Back in early February, Board Member Madhavi Sunder had requested a February hearing for the AIM program, but was overruled on a 3-2 vote by her colleagues, with Bob Poppenga joining her on the short side of the vote.
The issue was ultimately taken up in April, but there was concern expressed at the time that the delay would preclude making changes in time to implement them for the coming year.
While AIM has been a contentious issue that has polarized the current and former board, a more fundamental question arose at the meeting on Thursday during the normally non-controversial approval of the agenda.
Boardmember Bob Poppenga raised the issue, asking for “some clarification” on the issue of “proposing an agenda item.” He said, “In looking at the bylaws the process seems to me to be a little bit – not very clear – I think it could be interpreted in a couple different ways in terms of when an agenda item can be placed on a meeting and I just wonder how we go about requesting that the (bylaws) subcommittee look at that and give their interpretation…”
Board President Barbara Archer stated, “The board subcommittee is free to take up whatever board policy it likes.”
Bob Poppenga responded, “So you don’t need a motion, just suggest it to the subcommittee.” He added, “I think that would be good because I think that there’s some confusion in terms of the language.”
Madhavi Sunder added, “I think that’s something we need to look at. I just wanted to add that I’ve been very frustrated because I’ve twice as a trustee tried to make a written (request) pursuant to the bylaws to put items that are the board’s business on the agenda and have been denied twice and I know in both cases two trustees (requested it).
“I think we really need to clarify that policy as to how many trustees need to put a request in writing to get something on the agenda and what is exactly within the purview of the board president and Superintendent with respect to that.
“The board’s agenda is the entire board’s agenda,” she stated. “The only way we can do business together as a group is to have an item agendized to be able to talk about it. We’re not allowed to talk about it as a group unless it’s on the agenda.”
Madhavi Sunder went further, stating this is why she is not going to vote to approve the agenda at this time. “I don’t believe that the denial of requests was pursuant to the bylaws.”
Barbara Archer responded, “I had to have two weeks notice – which it did not.” She continued, “That’s what the bylaws say, two weeks written notice which there was not two weeks written notice.”
Ms. Sunder responded, “I’ve made my position clear. I’m not going to vote for approving tonight’s agenda.”
Alan Fernandes said, “I take your point and as a member of the board bylaw subcommittee I’m happy to agendize that and we will go through it. All policies probably could use a look and more clarification made if needed. I think that’s a good suggestion and it’s my intent to do that.”
Eventually the board approved their agenda by a 4-1 vote.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Since I do not know anything about by laws or the details of placing an item on the agenda, I do not pretend to know who is right or wrong on process. However, what I do see clearly is that AIM has become a major polarizing item for our school board to the point where it is hampering the effective functioning of the board overall. I see it as unacceptable that a fight over a single program is in effect paralyzing the school board’s functioning with regard to our entire school system.
Yes, and amazingly the anti-GATE board majority could have just left the program alone after eliminating the private testing. Yet they bulldozed ahead. Eviscerate a popular program and you’re likely to get pushback.
Tia -.my understanding is that under normal conditions it only takes two and sometimes even just one to bring a matter forward. There are practical and legal reasons for that. The legal reasons is that you don’t want three board members under the Brown act to be having to consult with each other outside of noticed meetings. The practical reasons are that it should take fewer people to bring a matter forward that I’m majority – if it takes a majority to pass then you want a minority to be able to at least bring it forward. That’s even how it works on the Supreme Court. Now it’s seems like Barbara is arguing that these requests are not timely but I think if it were me I would err on the side of putting stuff on the agenda even if I disagreed with it to maintain the appearance of fairness.
Likely it will take one more election cycle to settle the issue. Archer is highly vulnerable in my opinion and outside of her political stances she seems not bright enough for her position.
Speaking with her at the market a number of times I was stuck by how little she knows about educational policy. When she could just follow after Lovenburg her deficiencies were less apparent.
David
I agree that I would choose to err on the side of placing concerns on the agenda. I also agree with Jim that the next election cycle is likely to change the dynamic. However, I continue to be disturbed that so much time has been spent due to the strictly adversarial lines and manipulations that have surrounded this issue.
Nobody wants a continued adversarial process. In the short term, the issue is transparency and honesty with parents. There is an AIM advisory committee that never once argued toshut down the AIM program – yet the Superintendent concluded that it must be shut down.
Tia and others cite the continued arguments surrounding this issue as a reason for it to “go away”. That is not something we should expect from our elected representatives or our civil service. The reason there are constant arguments is that, year after year, the board majority and the staff are satisfied with jerking families around (pardon my French).
