistake. I love them.

    If Charlestown were honest, they’d admit that without the current tax scheme they have little chance of negotiating a similar funding formula ever again. In other words, if they walk away from the Chariho Act, they walk away from the huge tax advantage they have over Hopkinton and Richmond. On a positive note, Charlestown remains a rich town and they can easily afford to be on their own and still spend money foolishly.

    Richmond has more problems. First, as long as they have Hopkinton’s help in wasting money, they don’t feel the full impact of their poor decisions.

    Second, with the dissolution of the district, many Chariho employees will face the risk of unemployment and the dissolution of their contracts. I don’t think it occurred to these Richmond residents and Chariho employees that their vote could result in the loss of their jobs. As the light bulbs went on, I think they may have reconsidered the rashness of buying Hopkinton out of the district.

    Stay awake Hopkinton…Richmond and Charlestown need us. They both know it…and now they are trying to scam us once again by getting us to accept another vote. Don’t do it…hold firm. Even if you initially supported the bond, you must recognize the games they are now playing?

    Charlestown’s new Town Council president, Mr. Craig, did come close to getting one thing right. He said he “would favor a partial withdrawal, with each town regaining control of its elementary school, which would serve students through fifth grade”. Sadly, like so many, for so many year, Mr. Craig has not listened to the community. If he did, he would know that we’ve said over and over again is that we want 5th AND 6th graders back in elementary schools.

    Mr. Reddish, from Richmond, tells ProJo that “part of the Hopkinton constinuency doesn’t get it’s going to cost us a lot more to tackle the oustanding issues through the district’s annual budget”. What Mr. Reddish doesn’t get is that the budget is grossly inflated and with a little fiscal managment, the annual budget should be enough to pay for school maintenance. What Mr. Reddish doesn’t get is that the annual budget is capped and Chariho will have limits on how much of our money they can waste.

    Mr. Reddish notes that the bond was rejected in Hopkinton by only 50 votes. His goal is for Hopkinton voters to “see the light and change their vote”. We should be waiting for Mr. Reddish’s constinuency to see the light and stop accepting the mismanagement and poor performance at Chariho. When the Richmond majority “gets it”, they will change their vote.

    ProJo reports that Mr. Cordone and Mrs. Kenney “reacted cautiously”. ProJo does not tell us what this mean?

    Mr. Kenney thinks overturning the vote is “tantalizing”. Mr. Kenney added that the “facts have to come out this time”. I hope this means we won’t be seeing any more propaganda flyers?

    Mr. Kenney believes that pro-bond officials must be “more aggressive in challenging critics innuendoes”. Mr. Kenney should feel welcome to come here to challenge our innuendoes. I suspect he doesn’t have enough truth inside him to take the heat.

    Imagine if he actually had to combat the facts? Kudos to Mr. Petit, but we’ve seen how much he complains when we ask for details about the Building Committee propaganda. I relish the opportunity to engage Mr. Kenney in an exploration of the truth.

    Mrs. Thompson is quoted as opposing a second vote for the same proposal. Good for her…I hope she remains committed to this.

    Unfortunatley, Mrs. Thompson doesn’t seem to understand tax equalization. According to the report, “She said she favors splitting the total school budget in thirds, borrowing from an old Hopkinton proposal known as the Blanchette Plan.”

    If the budget was split in thirds, Charlestown’s amazing tax base would still leave them in the driver’s seat as their individual tax burden would remain 2 to 3 times less than a Hopkinton or Richmond taxpayer. This means that Charlestown will remain much more tolerant of wasteful and unnecessary spending. They will be able to continue approving budgets which impoverish Hopkinton families. This is unacceptable.

    As I’ve said, I don’t harbor any anger toward Charlestown because they have an incredibly large tax base, but I don’t live in Charlestown and as long as tax inequity exists, I can’t afford to spend like I live in Charlestown. Mrs. Thompson does mention district taxing. This is the only tax structure that would allow for tax equity. Don’t be fooled by any other “plan”.

    According to Mr. Hosp from Charlestown, if we were each taxed equally, Charlestown as a town would pay 57.5% of the cost of Chariho. What he doesn’t tell us is that each INDIVIDUAL Charlestown taxpayer would pay exactly the same amount for Chariho as every single INDIVIDUAL Hopkinton and Richmond taxpayer.

