The good news is that Board President Gina Daleiden has put a review of the district’s complaint procedures, as well as follow up to the board direction to explore alternative conflict resolution mechanisms, on the May agenda.
But it’s hard to imagine a more antiquated system for enacting and reviewing complaints. There are problems from top to bottom in the process. This week we finally started getting answers on the complaint and investigation system itself and, unfortunately, none of them are good.
The district needs to understand that they may have come to the right conclusion on every one of the complaints that were filed in the district, but, given the privacy concerns and the opaqueness of the process, the public is going to be skeptical.
We understand that personnel matters and even student complaint processes are hidden behind privacy laws enacted to protect employees and students. Ironically, it seems at times those processes end up hurting the very people they are supposed to help by keeping matters out of the eyes of the public and making accountability difficult.
So we have identified a number of key problems.
Lack of accountability. As we have noted before, the school board does not even become aware of a complaint until it reaches the appeal stage. That means, as Gina Daleiden told us a few months ago, the school board really does not see a majority of complaints.
The decision to investigate a complaint externally comes from the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and/or the Director of Student Services. The process may get overseen by the Superintendent, but unless the complaint gets appealed, the school board has no say over any of the key components: cost, time, seriousness of the complaint.
Over the four years we received records from the school district, 11 investigations were handled externally out of 70, at a cost of $252,000 and the use of 1148 hours.
Lack of transparency. If the investigation is going to be conducted outside of the public’s view, there has to be some sort of transparency in the process. The problem is that there is none. The closest link to the public is again the school board, and they see the investigation only in the appeal stage. Moreover, the other safeguard would be for the parties involved to be able to review the full complaint.
However, we know from the Peterson-Crawford case that the Petersons received a letter of summary from Matt Best, the Assistant Superintendent in charge of HR. We know that Julie Crawford was not even allowed prior to her appeal to see the full report and thus the evidence against her.
Lack of Independence. If we had an open and transparent process, this next problem would be less. But given the lack of accountability and transparency, it is difficult to know if there is a problem or not.
One of the key questions that has not really been answered is how the district selects the investigator. What we have learned is that the district has essentially used two law firms: Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Rudd & Romo (AALRR); and Van Dermyden Allison/Maddux (VM).
What makes it more intriguing is that the School District’s Attorney, Eve Peek Fichtner, has actually been employed by both firms. Ms. Fichtner was Senior Counsel at AALRR from 2000 until September 2013 when she went to Van Dermyden as a Partner in October 2013.
Coincidence? The pattern suggests that the district simply used their attorney’s firm to conduct the investigation.
Is that a conflict of interest? Not necessarily. But the whole set up suggests perhaps something else going on here. As we know from the most recent investigation, Eve Fichtner herself was one of three attorneys involved in the report.
We also know from the release by the school district that one of the criteria for launching an external investigation is potential litigation.
The problem, therefore, becomes quite evident. The district’s chief interest here is in reducing the potential for litigation. They hire firms associated with an attorney, Eve Fichtner, with whom they contract for the same purpose – reducing the potential for litigation.
That means that anyone hired to investigate is potentially hired not to uncover the truth but to reduce the district’s exposure for litigation.
That calls into question the veracity of a report that, as we know, in most possible ways attempted to split the baby.
Questionable Results. All of this leads to questionable results. Our analysis with Leigh Choate illustrates this problem perfectly. She and her daughter spent an hour of time with investigator Alexander Sperry.
She provided him with a list of witnesses. He apparently failed to contact any of them. So half the dispute used one hour. Yet there are 48 billable hours, a finding that denied her complaint, with no explanation.
Is this any way to do business? Is it no wonder that this dispute festered as it did until it blew up in the worst way and caused a sitting board member to resign. The genesis of that community turmoil was in an outdated and antiquated plan.
Code 3. Gina Daleiden in her dissent made the point, “I do believe that our district’s response to complaints and the way that we handle the procedure and the investigations needs to be in proportion, I do believe in this instance the district went Code 3 on something that maybe didn’t warrant that.”
“I do not find in reading the investigation that there is a preponderance of evidence to support the findings and the conclusions,” she said. She added that they “ended up jumping right into the deep end of the pool” and she would have preferred to have seen this resolved “at a much lower level, a whole lot earlier.”