Last year, the placement sheets (which families used to make decisions) said one thing but the placement process did another. This year, the testing was screwed up for fully 1/2 the 3rd grade classrooms.
So, the anti-AIM contingent borrowed a page from Grover Norquist’s method for causing people to lose faith in government – make it ineffective and lack transparency. And then, when citizens complain about this failure, we are told “clearly the program should end because we’re spending too much time talking about it.”
Most of us newcomers to this debacle/debate are willing to work with reforming the program in many ways. For example, considering a broader range of placement measures, or self-placement in order to avoid the concerns about testing and labeling. We are not met half way on any of these issues.
The counter arguments are:
1) that testing is bad. Well, testing is flawed, but many aspects of a public education system are flawed and we do not throw it out – we fix them.
2) self contained programs cause labeling. Well, Tia, do you know what they propose instead? Clustering and “differentiation”. See how the North Davis principal talked about clustering going on at that school. You tell me that putting kids in groups according to their ability level is not going to cause labeling? If you think that kids don’t understand what’s happening when they are clustered, then you are naive about kids.
The way to make sure kids don’t walk around with labels is to not use any labels (I hate the label “gifted”) and to ensure that children and parents understand that different programs are geared to different needs.
Go back to that April meeting and listen to the student rep on the board as she talked about AIM (actually GATE) from years ago. She was not placed in the program and told by her wise parents that it wasn’t about ability, but rather about how different teaching methods are needed by different kids.
3) It makes kids unhappy. This is absolute nonsense. I ask my kid, regularly, how she’s feeling and if she’s happy in the program.
[In fact, I did NOT want her to go into the program last year prior to that darn AIM meeting where the district rep personally assured her that she had a place in the program – and made her excited about it, before the pulled the rug from under her.]
I have been approached by several parents who thank me for my continued advocacy for this program. I have heard the following, “my daughter was bored and frustrated in the regular classroom and only in this program did she become excited and happier.”
Many of the anti-AIMer parents now insist that the program was bad for their children. Why did they keep their children in a program that didn’t fit? They could have easily placed their children in the regular classrooms – why didn’t they? My opinion is that it had more to do with the parent’s self-image than it had to do with the child’s education.
4) Some anti-AIMers argue that all kids should have the “same” education. They confuse the notion of access with service. All children should have access to the same resources and all should be able to be taught in the way that suits them best. That doesn’t mean the same methodology for all students. If it did, then the anti-AIMer argument in favor of differentiation would also fall apart for “differentiation” acknoledges “difference”, the opposite of the idea of “same”.
————————-
Of course, asking for some philosophical or logical consistency from the anti-AIM crowd is too much to ask. Their true reason is to have everyone go to their neighborhood schools and the whole school system be homogeneous. [I think I know why they prefer this.]
So, Montessori, they are coming for you next. My guess is dual immersion will probably follow after that. Immersion has its own campus, so will be safe for a while – I don’t know about Da Vince Junior High, though.
——————–
This town will thrive on diversity, not homogeneity. There is room for a wide range of interesting programs, and we should recognize that the cultural diversity in this town argues for a diversity of programs – everyone will benefit. I’m happy to support a plan that does not include standardized testing, but not one that obliterates a great program like AIM.
———————-
I will conclude with the following. There was discussion of racial disparities in the AIM placement, i.e. that under-served were further under-represented in AIM. If you look carefully at the demographic make up, the proportions of most ethnic groups are consistent with their proportions in Davis (esp. considering certain ethnic groups have such a low proportion in Davis). Where there is a disparity is with Asian-Americans, who over-represent in the AIM program as compared to their European American counterparts (i.e. compared to their population in town).
I said this in my public comments and will say it again. I find it notable that when Asian-American kids started being over-represented in the AIM program as compared to their European American counterparts, then AIM lost political support in this town – political support which is dominated by long time Davis European American families.
Stop paying lip service to “accepting diversity” – but actually accept diversity in all forms, including in the way kids need to learn.
JosephBiello,
You appeal for honesty, but one of your first statements was that the Superintendent wanted to shut the AIM program down. That is not an accurate description of his presentation. On the contrary, what I heard was a desire to build a robust, but inclusive AIM program in which all students have the service of higher learning opportunities. *Note that I didn’t say all students get the “same” education or “access” to education, as you assume all opposed to your position believe.
I can tell you are skeptical that this is possible, but there are many top performing school districts across the state and nation that successfully run a GATE program without segregating students at the elementary level (Palo Alto, as mentioned by Trustee Sunder, is a good example). What makes you so certain that Davis cannot do the same?