    If you think of Chariho as being three towns, then Mr. Hosp’s has a point. If you think of Chariho as a community, then Mr. Hosp is merely trying to muddy the waters.

    I understand and empathize with Charlestown’s resistance to tax equity for individual taxpayers, but I can’t see Chariho working without it. I urge Charlestown, and their large tax base, to remove themselves from Chariho. They have plenty of money and they should spend it on their own kids. If they don’t feel they are part of the Chariho community, then by all means they should not have to pay equally for our kids.

    Mrs. Thompson ends the article by stating she would “consider” support for ending town veto over bonds if Richmond and Charlestown agree to “move toward” tax equity. I hope somebody clues Mrs. Thompson in to the fact that a 1/3 split is not the same as equity. With a 1/3 split, Hopkinton and Richmond remain disadvantaged when it comes to budgets and bonds. Also, no support should be offered for a bond until tax equity is formally and legally agreed to by all three towns.

    We need to stay awake here. These politicos are relentless and will try any trick to get into our wallets and purses. Don’t be fooled.

    Comment by Curious Resident — November 16, 2007 @ 1:01 am | Reply

  4. CONSPIRACY UPDATE – the meeting between conspirators attempting to subvert a legal vote has been rescheduled for Saturday.

    http://www.projo.com/ri/charlestown/content/SC_HOP_CHARIHO17_11-16-07_TR7T26U_v44.2a73b1c.html

    Comment by Curious Resident — November 16, 2007 @ 2:07 am | Reply

  5. CR all I had to do was read to the point of the state aid being available until 2010 and I stopped. Call Kevin Breene, the state aid is available to until June or July whenever the reconfigure their budget. I am not sure where the 2010 came in but I also heard this and checked and this was the information I was told. Once ths bond was voted down they will not keep it in the state budget, when they can disperse this money elsewhere.

    Comment by Bob Petit — November 16, 2007 @ 8:59 am | Reply

  6. Overturn the vote
    Vote again because we didn’t like the results of the first

    Hopkinton please don’t let them do it say no
    Keep saying no
    Yes the democratic process has already spoken

    Lets move on
    Thank your CR for your comments and insight

    Comment by A's Mom — November 16, 2007 @ 10:25 am | Reply

  7. Mr. Petit, the 2010 date was reported in two articles in the Providence Journal. Our snake oil salesman superintendent is reported to have verified 2010. Apparently Mr. Ricci knows more than Mr. Petit and Mr. Breene. Maybe you had the wool pulled over your eyes too?

    “Ricci said he wants to clarify where the district stood in terms of approval from the state for construction aid — which would remain valid through June 2010 — and what would need to be done if a second vote was to be held.”

    Comment by Curious Resident — November 16, 2007 @ 11:30 am | Reply

  8. WE the citizens of Hopkinton have to depend on our Town Council to vote “NO” to ANY THOUGHT of having another vote. Are you listening Town Council Members?

    Comment by Dorothy Gardiner — November 16, 2007 @ 12:23 pm | Reply

  9. AND….it just keeps getting more curious! The “meeting” (call it for what it is, a back door meeting to conspire) is now going on, as I write, according to the Westerly Sun. They state that the meeting will take place at 3pm today.

    With this many changes, this meeting (which is not unusual, according to Mr. Ricci) has been changed so often that no one can attend, try to attend, or picket. Which brings up another point. WHO would like to have a picket day and show those we choose what we think? A bit of informational picketing directed at those responsible for this mess might prove to be helful??? We may be subject to the judgement of fools, but we can still protest.

    Comment by Dorothy Gardiner — November 16, 2007 @ 3:35 pm | Reply

  10. Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!

    Or I could steal from The Who, “I Won’t Be Fooled Again”.

    These are my slogans for any Hopkinton voter who voted yes for the bond the first time. They probably will get a chance to correct their error…I hope they take advantage and send an even louder message to Richmond and Charlestown.

    Comment by Curious Resident — November 16, 2007 @ 3:50 pm | Reply

  11. What is the deal on Mr. Ricci meeting with and ostensibly plotting a new bond strategy with the Town Council presidents? Is it proper management for a superintendent to unilaterally communicate with the highest levels of town government without the blessing or participation of the School Committee he is supposed to report to?