Later, Nancy Peterson would respond, “So President Daleiden, since your biggest issue seems to be why this wasn’t handled before sending a Code-3 in motion, here is my answer: that would have required someone from the district or even DHS to speak to the student and that I can assure you, never happened.”
The interesting thing is that both are right here. The district lacks an alternative conflict resolution mechanism that can take the immediate complaint from a formal investigative system and turn it into some sort of restorative justice-based conflict resolution.
Imagine if, in 2010, instead of the district launching into a $10,000, 48-hour investigation, they created a structure where Nancy Peterson, Leigh Choate, and Julie Crawford participated in a restorative justice process that highlighted what the points of dispute were, identified the harms done, and empowered the participants to find ways to remedy those harms.
Nothing is 100% percent, but that seems a much more viable and fiscally responsible policy than launching immediately into a Code-3, $10,000 investigation.
We should not have to be using these kinds of resources on a student who was cut from a sports team, but we also should have had that situation resolved much earlier.
Appointment Process. I would be remiss if I did not point out at least a potential fatal flaw in the appointment process. There is no doubt that the school board has to be pleased with the large number of highly qualified applicants for the vacancy. But only one so far has stated they will not run again.
What’s the problem? The problem is that in November there are two parallel elections. Unless the Board names BJ Kline and he follows through on his commitment not to seek reelection, then you have two ballot conditions. First, you have an open seat that will have at least one incumbent not running and possibly all three. So, potentially three open seats for a four-year term.
In the second ballot condition, you have a two-year seat with an appointed incumbent.
Now, who in their right mind is going to run for a shorter term against an appointed incumbent when there is a fully four-year seat with no incumbents?
Now one of the candidates told the Vanguard they will run for that two-year seat regardless of whether they get the appointment, but the problem still stands that while it appears you leave it for the voters in six months, the incentive structures of the choices constrain competition in the two-year seat.
The school board at least needs to keep that in mind as they make their decision.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
You lay out the argument against appointing someone who will not run in November. It would be better to think of the appointment as a 2 1/2 year appointment to fill out the remainder of Peterson’s term. The election would give it the legitimacy of the voters approval and, I imagine, without a compelling reason to object to the appointment the voters will concur.
That scenario only works if someone emerges who can credibly challenge the incumbent who was appointed. I pointed out that problems with Nancy Peterson would not have presented themselves in the first six months.
I think Nancy Peterson’s problems were observable even during her campaign. They say people can evaluate candidates quickly. I know I had my doubts pretty early. Since it will be hard to do any worse than Peterson its safe to guess that whoever is appointed will be an improvement to fill in the remainder of her term. Certainly 2 1/2 years is ample time to decide if someone is worthy of being re-elected. But the problem you lay out, why run for one two year seat when you can run for one of three regular four year seats lays out why this Shermanesque I’ll serve but will not run scenario makes little sense. My guess is the trustees will pick the person they are most comfortable serving with and not the person that is most needed to repair the damage done by the Peterson fiasco. Who knows they could always surprise us all by doing the right thing. Its never too late to start.
I think Nancy Peterson’s problems were observable even during her campaign.
What did you see then that gave you doubts?
There was that puff piece on the Vanguard about what she learned about poor people being a doctors daughter. I even commented at the time that there was a difference between your father being late to dinner and not having dinner.
I also spoke with her briefly a couple of times, once being introduced by Brett Lee, who has since expressed regret about his previous support and another time at the Farmers Market where she seemed a little to sure of herself. I was put off by her lack of humility. I didn’t vote for her going with Lovenburg and Fernandes in the end.
If you want a good idea about candidates you can skip most of the campaigns and meet them at the Farmers Market where they all show up in make shift kissing booths. You can go down the line and in a few minutes, by asking open ended questions without giving away what you are looking for in advance, tell the real rodeo champs from the lipstick on a $#@ varieties. You can also meet them in other venues and get mini interviews. Its not hard to meet the candidates in Davis they are all easily available while running. Just don’t tell them what you want to hear before getting them to talk.
Sometimes if you read up on their bio’s you can start to get a picture. Right now, people are posturing as the anti-Fancynancy, touting their rise to the educated elite as the child of immigrants, the first in their family to go to college or the product of the public education system. They are trying to show that they understand the need to address the achievement gap and they have the ability because they have personal experience knowing what its like to not have the privilege of having elite parents yet succeed against the odds.