The superintendent made it clear that he is not supportive of self-contained gifted education. The present GATE program is self-contained. So Joseph’s statement was quite accurate. There is a lot of dissembling by those who oppose the current gifted program in Davis, but it has been very clear for at least two years now that dismantling the GATE program is the ultimate goal.
By what measure are they successful?
Since people like to keep mentioning Palo Alto, it probably should be pointed out that Palo Alto has no gifted education program. They eliminated it. They don’t identify gifted students. They just left up the old web page.
So if that is the comparison you want to make, is that your goal for Davis?
The comparison to Palo Alto or another high performing district is as absurd as the more common comparison to Finland. When you read a comparison to Finland you know that the author is a union advocate.
My last district was very similar to Palo Alto in scores and they did have GATE in the classroom and they did a very good job so I am very open to the concept of differentiated teaching.
My Old School
Math 84% State avg: 37%
English 87% State avg: 48%
Science 98% State avg: 53%
My Davis school
Math 67% State avg: 37%
English 70% State avg: 48%
Science 73% State avg: 53%
My old district had a much higher level of student overall and therefore the difference between GATE and non-GATE was not so extreme. I have one child in GATE/AIM and one child just below the cutoff and hey are in the same grade. My kids were surprised (both of them) how far behind in math the Davis schools were.
When anybody says we have “excellent schools” my honest response is, “Bullshit, they are just OK given the education level of most of the parents”.
However living here provides other advantages that are also valuable such as the ability of my children to ride their bikes to school and become more independent.
I have had discussions with most of the school leadership at one time or another. I supported Bob and Alan in the last election. Susan seemed to me to be more interested in sucking up to the state leadership (who I understand are her professional clients) than she was in helping the local students. Her style has matriarchal in the extreme as “mother knows best”.
Barbara seems profoundly ignorant of very basic educational policy. I presume that this is because she is used to just following whatever Susan wanted to do. She seemed to genuinely believe that the LCFF was designed to help kids. This is a level of naivete that would be unbelievable to parent groups in other parts of the state. Down south we were aware of the true purpose of the LCFF years ago and watched it unfold.
I don’t know Tom at all though watching him at meeting I am not impressed. I believe Alan will be fine once Barbara is replaced by someone more aware and committed to our children.
I did like Jose Granda’s open enrollment philosophy on AIM as I believe that while the kids need a certain level of acumen to be successful they could drop admission to the top 20% as long as the kids and their families were committed to the work load. Clearly trying to make the cutoff higher was the wrong way to do and IMO showed a level of deceit by the old board. It also shows they are deceitful and stupid because the results have been so horrible and this issue now takes a disproportionate amount of time. If Adams and Archer were either more honest or more intelligent this could have been avoided. I am waiting eagerly for the next election cycle and for those that have seen my letters to The Enterprise on this subject you have not seen anything yet.
Tia,
I’m just curious if you have elementary children in the school system and if you do, how much time do you devote to being in the classroom with the children?
It doesn’t sound like Barbara is arguing it sounds like she is following the by-laws.
I used the term “argue” in an academic sense – to put forth a claim. All I’m suggesting here is that unless there is a strong and compelling reason to do otherwise, you should honor requests to agendize an item. It seems clear that there is at least some on uncertainty on the part of two of the board members as to how the rule is being applied.
I’m confused. Are you suggesting that the sub-committee should not follow its own by-laws?
Arguements are based on opinion. Barbara was stating a fact.
The number of people making the request does not seem to be the issue. It’s how long in advance the request was made, so I’m not sure why their is even discussion about the former in this instance.
So you’re making this sound like it is black and white. Is it?
I am unclear about a few things:
1. what are the rules?
2. Is there discretion by the board president?
3. why wouldn’t the untimely request simply be deferred to the following meeting?
Again if it were me, I would probably try to accommodate all requests by the board members unless there was a practical consideration – too many items, not enough lee time, etc.
From your report this particular incident seems pretty black and white. Madhavi’s request were denied because she didn’t make them far enough in advance, according to rules laid out in the by-laws. I’m confused about why anything more is being made out of this.
@Michelle, do you remember the January meeting where me, Jamima, and Sean all requested that this be put on the agenda BEFORE the April meeting? There was discussion to put it in the next meeting and that was shut down by Barbara and then Alan said “we leave this to April, what’s the rush”. The rush was that they decided to talk about ending AIM in April and how “successful” North Davis “differenti-nonsense” is.
Michelle, we asked over and over – and your board majority killed it over and over. I wanted transparency for the 3rd grade parents so they could understand how the placement would go down
You and your like minded anit-AIMers simply want to ignore the fact that many people in this city see value in a program where all children feel challenged.