    From what Mr. Petit has written, it doesn’t sound like he even knew about a meeting, never mind approved of a meeting. This meeting is emblematic of Mr. Ricci’s power exceeding the elected School Committee’s power at Chariho. I wouldn’t doubt that Mr. Day and Mr. Polouski knew and approved of this meeting, but it seems unlikely that the entirety of the School Committee was informed.

    If the School Committee was informed of this plot, then they came up with this devious maneuver behind closed doors, out of the watchful eyes of the public. I wouldn’t put this past them either.

    Do you have an answer you can share Mr. Felkner? Or are you bound by the requirements of a closed meeting we don’t know about?

    Comment by Curious Resident — November 16, 2007 @ 4:07 pm | Reply

  12. No idea CR. I have emailed Mr. Ricci and asked but he has not responded. Maybe he had the day off.

    Comment by Bill Felkner — November 16, 2007 @ 4:27 pm | Reply

  13. If the report of a meeting between Mr. Ricci and the Town Council presidents is accurate, would it also be accurate to say that not every member of the School Committee was informed that Mr. Ricci was meeting with the elected leaders of each town?

    I know one thing, if I were on the School Committee, I would be very unhappy to hear that the superintendent bypassed the elected represenatives of the School Committee and is meeting with town leaders to discuss the bond. This is very suspicious behavior. As a mere member of the taxpaying public, I am very concerned by Mr. Ricci’s reported behavior.

    Comment by Curious Resident — November 16, 2007 @ 4:39 pm | Reply

  14. Well, as I said before, all we have to depend on is our town council, and I would not put too much hope in them. They will be bluffed, fooled, and told that it is “good for the children”, to have another vote. In order to even HAVE another vote, they have to sell us down the river (again). Pretty sad, I think it just may happen, in spite of what they learned this time around. The lies, the twisting of facts “They ENDORSED this”, will that be forgotten? OR will we have a chance to really use our power as a town to get things straightened out, plan for rebuilding and repair, the return of our 5th and 6th graders and THEN go for a bond? Only time will tell.

    Comment by Dorothy Gardiner — November 16, 2007 @ 4:51 pm | Reply

  15. Hello CR,

    There are ‘breakfast meetings’ at 7:30am at Chariho for town council members generally about once a month or every other month I believe. I have only attended one a long while ago. I don’t have the list of dates or times if this is still going on, but it may be.

    Comment by BarbaraC — November 16, 2007 @ 5:59 pm | Reply

  16. According to a few of the Town Councilors, they only endorsed the bond going before the voters, not the bond itself. I’m not so sure I agree with this decision…I think they should have recognized the bond for the ruse it was and rejected on behalf of the voters, but I can’t fault them too much for letting voters decide. In general, I am very supportive of this concept.

    That said, the pro-bond side did leverage the “endorsement” as being on the side of the bond…so at the very least our Town Council allowed itself to be manipulated by the pro-bond forces. If they should allow this to happen again, it is a very poor reflection on them. The people involved with pushing this bond have proven themselves untrustworthy and Hopkinton’s Town Council should not forget this lesson.

    Thank you Mrs. Capalbo for telling us about the ‘breakfast meetings’. Are these open to the public? Does the School Committee participate? Are controversial issues discussed? Are strategies devised? Are alliances formed? Would a quorum ever exist?

    I like communication, but I fear nonpublic communication between public officials. For some reason, the public always seems to come out for the worse when we aren’t kept informed.

    Comment by Curious Resident — November 16, 2007 @ 6:14 pm | Reply

  17. I believe I read somewhere that the 2000 bond vote for 37.5 million was not endorsed by the Hopkinton Town Council. It went forth anyways. Hopkinton and Richmond voters passed that bond, and Charlestown did not.
    The endorsement only looks good to the legislature, and gives it a better chance of going through to a vote. It does not have to be endorsed. Does anyone remember this? I will try to find where I read this.

    Comment by Lois Buck — November 16, 2007 @ 8:07 pm | Reply

  18. It is a courtesy to bring a bond before the councils. Yes, it is much better if the town councils concur with the need for the bond, but it is not necessary. I abstained because I did not feel it was well designed or well presented with sections that were completely unnecessary and unproven. I also knew that our approval was completely secondary and nice but not necessary – Sylvia and Tom’s contention that the voters should be able to approve changed my vote from no to abstain – I thought their considerations were thoughtful and valid.