This is all well and good trying to build on the promise of Nancy Peterson yet differentiate themselves through their own more humble life experiences.
From my perspective these bio’s also reflect whether the candidates possess the skills the community desperately needs in the wake of the Peterson resignation, someone who is both a parent and a teacher because of the rift in the community created by Peterson to exploit one group against another. As someone with experience in both roles personally I think its easier to separate the wheat from the chaff in these sorts of disputes and see what is really going on.
There are several candidates who fit this description but from my perspective I have to give the edge to Madhavi Sunder, who I am supporting, because of her additional experience with the law. On top of everything else there are now questions about the complaint process, its costs, the role of legal counsel in it and the appeal process. I think being an attorney gives Sunder the insight to answer the questions posed about whether the district is getting milked by its attorneys, whether the district needs better controls in place and greater board oversight or if the current system itself is appropriate. This is a case where you need an attorney to understand better what your legal team is doing.
Mr. T: There was that puff piece on the Vanguard about what she learned about poor people being a doctors daughter. I even commented at the time that there was a difference between your father being late to dinner and not having dinner.
I thought that perspective in her was a little more genuine. I had seen her work with the Bridge Foundation at Montgomery. And I had seen her take positions on the board consistent with that perspective. I take your point that no one knows poverty as well as living through it, but demonstrating genuine awareness is the next best thing. I didn’t take her to be a person I would naturally socialize with, but I never determined that to be a requirement for my vote.
Though I know a few of the candidates, I will need more time to decide whom to support.
Perhaps you should go with your gut instincts a little more. If you wouldn’t want to socialize with someone perhaps there is a deeper reason for your skepticism.
That right, Mr. Toad. Any campaign is no campaign (“I’ll serve but will not run”) without cute lawn signs and full page ads in the Enterprise with family photos and lists of supporters. If those are the kinds of things that help you evaluate and decide quickly, then that works for you. It doesn’t work for me, though. Although I didn’t agree with everything the educators had to say in the last election, the two of them (Granda and Sherman) were intellectually above the crowd, with years of experience and dedication educating students. Give me a little diversity of opinion and disinclination to using a seat on the school board as a launching point for a local political career than a huge campaign war chest any day.
Please see my reply above although I think you can also learn a lot about the candidates from the people you trust who endorse candidates. Sometimes your friends are wrong though. The nature of the electoral process is to be disappointed. Nobody is going to represent your views on every vote.
Sheila was trying to make this point to me just yesterday at the Farmers Market. Still some votes are harder to swallow than others and even though things are better now that Crawford has been given her coaching job again for the fall and things are starting to heal there is still a great deal of bitterness and mistrust in the community and to this observer there hasn’t been enough introspection or reflective doubt expressed by either the district administration or some of its trustees.
ironically sheila made the point to you while she is running a campaign of second-guessing the current council. did you find that ironic?
David
While we are in agreement that there are other and better means of conflict resolution than was used in this case, we also have some points of disagreement.
1.” The district needs to understand that they may have come to the right conclusion on every one of the complaints that were filed in the district, but given the privacy concerns and the opaqueness of the process, the public is going to be skeptical. ”
The public being skeptical doesn’t make the public correct in its assessment. So what should the council base its decision making on ? Should they use their greater in depth knowledge of the issues involved and their best judgment , or should they hold their fingers up to see which way the winds of public opinion are blowing in order to appease “the public” ? I would argue that they are elected to do the former.
2. “The decision investigate a complaint externally comes from the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and/or the Director of Student Services. The process may get overseen by the Superintendent, but unless the complaint gets appealed, the school board has no say over any of the key components: cost, time, seriousness of the complaint.”
I find it more than a little ironic that at the level of the coaches, independence is exactly what the coaches were arguing for.
So now the “skeptical public” finds itself in the awkward position of wanting to “second guess” and “micromanage” the decision making of the individuals who are hired for this role, namely the Assistant Superintendent of HR , Director of Student Services, Superintendent and school board members but at the same time want these same individuals to stay out of the “micromanagement” of the coaches ? Hmmmm……
3. “She provided him with a list of witnesses. He apparently failed to contact any of them. So half the dispute used one hour. Yet there are 48 billable hours, a finding that denied her complaint, and no explanation.
Is this any way to do business?”