Here is a very long article talking about having kids of all abilities in a classroom and how differentiation can happen. My take-away is that yes, differentiation could be a solution however the author even admits that it requires “a well-trained and dedicated staff, and lots of support”. How do you envision that happening when we can’t pay the teachers in this district what they’re worth? Not to mention getting support in the classrooms when needed. (I have heard from multiple sources that there are Aide shortages in several schools here.)
http://educationnext.org/all-together-now/
Thanks, Kristina, for the article. I agree with you that Davis does not pay its teachers well, but for whatever reason, we still have managed to retain some of the most dedicated and talented elementary teachers. Let’s give them some credit and support to make differentiation work. The $160k saved by not administering the OLSAT will certainly help.
Don, I’m not sure we watched the same presentation. Reread the transcript, and I think you will find that Superintendent Bowes in no way recommended ending the program. Unless you believe self-contained AIM is the only option, and are not willing to entertain the idea that we can serve AIM students and non-AIM students together.
Jim, I only compare Davis to other districts because I honestly believe that in our Davis “bubble,” we get set in our ways and tend to think there is only one way to run a program. I want to remind people who are afraid of changes that there are many districts (the large majority, I believe) that serve their GATE students without segregating them from their peers.
You argue that Davis is far behind in math compared to other districts. If that is indeed true, maybe it is time to shake up the current self-contained AIM model…
I think you are wrong.
I read through all 5,700 words twice, carefully, in detail. He could not have been more clear that he wants to dismantle the self-contained gifted program.
Some snippets:
Then there’s this nugget from the Enterprise coverage of his presentation:
And here’s the Vanguard’s succinct take on the presentation:
Self-contained GATE prior to the board actions was a better option for gifted students than what they have today.
As to my opinions about how to serve gifted students, I detailed them on the Vanguard here:
https://davisvanguard.org/2015/08/guest-commentary-self-contained-gate-is-needed/
I have previously provided this link as to how to improve selection:
http://gifted.uconn.edu/schoolwide-enrichment-model/high_achieving_creative-productive_giftedness/
“You argue that Davis is far behind in math compared to other districts. If that is indeed true, maybe it is time to shake up the current self-contained AIM model…”
Explication please?
Funny thing about that. During the 2015 discussion about providing differentiated instruction as a replacement for GATE, the math program came up. Differentiated instruction for math was mandated across the district in 2013. A board member asked a pointed question about the followup on that by the administration. He couldn’t get an answer. Bottom line was that there seemed to be a high degree of variability as to how differentiated math instruction was implemented from one school to another.
It didn’t seem like a great example for the board in implementing gifted differentiation in the district.
“Bottom line was that there seemed to be a high degree of variability as to how differentiated math instruction was implemented from one school to another.”
The other issue with this teaching style is how to prove one child received the same attention as another. It can certainly create endless accusations of favoritism if the parents are so inclined.
Taking away the testing isn’t going to do much in terms of money. Let’s assume that there are 18 teachers in each of the elementary schools (7 grades with 2-3 teachers per grade.) Now multiply that by the number of elementary schools, and you are talking about 162 teachers. If you add in the number of teachers for middle school and high school, I imagine that the total number of teachers in Davis is around 300-400. Taking the low end, splitting the cost of the test among all the teachers is really giving them a $533 raise. A mere pittance if you ask me, especially when you know all the teachers do in their “off time”. That doesn’t even include the help in the classroom that teacher would require to get differentiation to work. If you have 23 students in a classroom (or say 30 in secondary classrooms) how can a teacher possibly help all the students and check their work in a 45 minute session? Truth be told it would be difficult. Now add in that children get pull-out services if they are not meeting standards. How effective is differentiation going to be if children are getting pulled out at different times? That means you’ll have to coordinate not only among the grade level teachers and the program workers, but in combo classes that includes multiple teachers, aides, program workers, etc. Again, I have never stated it was going to be easy, but I think we need to realistically look at the challenges and start putting something in place while allowing things to continue as they have been. Why penalize kids before we have a system that works?
If there are teachers that are reading this, please note that I have never said I don’t appreciate what you do or not give you credit. I volunteer in the classroom and I know how hard you have to work. There seems to be this misconception that when I post things that I’m anti-teacher or are putting you down. That is very far from the truth. My goal is to make things easier for you and not harder by heaping more work with no support.
“You argue that Davis is far behind in math compared to other districts.”
I would like to hear the case for that, because I think it’s possible to argue otherwise.
What I wrote was “My kids were surprised (both of them) how far behind in math the Davis schools were.”
The scorewise my Davis school is almost 20 points behind my previous school.
What else are you looking for?