    As to the breakfast meetings they are nice but no one has time to discuss, argue, contemplate, or muse – nothing – anything in any detail or consequence – therefore, for those of us who work, a waste of time and money. I’m sure for retirees this is a useful social exercise. Of course, I have only been to one and perhaps they get better if I would be able to go more often, but my job sites are open and working at 7:00am as are most of the school personnel.

    I unfortunately found my visit an exercise in futility and I haven’t the time nor interest to continue. Perhaps Mr. Ricci could post an agenda. Not to worry about any revolution beginning in this setting CR, I really thought it would be energized discussions because it could be a forum for inventive thought and discourse between towns and with the district. A good leader could provoke interesting conversation and provide a true forum for new ideas.

    Comment by Barbara Capalbo — November 16, 2007 @ 11:04 pm | Reply

  19. Well there you have it. The bond will get voted on again because getting 200 signatures is easy as pie.

    We need to prepare Hopkinton to reject this second attempt to financially devastate us. Think Hopkinton…the bond locks us in with Charlestown for another 20 years. Many of our neighbors cannot afford to spend like they are from Charlestown. Stand firm.

    Comment by Curious Resident — November 16, 2007 @ 11:21 pm | Reply

  20. CR, Perhaps so, BUT it does NOT have to be put up for vote for up to 1 year, correct? In that time, we will be able to evaluate, plan and determine what is best for OUR town. Is this correct?

    Comment by Dorothy Gardiner — November 17, 2007 @ 10:09 am | Reply

  21. I do not know how quickly they can sneak another bond vote before us. Our first line of defense will be the council president when he meets with Mr. Ricci. He can aggressively stand against a subversion of the vote. He can tell Mr. Ricci and the other towns that the next step must be something other than a repeat of the last bond. He can tell Mr. Ricci and the others that Hopkinton is not happy with the status quo and we need major changes at Chariho before we will approve any more of our money being spent.

    Mr. Cordone was reported to be in favor of the bond. He also was reported to have taken sides with the pro-bond forces in Charlestown and Richmond rather than the majority in his own town. Assuming this is really how he feels, I have little confidence he will provide any defense against another bond vote.

    Next up would be the School Committee. We know that Mr. Felkner is a stalwart protector of Hopkinton, but Hopkinton’s other members are less predictable. For some reason, I do have faith that Mr. Abbott will see the light and recognize that Hopkinton is being railroaded. I could be wrong, but I can’t help myself, I like the guy.

    Mr. Preuhs remains an unknown commodity. I have no idea where he stands on any issue, never mind the bond issue. Mr. Petit is, well, Mr. Petit. He’s all over the place and he’s shown that emotion is the most powerful influence on his decision making process. Mr. Petit wants the children to have nice things…at just about any cost…I don’t count on him protecting the interests of Hopkinton or our children. I don’t believe this is out of any great malice, I just think he lacks the intellectual maturity to understand how his decisions ultimately impact outcomes. Mr. Petit can envision a renovated High School, but he is unable to envision the future impact to Hopkinton and to our children. He’s shortsighted and I’m not counting on him protecting Hopkinton.

    After the Town Council and School Committee we have the state legislature. I won’t even discuss them. They’re a slam dunk to approve a repeated bond vote.

    So, that leaves the voters of Hopkinton. We’ve proven once that we won’t be fooled, but will we be able to hold on? The local media has been relentless. Practically daily we see some quote or other from the pro-bond crowd. How many voters are turning into Mr. Petit and feeling guilty? That’s the key. Hopkinton should be bursting with pride for standing against the bond, yet this message has been muted by the media and by our public officials.

    When the repeat bond vote gets rescheduled, I’ll do what I did the first time and speak out loudly and often. Will it get defeated again? I have my doubt, but I wasn’t too confident the first time, and Hopkinton rose to the occassion, so maybe it will happen again?

    Comment by Curious Resident — November 17, 2007 @ 12:44 pm | Reply

  22. Can someone tell me who attended the meeting? Since we, the taxpayers were not informed/invited, am I correct that this meeting was, as noted in the papers, was only for town council presidents? Since Mr Felkner did not seem to be invited, I wonder who else was there, if anyone?