It would appear that this is Ms. Choate’s version of what occurred. However, she is far from unbiased in this situation. I may have missed it, but do we have any independent corroboration that her account is correct with regard to the investigation and work actually done, or are we just accepting her version ?
4. “That means that anyone hired to investigate is potentially hired not to uncover the truth but to reduce the district’s exposure for litigation.”
I fail to see how this would be different with any law firm. Our judicial ( and it would appear to be our quasi –
judicial systems are based on adversarial roles. This is how our system works. When there is conflict, each side shows up with the biggest “legal guns” that they can afford. I do not like nor support the system vastly favoring a mediation or restorative justice approach. Having said that, this is our current system and I don’t think we need to go looking for nefarious intent when considering whether either side would choose the representation they felt was in their best interest. Let’s look at this from a slightly different perspective. In the case of Ms. Choate, do you suppose that her list of witnesses included folks who saw the issue differently from her ( as would be the case if she were only seeking the truth) or do you suppose that she limited her suggested list of witnesses to those who agreed with her ?
5. “Now who in their right mind is going to run for a shorter term against an appointed incumbent when there is a fully four year seat with no incumbents?”
Maybe someone who genuinely feels that they can do a better job than the appointed incumbent, but who themselves is not ready to make a four year commitment ? I do not share your belief ( as stated on a previous thread) that the public discontent with certain actions of the school board equates to the public making a better selection than the school board. Bear in mind that all of the current members as well as Ms. Peterson were selections made by the public through the normal voting process. We got what we voted for in this case, and will again in the future.
Exactly why a simple Freedom of Information Act needs to be filled out to see where the law firm spent all of their hours.
Secondly, Mr. Greenberg or another writer could speak with Ms. Choate, see if she’d release some or all of the witness names (Mr. Greenberg could keep them confidential, if requested), and then check with them to corroborate that they were never contacted as part of the investigation.
David, Are you advocating for every complaint to come before the Board? Although I am in agreement as to the flawed process and certainly the very flawed implementation of the process in the Crawford/Peterson case, I don’t think the Board should rule on every case, just as I don’t think they should rule on every hire (which I believe has been stated as CA regulation).
No. I’m not, I’m advocating that first the district avoid going to external investigations when possible but second have a check and balance system of oversight where the board can review periodically processes.
Excellent article David. I do believe you have come up with some good suggestions here.
1 Both parties involved should be able to review the full complaint.
2 Conflict resolution should be the first step, most conflicts can be resolved this way.
3 There should be a written process for every step, so everyone knows what to expect. Including who the investigator is and what their background/conflicts might be.
Law firms are capable of performing excellent independent investigations (as are other kinds of independent consultants) if that is what they are hired to do in a particular instance. In such a case, they gather evidence, interview witnesses, and do their best to make factual determinations based on what they have uncovered. But to get this result, the law firm must be hired with explicit instructions to do an independent fact-finding. It is virtually impossible for a law firm to do this when it has previously represented the client as an advocate or a legal advisor, and especially if the law firm has an on-going relationship with the client where the law firm’s responsibility is to represent or advise the client. When the School District sends complaints to Eve Fichtner’s law firm, this is not an independent fact-finding investigation. The School Board needs to put a stop to this. Complaints should be send to these particular law firms only when the district needs legal advice on it’s potential exposure and how to reduce that exposure. On the very rare occasions when an independent fact-finding investigation of a complaint is necessary, the district should be using some fact-finder other than these law firms, both to get a genuine independent fact-finding and to save money (it is very expensive to use lawyers for this purpose). The School Board should not be reviewing every complaint sent for outside investigation, but they should be reviewing how their administrators are spending district funds, including whether administrators are over-using outside resources or making unwise choices in which outside resources they are using.
“So now the “skeptical public” finds itself in the awkward position of wanting to “second guess” and “micromanage” the decision making of the individuals who are hired for this role, namely the Assistant Superintendent of HR , Director of Student Services, Superintendent and school board members but at the same time want these same individuals to stay out of the “micromanagement” of the coaches ? Hmmmm……”
That really does make me worry. These are the same people who got us into this mess. Mr. Best and/or Mr. Roberson were supposedly the ones who pulled Coach Crawford’s VSA this time after it had been approved at DHS and started this whole mess over again. I certainly don’t want them in charge of deciding when and how investigations should occur. And according to the Davis Enterprise, Mr. Best now will get a raise (promotion) out of the new admin positions that are being proposed. Why do we need to hire 2 more administrators in order to do the jobs of the superintendents who are already being paid to do them? If they can’t do their jobs, they should either have their salaries cut to pay for the new people or be replaced with someone who can do the job. The more this drags on, the more I’m starting think the problems in DJUSD start at the top with the superintendent and those just under him.