If you go by standardized test scores, then it depends a lot on the demographic composition of the school and the district. In general the higher the average parent education level, the higher the school’s test score average.
For math scores in Davis schools, when you get into higher grades the standardized test scores, compared by parent education level, become progressively higher than the state average for that demographic cohort. So 11th graders (last year that takes standardized test) who have parents with graduate degrees have math proficiency scores that are much higher than the state average for that cohort.
If your family has graduate level education and your students stay in Davis schools and follow that trend, their grade level cohort will progressively improve in math proficiency scores on the standardized test over the state average for similar students with each passing grade.
On the other hand, if your family doesn’t have college education, then your students’ math proficiency scores would not improve that much over the state average for that cohort. In other words, if you measure by standardized test scores in math by parent education level, Davis schools give you a much better “value added” if you have college education. Not so much if you don’t.
In Davis schools, the clearest and sharpest definition of an achievement gap is by parent education level, not so much by other demographic breakdowns. And this is when comparing to state averages for similar cohorts.
I think I remember at one point a while back that you gave the specific name of your former elementary school, and I looked it up and it showed extremely few students (maybe even 0?) from families without college degrees. That would easily account for much of that difference in math scores.
Question:
1. How early do the agendas have to published before the meeting? I think the answer is either 48 hours or 72 hours (2-3 days)
That means that if the Board meets every two weeks, if you want something on the agenda it has to be given over to the Board President before the closest meeting.
ie – Board meeting to be held on 5/1/17
Agenda published on 4/29/17
Means that the agenda item was to be presented to the Board president on 4/15/17.
Board meeting prior to 5/1/17 was held on 4/17/17.
Am I totally missing something? I could understand a week requirement, but two weeks notice means it’ll take a month before the item can be discussed at Board meetings?
Under the Brown act, agendas and agenda materials need to be made available a minimum of 72 hours prior to a meeting of a public body… almost universally, the agenda is physically posted (hard copy), and generally also available on-line. Materials (staff reports, etc.) are generally available either on-line, in the offices of the public body, or both.
There are exceptions for items that are time-sensitive, and not known to the agency prior to preparation of the meeting documents… but there are limits on those…
Then I am correct that you need to bring something to the Board President before the prior Board meeting. Doesn’t that seem odd? What happens if a constituent brings a matter during public comment that someone on the Board feels they should talk about? Wait a month before it can get on an agenda and be discussed at a meeting? That doesn’t seem very timely or helpful.
Kristina, that is how the provisions of the Brown Act work. The public must be given 72 hours notice for any discussed item. Public comment made in any meeting does not satisfy that 72-hour noticing threshold, so the comment cannot be discussed until it is placed as an item on a future agenda.
The subject of placing the public comment topic on a future agenda can; however, be discussed in the Long-Term Calendar agenda item that typically is the last agenda item of each meeting. Some minimal discussion of the item can take place at that time as part of the decision whether to or not to add it to a future agenda. In addition some discussion of the urgency of the public comment topic can take place then as well, but only in the context of which future meeting to schedule it for.
Kristina…
You jump to conclusions…
Will speak as to the Davis CC… someone says something @ Public Comment… in open session, any CC member may request it be agendized for a future meeting… often, by consensus, the CM is directed to agendize it… if not consensus, a vote is taken to direct the CM to do so… doesn’t matter if the Mayor opposes that or not.
Key is, if it is brought up at public comment, the board may ask clarifying questions, but they may not discuss, nor act, at that meeting.
Doesn’t necessarily mean it takes a month. The board may agendize it for the next regular meeting, or for a ‘special meeting’… which has to be “noticed” in the same manner, unless the board can articulate credible “findings” that it is truly an “emergency” matter… never seen that, so not sure what the nuances of the law is…
You may not consider that timely or helpful, but it is good public policy (to allow ‘different voices’ to chime in, once they have been noticed as to the issue being under discussion), and it is the law (kinda like gravity… good concept, also a law).
Howard,
I never stated that the item needed to be discussed at that meeting. What I was alluding to is that if a Board member thought it should be discussed, the lack of a two week window to submit a written request would push the item back to 2 meetings after.
It was cleared up in the next comment by Matt Williams that the Board could discuss putting in on the next agenda, which then leaves the “two-week” requirement a moot point. A comment that was posted before yours.
I am quite capable of understanding that in order for our Board to work that everyone needs to have the chance to speak about the issue. Again, my whole question was surrounding the “two week” timing window.
Also, I understand that it is hard to gain cues from typed messages, however I find the whole last part of your “explanation” demeaning and rude. There is another good concept which is also a law (at least to me) …. Treat others as how you would wish to be treated.