    Comment by Dorothy Gardiner — November 17, 2007 @ 6:02 pm | Reply

  23. OK, all you naysayers….LISTEN UP. Your kids are dining with MICE, INSECTS and just plain DIRT!

    CHARIHO MIDDLE SCHOOL
    455 B SWITCH ROAD RICHMOND, RI 028941314
    Facility Type: Food Service (Non-Profit)
    Facility Status: Active
    Inspection Date: 05/02/2007
    * (This inspection was performed by a 3rd party auditor)
    For more information regarding third party school inspections click here.
    # Violation
    36 Insects, rodents & animals not present; no unauthorized persons

    Inspector Comments
    The door to the outside, located in the receiving area, is not tight-fitting. Outer openings of a food establishment must be protected against the entry of insects and rodents by tight-fitting doors.
    36 Insects, rodents & animals not present; no unauthorized persons

    Inspector Comments
    The presence of mice is not controlled as evidenced by droppings and nesting. The presence of insects, rodents, and other pests must be controlled to minimize their presence on the premises by routinely inspecting the premises for evidence of pests, using acceptable methods to control pests, eliminating harborage conditions and routinely inspecting incoming shipments of food and supplies.
    47 Non-food contact surfaces clean

    Inspector Comments
    The nonfood-contact surfaces of foodservice equipment and storage areas including the receiving area have an accumulation of dust, dirt, food residue and other debris.
    47 Non-food contact surfaces clean

    Inspector Comments
    The nonfood-contact surfaces of the floor fan have an accumulation of dust, dirt, food residue and other debris.
    53 Physical facilities installed, maintained & clean

    Inspector Comments
    The floors in the kitchen and receiving area has an accumulation of soil residue and food debris. The shelving has “webs”. The physical facilities shall be cleaned as often as necessary to keep them clean.
    53 Physical facilities installed, maintained & clean

    Inspector Comments
    The acoustic ceiling tiles in the kitchen have holes and stains. Those tiles should be replaced with easily cleanable, durable, vinyl tiles. The materials for indoor floors must be durable, easily cleanable and nonabsorbent for areas suject to moisture such as food preparation areas, walk-in refrigerators, warewashing areas and toilet rooms.
    53 Physical facilities installed, maintained & clean

    Inspector Comments
    The ceiling vents in kitchen (5-6) has an accumulation of soil residue and food debris. The physical facilities shall be cleaned as often as necessary to keep them clean.

    CHARIHO MIDDLE SCHOOL
    455 B SWITCH ROAD RICHMOND, RI 028941314
    Facility Type: Food Service (Non-Profit)
    Facility Status: Active
    Inspection Date: 05/02/2007

    # Violation
    36 Insects, rodents & animals not present; no unauthorized persons

    Inspector Comments
    The door to the outside, located in the ( delivery/ receiving area inthe back), is not tight-fitting. Outer openings of a food establishment must be protected against the entry of insects and rodents by tight-fitting doors.
    36 Insects, rodents & animals not present; no unauthorized persons

    Inspector Comments
    The presence of ( pests, ie mice) is not controlled as evidenced by (dropping noted in kitchen area near dry storage pallet and in dry storage room. ). The presence of insects, rodents, and other pests must be controlled to minimize their presence on the premises by routinely inspecting the premises for evidence of pests, using acceptable methods to control pests, eliminating harborage conditions and routinely inspecting incoming shipments of food and supplies.
    36 Insects, rodents & animals not present; no unauthorized persons

    Inspector Comments
    Unapproved pest control devices such as spring traps used in dry storage room.
    47 Non-food contact surfaces clean

    Inspector Comments
    many area in the kitche, mop area, dry storage area, receiving back area not clean to sight. visible heavy build up and webbing noted behind and in between equipment, food storage shelves, prep tables. Extreme clutter noted in mop area. Dry storage area shelves, and under the shelving units not clean to sight.
    53 Physical facilities installed, maintained & clean

    Inspector Comments
    ceiling tiles are not of food code approved material.
    53 Physical facilities installed, maintained & clean

    Inspector Comments
    Kitchen areas, receiving areas and outside premise, outside the back doors and around dumpsters cluttered and not clean to sight.

    CHARIHO MIDDLE SCHOOL
    455 B SWITCH ROAD RICHMOND, RI 028941314
    Facility Type: Food Service (Non-Profit)
    Facility Status: Active
    Inspection Date: 12/05/2006
    * (This inspection was performed by a 3rd party auditor)
    For more information regarding third party school inspections click here.
    # Violation
    36 Insects, rodents & animals not present; no unauthorized persons

    Inspector Comments
    The door to the outside, located in the receiving area, is not tight-fitting. Outer openings of a food establishment must be protected against the entry of insects and rodents by tight-fitting doors.
    53 Physical facilities installed, maintained & clean

    Inspector Comments
    The ceiling vent in the chemical storage area has an accumulation of soil residue and food debris. The physical facilities shall be cleaned as often as necessary to keep them clean.