As an aside, I wonder about the quality of the legal advice DJUSD is getting. Shouldn’t the district’s attorney have pointed out what a horrendously poor process is in place? It is ridiculous to waste all of that money for billable hours that no one seems to be able to explain or justify. While I am not an attorney, I have not been impressed with the legal opinions Ms. Fichtner has given in the Board meetings based on the comments I have seen published. If her own firms do the investigations, not only do they get the financial gain, but it also removes the chance that any investigaton might call her legal advice/skills into question. Maybe it’s time for the district to look into a attorney whose focus will not be on to generate more billable hours and job security for herself and her firms.
And if someone makes, say, $50 an hour as an employee, but $220 an hour as a lawyer, in what role do you think there is an incentive to do the work?
A Private Investigator would charge substantially less, and / or having a reciprocal relationship with another school district to give independent analysis would also work.
Both would cost far less than $250,000. And then an outside law firm could spend 2-3 hours reviewing the findings, much more cost effective.
Promotion?
Yes, apparently. The organization chart listed in the Board agenda from the last meeting lists Matt Best as Associate Superintendent whereas he is listed as Assistant Superintendent currently on the DJUSD website.
With the incredibly poor leadership shown by the administrators, I think this is not the time to hand them more money to waste. I do not understand why Mr. Best and Mr. Bryant should have us pay for new full-time directors under them. If they can’t get their jobs done, why are we paying them so much? And what did Mr. Best do to warrant a promotion? He has risen to the top in our district very quickly with the pay raises to go with it. While he may seem a personable man, his role as the HR person in the volleyball fiasco certainly doesn’t warrant a promotion. I certainly don’t agree with some of our Board members recent actiona, but at least they come cheap!!
And Mr. Best has another job. In the “real world”, professionals often work at least an additional 5-10 hours per week, if not more. I wonder how many hours Mr. Best works, and what his pay rate is?
Secondly, if he got a promotion, was this on a public calendar, was it discussed, and were outside applicants sought? Or is this some kind of payback for being a good soldier, and supporting Mr. Robinson? Or is this simply how things are done in small-town education circles?
TBD: And Mr. Best has another job.
What other job does Best have?
From Google / LinkedIn:
“National Faculty – Buck Institute for Education
Nonprofit; 11-50 employees; Education Management industry
January 2010 – Present (4 years 4 months)
“Provide district and site leadership trainings promoting the effective implementation of Project-based Learning.”
D.A.: With the incredibly poor leadership shown by the administrators, I think this is not the time to hand them more money to waste. I do not understand why Mr. Best and Mr. Bryant should have us pay for new full-time directors under them. If they can’t get their jobs done, why are we paying them so much?
In the budget cuts of the past few years, the district office made cuts in administrators and support staff. I see ways in which the district office does what it can, but seems to respond more slowly than it used to.
DavisAnon
“These are the same people who got us into this mess”
Well, one could take this a step further and say that it was the coaches and assistant coach who “got us in to this mess” by not being able to handle their differences in an adult manner. This led to the initial Choate complaint which likely set the stage for the ongoing “Battle
Royale”. While I do not apportion responsibility equally to all individual’s, I do think that the problem initiated not at the school board or administrative level at all, but rather with a small group of individual’s involved in volley ball who could not resolve their personal differences in person as should have been done. So since this whole mess started at the coaching, parent level…..why exactly do we believe that this level of participant will do better in the future and therefore should not be “micromanaged” while the administration and school board should be ?
I write this as someone who has no friends involved in this situation and no current vested interest in high school athletics since the last of my children graduated 3 years ago.
I love it when you blame the victims.
Mr. Toad
So do you not feel that there is any possibility that an agreement could have been reached prior to any of this getting to the point of a complaint ?
If so, what information do you have that this could not have been done before ill feelings were flying about ?
They could have pounded the gavel on Nancy Peterson last summer. Too bad Sheila Allen didn’t do that.
Certainly, but my question was a reference to what took place prior to Ms. Choate’s complaint. So far, I have seen only her account of what occurred prior to her filing her complaint.
And I pretty much guarantee that is all you will ever see.
All I know right now is that everything Ms. Choate has posted has seemed reasonable, well thought, and not mean spirited. She even commented that she felt that Nancy Peterson didn’t want to be the coach, she just wanted input or control.
In contrast, NP has been on the warpath for several years, wrote a tone deaf Op-Ed, gave tone deaf comments which were recorded (including “calm down”), and has apparently continued to post anonymously on The Enterprise’s website – posts that show no self reflection. It seems as if she has taken the original complaints from Ms. Choate, and just regurgitated that complaint towards Coach Crawford.
Given these facts, I’d guess Ms. Choate tried to resolve the situation with lower level approaches.
Yes, Coach Crawford could have left town! But seriously, I don’t think anything short of Crawford agreeing never to get near a volleyball court would have appeased Nancy Peterson. For whatever reason, Nancy had a personal axe to grind that was so important to her that she was willing to lose her Board seat rather than back off and try to reach some agreement.
It is absurd for the Board to appoint a trustee for six months unless they appoint BJ Kline. Anyone they appoint who is going to run in November will have an unfair advantage, so the Board might as well appoint that person for 2 1/2 years and not require that person to waste enormous amounts of time (which could otherwise be devoted to school board work) campaigning during the first six months of their appointment. Kudos to BJ Kline for volunteering to serve as a trustee for these 6 months without attempting to leverage the appointment into an elected position. Glad to see you back in Davis.
I think “intention” is exactly the right word. The Adminstration has not behaved “intentionally” or adminstrated “intentionally” at any level for years. They have been reactive only–apparently to limit liability and to get people to not yell a them, be those people the Board, parents, or teachers.
Before Robertson and Best, no one was even trying to drive the bus. Now, they have very gently initiated a Strategic Plan to help guide expectations. It’s a start. It’s not enough. It is a big deal and long overdue.
Is this strategic plan online? Is there a link?
MrsW, as far as I can tell, Roberson and Best are driving the bus straight into the wall at a pretty high rate of speed. I think I prefer the old way if this is the alternative.
I certainly can’t say that the way they handled volleyball and other district screwups was to limit liability – it rather looks like they’re setting the district up for lawsuits. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but I’m worried about the way they’re handling problems.
Since you raised strategic planning, I can’t tell you how many people I’ve spoken with in the past few weeks complaining about the strategic plan and the district’s new “mission statement”. While I haven’t studied the differences in the statements, I’ll have to go look (does anyone know if they are they both online somewhere??) as I’ve heard several people say they much preferred the old mission statement. It seems like the only ones I’ve talked to who are happy about the strategic plan are those who work for the district and wrote the plan.
D.A.: It seems like the only ones I’ve talked to who are happy about the strategic plan are those who work for the district and wrote the plan.
Cecilia Escamilla-Greewald, David Greenwald’s wife, served on the strategic planning committee. Maybe you should talk to her. I didn’t serve on any strategic planning committee, but have spoken to several parents who have. My sense from several conversations has been an appreciation for the process, but some uncertainty as to how it will play out.
There are also a few declared school board candidates who served in strategic planning committees. I’m sure they will be available to chat with you about their experiences. I notice that it has been used as resume material for their candidacy, though.
New quote: “a leading center of educational innovation” = gratuitous patting of the back?
WHERE has DJUSD been acclaimed as a “leading center of innovation”, and why do we need to note it?
TBD: WHERE has DJUSD been acclaimed as a “leading center of innovation”, and why do we need to note it?
You might be in a complete criticizing disposition of the school district, but some who would support this statement would cite:
Spanish Immersion
Montessori
GATE/AIM
Da Vinci Charter (grades 7-12)
Race & Social Justice class at DHS
strong music program
transitioning/welcoming programs for 7th graders (sometimes called WEB)
school climate efforts
Others would probably add to or modify this list.
I will admit that I don’t follow all of the idiosyncrasies of the DJUSD. I think its a solid school district driven by an educated population.
I’m not sure how the “Spanish Immersion” is any different that was is going on in thousands of schools across California, even though citizens outlawed bi-lingual education. “Montessori” has been around for decades, and I wasn’t aware that it was part of the DJUSD, I thought that was private school. There are thousands of charter schools and music programs.
It just sounds like innovation is a word that may not fit here.
TBD: I’m not sure how the “Spanish Immersion” is any different that was is going on in thousands of schools across California, even though citizens outlawed bi-lingual education.
What you’re referring to as “bi-lingual education” was using Spanish language instruction as a default mode for families who speak Spanish at home and may not have much background speaking in English. There is something to be said for being in an English immersion environment if the goal is to have a stronger proficiency in English. Spanish Immersion is more typically designed for English language speakers (parents) who want to develop conversational and fluency ability in Spanish. I think there is a provision that allows for Spanish Immersion if parents sign a waiver to clarify that objective.
“Montessori” has been around for decades, and I wasn’t aware that it was part of the DJUSD, I thought that was private school.
DJUSD is one of the few districts that has a Montessori component as part of a public school system.
There are thousands of charter schools and music programs.
DJUSD was one of the first to design through Da Vinci (it wasn’t a charter to start with) a “small learning community” with a basis in technology (heavy use of computers) and a project-based learning environment.
Granted that there are plenty of other music programs around the state, but DJUSD’s has grown to have a fairly evenly strong program across band, choir, and orchestra.
You may not think much of any of this, but DJUSD is a school district with demanding and active parents seeking education options in a public school setting, and these are some of the ways that the district has responded. Is it ideal? Maybe debatable, but it is one way to do things.
I am hopeful that Roberson and Best are part of the solution and the not the problem and I hope the community gives them a fair chance, or we’re going to have to wait even longer for a better situation. Roberson and Best were physically elsewhere, not at DSHS when VB-gate started. Choate says the issues started in Fall 2010. Roberson was hired into the District office that previous June 2010. Best moved with DaVinci to the VO campus in 2009 and was brought into the District office only this past June 2013. Like the Board, there were several layers between them and the unfolding drama. I have my suspicions about who, which adminstrative layer, woulld have been gate-keeping and squashing information, but I don’t know. I do know that in 2005, this Board inhereted a corrupt administration and has been dealing with that legacy their whole tenure. I note that Natomas, praised somewhere else in this thread, also went through a coruption scandal and was at least staring a bankruptsy during the past 10 years.
I, too, had hoped initially that Roberson and Best would be part of the solution, but the longer I watch what them and their handling of things, the more obvious it is that they are absolutely a big part of the problem. You are forgetting that the prior superintendent, Mr. Hammond, successfully dealt with those same corruption issues. In fact, he even managed to close an elementary school (VO) and eventually move DaVinci there without all the rancor, cost and administrative incompetence that is evident every time this administration does anything. Even a simple homework policy becomes a mess when Roberson or his teams speaks. Both Roberson and Best seem like they’re nice and well-meaning people, and I’d be happy to have them as my neighbors, but no longer as superintendents.
By the way, for the most part, I really don’t think the Board is the problem. Nancy Peterson? Yes, a problem, but she’s now gone. Susan Lovenburg and her apparent need to vote based on “factors” rather than logic? Also a problem, but one we’re stuck with for a few more years. As for the rest of the Board, I don’t always agree with their decisions, but at least they seem to have reasonably good judgement overall. I think the Board’s biggest problem currently is that they are constantly having to cover/clean up the messes caused by poor administrators.
D.A.: In fact, he even managed to close an elementary school (VO) and eventually move DaVinci there without all the rancor, cost and administrative incompetence that is evident every time this administration does anything.
Regarding the closing of V.O. Elementary, I don’t think that’s how many Davisites remember it at the time.
You are forgetting that the prior superintendent, Mr. Hammond, successfully dealt with those same corruption issues.
When you compare Hammond, Roberson, and even David Murphy, you have to evaluate their performance in the context of a school board that likes to get involved and have a say in many policy issues. Some would characterize it as a tendency to micromanage.
If you watch a number of other school boards function, it looks like they tend to act as rubber stamps for most policies developed by the superintendent and his/her administrative team. I would characterize that as generally different from DJUSD’s school board. In Davis, what goes on in school board meetings is very much the talk of the town for many. In other school districts, you’d be lucky if the time and place of the school board meeting was even announced in the local newspaper.
Although Hammond had many successes during his short tenure here, I sensed he preferred working in an environment where he didn’t have as much interference from the school board. I saw several instances of frustration in him which he presented reasonably developed policies or plans to the school board, only to have them completely reworked by trustees, and requiring him to invest additional time that he hadn’t counted on. There were instances in which he didn’t adequately take input from the trustees and would get called on it in the next meeting.
Highly involved parents can be a good thing at times, for instance with school fundraising and school parcel tax elections, but there can be a downside to parent involvement if there aren’t’ some clear boundaries. I think elements of VB-gate reflect that. And in DJUSD there are many anecdotes of parents threatening administrators who aren’t deferential enough.
Yes. Here it is http://www.djusd.net/StratPlan
I found them on the DJUSD website. If anyone is interested, here they are. The formats are slightly different so no district goals are listed under the new plan. I certainly can’t say that I see any benefit in having the new statement compared to the old statement. If I had to pick, I prefer the older one.
OLD: Mission
The Davis Joint Unified School District, in partnership with parents, will provide an excellent educational program that develops the knowledge, skills, abilities, and values needed for all students to reach their full potential.
District Goals
• ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE
The District will advance an appropriately challenging academic course of study that promotes the highest possible academic achievement for each student.
• FISCAL SOLVENCY
The District will carefully manage its revenue, expenditures, and cash reserves and make adjustments to achieve a sustainable balanced budget.
• STAFF DEVELOPMENT
The District will provide a comprehensive staff development program for the purpose of continual improvement of staff effectiveness leading to high academic success for all students.
• EQUITY
Staff and students will respect and understand the importance of diverse cultures by consciously creating inclusive and equitable learning environments and systems that value and engage all students and their families.
• TECHNOLOGY
Technology will be designed to improve student academic achievement and to support the work of the District.
• COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND DISTRICT RESPONSIVENESS
The District will provide a culture and processes that are open, proactive, equitable and responsive to the contributions and concerns of families and the community.
• SAFE ENVIRONMENT
The District will provide a safe and secure environment on every campus where standards for behavior will be clearly defined, communicated, and maintained.
• FACILITIES
The District will provide appropriate teaching/learning environments that support student achievement.
Adopted by the Board of Education June 28, 2012
NEW : Davis Joint Unified School District Mission Statement
The mission of Davis Joint Unified School District, a leading center of educational innovation, is to ignite a
love of learning and equip each student with the knowledge, skills, character, and well-being to thrive and
contribute to an evolving and increasingly-connected world, through a system characterized by:
Optimal conditions and environments for all students to learn;
A team of talented, resourceful, and caring staff;
Transforming teaching, learning, and operations in our continuing pursuit of excellence;
Resourceful, transparent, and responsible fiscal planning, and;
A diverse and inclusive culture.
Are people just trying to inflate their resumes and experience level? If you don’t EXECUTE, does all this ink matter?
The DJUSD had their “processes”, the Athletic Director had his “chain of command”, there were “managers” of various pedigrees and titles, and one person jumped over all of that to gum up the works.
And has there been an identified need proven to support needing the new administrators and costs?
TBD: Are people just trying to inflate their resumes and experience level? If you don’t EXECUTE, does all this ink matter?
We shall see. Execution is the next step.
Especially when all of this didn’t come free. I think we’d have far more bang for the buck if the tens of thousands of dollars spent on this had gone to support the classrooms instead.
We have apparently just spent tens of thousands of dollars in order for the administration to use as justification to spend a couple hundred thousand dollars more per year on new administrative positions. All this from the team that wasted over $200,000 on volleyball. It’s really depressing, but I guess we only have ourselves to blame if we don’t demand they do otherwise (or demand new leadership). I am very supportive of good public education, but this is quite disheartening.
I believe that AD Mr. Foster said that this didn’t happen at Natomas. Does DJUSD stand out in the cohort of entitled parents, or is this a function of a suburban school with 2,000 active students? Maybe both.
I think parents feel entitled to a functional system and I think that’s a reasonable expectation.
I would not call V-Gate a “functional system”, but I’m pretty sure it is very difficult to deal with a pit bull in a china shop, especially when said pit bull sits on the top board.
Whatever happened to IPAD GUY? It seemed once the verdict came down he/she disappeared.
Maybe lost as part of the website problems. I had to re-register two times.
IPAD was gone before the breakdown.