    RICHMOND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    190 KINGSTOWN ROAD RICHMOND, RI 02898
    Facility Type: Food Service (Non-Profit)
    Facility Status: Active
    Inspection Date: 09/11/2007
    * (This inspection was performed by a 3rd party auditor)
    For more information regarding third party school inspections click here.
    # Violation
    36 Insects, rodents & animals not present; no unauthorized persons

    Inspector Comments
    Dead pests in traps observed throughout kitchen. The presence of insects, rodents, and other pests must be controlled to minimize their presence on the premises by routinely inspecting the premises for evidence of pests, using acceptable methods to control pests, eliminating harborage conditions and routinely inspecting incoming shipments of food and supplies.
    53 Physical facilities installed, maintained & clean

    Inspector Comments
    Painted cinderblock walls need cleaning and repair in the storeroom and behind the dishwasher. Holes in walls (storeroom), build up of food residue and sticky in the Dishwashing area.
    53 Physical facilities installed, maintained & clean

    Inspector Comments
    The floor and wall junctures throughout the kitchen do not have coving. The floor and wall junctures must be coved and closed to no larger than 1/32nd of an inch.
    53 Physical facilities installed, maintained & clean

    Inspector Comments
    Walls are sticky and have an accumulation of food debris in the pizza prep area.

    RICHMOND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    190 KINGSTOWN ROAD RICHMOND, RI 02898
    Facility Type: Food Service (Non-Profit)
    Facility Status: Active
    Inspection Date: 05/08/2007
    * (This inspection was performed by a 3rd party auditor)
    For more information regarding third party school inspections click here.
    # Violation
    36 Insects, rodents & animals not present; no unauthorized persons

    Inspector Comments
    The presence of drain flies is not controlled as evidenced by observing them in three bay sink, on the kitchen walls,door screen. The presence of insects, rodents, and other pests must be controlled to minimize their presence on the premises by routinely inspecting the premises for evidence of pests, using acceptable methods to control pests, eliminating harborage conditions and routinely inspecting incoming shipments of food and supplies.
    36 Insects, rodents & animals not present; no unauthorized persons

    Inspector Comments
    The doorframe to the outside, located in the receiving area has holes. Outer openings of a food establishment must be protected against the entry of insects and rodents by tight-fitting doors.
    45 Food & non-food contact surfaces cleanable, properly designed, constructed & used

    Inspector Comments
    Wood counter top is used in the construction of prep station and has a build up of residue correction . Replace top w/ material easily cleanable by 8-01-07. Non food contact surfaces of equipment that are exposed to splash, spillage or other food soiling or that require frequent cleaning must be constructed of a nonabsorbent and smooth material.
    51 Toilet facilities: properly constructed, supplied & cleaned

    Inspector Comments
    The receptacle in the women’s toilet room is lacking a cover. A toilet room used be females shall be provided with a covered receptacle for sanitary napkins.
    53 Physical facilities installed, maintained & clean

    Inspector Comments
    The paint is chipping or worn on the walls in the storeroom, back kitchen across from 3 bay sink and the dishroom. The walls are constructed of cinderblock.. This material is not durable . Paint and cover w/ material that is easily cleanable and durable. Materials for wall surfaces shall be smooth, durable, easily cleanable and nonabsorbent for areas subject to moisture such as food preparation areas, walk-in refrigerators, warewashing areas and toilet rooms.
    53 Physical facilities installed, maintained & clean

    Inspector Comments
    Some coving in the receiving/kitchen area is in poor repair. The physical facilites must be maintained in good repair.

    Comment by Dorothy Gardiner — November 17, 2007 @ 6:29 pm | Reply

  24. […] The answer is holding them accountable – not making rules that are designed to eliminate corruption. I really don’t care who is related to whom if I’m not forced to do business with them. Let them be corrupt. If they are we should be able to leave (just like every other business) not held hostage by a monopoly. […]

    Pingback by Bob and Bill - who is fighting for whom (and who is “fighting hard enough”) « Chariho School Parents’ Forum — July 19, 2008 @ 1:29 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: