Around 11 am on Tuesday, police were called out to Montgomery Elementary School. According to a communication from Principal Sally Plicka, “We had a police car at our school, but everyone is safe and all is going well. “
She wrote, “There was a report made by students about a substitute teacher. The students did just what they were supposed to do and told their concerns to another adult in the classroom. The concerns were taken seriously and the substitute was removed from working with students.”
She added, “As part of the investigation, the police responded and the issue was resolved with care for students, staff and the person involved. I cannot share details of the student concerns or the investigation, but I can tell you that my staff and I take the safety and care of all of our students seriously and I am proud of the way everyone responded today. It is important to me to keep our parent community informed and to answer questions when possible. I consider this issue an unfortunate issue for our campus but one that was resolved well.”
According to Deputy Chief David Delaini, there was an adult on campus who was acting strangely and police were called out to the school based on reports from the students.
They searched the car and found concentrated cannabis in the building.
Danette Boles, 53, a substitute teacher, was cited and released for a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11357(d), “Except as authorized by law, every person 18 years of age or over who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, upon the grounds of, or within, any school providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 12 during hours the school is open for classes or school-related programs is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than 10 days, or both.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Maybe Montgomery test scores will improve if they get rid of the pot smoking teachers.
P.S. Does the law really say “who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana” vs. “not more than 1 ounce of marijuana”?
That’s a substitute teacher and a lot of pot smokers are non-issues. Smoking pot while teaching is another matter.
No the real problem is the 60% title one students at Montgomery.
It’s interesting I was just reading Mrs.W’s comment in the other article: “I imagine you all had run into this research before, but I hadn’t: Forced busing didn’t fail: desegregation is the best way to improve our schools. If this is the case, Davis and DJUSD have two cultural impediments to truly addressing the AG– the choice of magnet programs and schools that families drive all over the district to attend AND neighborhood schools that essentially have socioeconomic service areas.”
Isn’t this primarily a problem at Montgomery? But while people seem bent out of shape out of AIM, they don’t seem to care about Montgomery.
Pugilist: “Forced busing didn’t fail: desegregation is the best way to improve our schools”
Achievement gap trends on NAEP test scores (“Nation’s Report Card”) were narrowing through the early 1980’s, but have been widening since that time. One interpretation is that various programs to desegregate schools were abandoned during this time. This also marked the beginning of actually focusing with renewed intensity on standardized test scores as a way to measure student learning, inspired by the report, A Nation at Risk. Yes, there is something to that argument.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/opinion/the-secret-to-school-integration.html?_r=1
There was also an instance of unintended experiment in desegregation Ferguson schools a few years ago with the neighboring Normandy school district. It suggests at similar benefits to closing the achievement gap. This was presented on the podcast, This American Life, last year.
Also, this podcast, journalism piece on desegregation, An Imperfect Revolution.
I’ll say!
Wow, Montgomery scores would go up if they got rid of pot smoking teachers. Okay let try that again. If you actually read the article you would realize this was a substitute teacher not a Montgomery teacher. They work at all the Davis schools. At least the Montgomery student realized something was wrong and made a smart decisions.
Seriously? MME’s test scores would improve if they got rid of pot smoking teachers? According to this article the teacher was a substitute teacher and could have been assigned to any school in the district. It is was not an MME teacher! It was a DJUSD substitute teacher!
“MME’s test scores would improve if they got rid of pot smoking teachers?”
I once knew a guy who smoked pot everyday before breakfast to stimulate his diabetes reduced appetite. Then he would go off to teach high school. He was a great teacher who had high expectations and demanded quality work. The kids would rise to his standards and loved and respected him.
He never said anything to the kids and never used it at school because he believed in leading by example. He used to say that “leading by example was the finest form of teaching.” I believe he was right about leadership by example.
Yeah. I am not concerned about someone teaching stoned; I’m sure it happens every day. I am concerned about someone teaching who is stupid enough to get caught. Bringing his stash onto campus . . . really, dude?!??!!!
In this case it was a dudette.
Thanks, Lord knows I wouldn’t want to refer to an incorrect gender.
Once again South of Davis puts his ignorance on display with this comment.
Only in Davis would we be concerned with a school that has a 3-year average API score as high as 835. Most districts in CA would be thrilled if their highest achieving school was hitting this mark, much less their lowest.
Substitute teachers are hired by the district, not specific school sites.
As a substitute teacher for the DJUSD I frequently have the pleasure of working at MME. I am humbled all the time by the level of dedication I see from the teachers and staff at this site who I work with and for. I will forever feel a debt gratitude towards them for the tremendous amount of work they do in service of our children. We are blessed to have them in our community.
The teachers at Montgomery, the aides, the support staff, the principal and the parents are all VERY dedicated to providing a safe school where children learn and have fun. As others have said, this was a substitute teacher with DJUSD, so it could have happened on any school campus within DJUSD.
I am very impressed that the kids recognized there was a problem and told an adult. That’s what we want our kids to do. Bravo to the kids!
One of my favorite places to teach:-).
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am experience angst over all of this. And it is a classist angst, too, which makes me feel even more angst because I don’t know what “classist” means and I fear that I will be judged harshly for not knowing.
[edited]
“classist angst”
I’ve never heard that one before and I’m part of the vaunted Vanguard 10.
But then again I had never heard of campus “safe spaces” or “implicit bias” until recently hearing it here on the “V”.
You sound like someone who has an implicit bias against campus safe spaces.
Yes, it gives me classist angst.
Careful, BP, suspect “classist angst” is in process of being copyright protected. And the owner of the copyright gets to define what, if anything, it means.
I’ve already applied for the copyright on that expression. But, in all honestly, I haven’t settled on a definition yet. I may sell it as a band name.
Paul wrote:
> I haven’t settled on a definition yet.
Make sure to let the Vanguard moderators know ASAP so they will know pejorative term used to describe those right of center like “right wing nut ball” “racist” or “microagressor” (that is OK to use) or a pejorative term to describe those on the left such as “left wing nut ball” “social justice warrior” or “crybully” (that will be deleted by the moderators).
Are you claiming that the moderator(s) here have a liberal bias? If that were true most of what I have to say would be censored.
Paul wrote:
> Are you claiming that the moderator(s) here have a liberal bias?
When a a pro-choice, pro gay marriage, Obama voter who wants to bring the troops home like myself is called a “right winger” (like I often am) that is a sigh that a blog has a “liberal bias”.
Actually, copyrighting it as a “band name” might even be more lucrative than as a “brand name”. Or, copyright as both!
South of Davis
“When a a pro-choice, pro gay marriage, Obama voter who wants to bring the troops home like myself is called a “right winger” (like I often am) that is a sigh that a blog has a “liberal bias”.”
Or may be just a sign that some posters have the ability to separate out issues and consider them on their own merits rather than simply assuming what an individual must think about any given issue based on the label that has been attached to them.
Or it may have nothing to do with the Vanguard itself. It seems like the Vanguard isn’t saying SOD is conservative posters on the Vanguard are. There are also a group of conservatives on the Vanguard, that doesn’t make the Vanguard conservative.
Apparently everyone missed the bigger story while caught up in an old debate.
1. “Concentrated cannabis” – i.e., wax, dabbing, earwax, etc.
2. Searched car, items found; in the building;
3. Dabbing is done by using a butane torch which heats the “wax” to 5,000 degrees or more;
Some consequently call “dabbing” the crack cocaine of pot use.</strong> THC content is 10x or 20x regular marijuana, which means that uses can send themselves into LLa Land with even one hit. Use of a butane torch automatically brings in other heath and safety concerns. Users often have red marks on their skin from dabbing with the torch, and there is at least one instance of a building being blown up by the use of such a device (I don’t recall all of the details). Having a stoned user using a butane torch just raises the risk level. So was this teacher dabbing on campus? In the classroom? In their car? There are more questions than answers, but this surely isn’t Chech and Chongs pot.</p><p>http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/smoking-concentrated-marijuana-known-as-dabbing-is-all-the-rage-6461891<br data-mce-bogus=”1″></p><p><br data-mce-bogus=”1″></p><p><br data-mce-bogus=”1″></p><p><br data-mce-bogus=”1″></p>everyone missed the bigger story while caught up in an old debate.
1. “Concentrated cannabis” – i.e., wax, dabbing, earwax, etc.
2. Searched car, items found in the building
3. Dabbing is done by using a butane torch which heats the “wax” to 5,000 degrees or more
Some consequently call “dabbing” the crack cocaine of pot use. THC content is 10x or 20x regular marijuana, which means that uses can send themselves into LLa Land with even one hit. Use of a butane torch automatically brings in other heath and safety concerns. Users often have red marks on their skin from dabbing with the torch, and there is at least one instance of a building being blown up by the use of such a device (I don’t recall all of the details).
Having a stoned user using a butane torch just raises the risk level.
So was this teacher dabbing on campus? In the classroom? In their car? There are more questions than answers, but this surely isn’t Chech and Chongs pot.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/smoking-concentrated-marijuana-known-as-dabbing-is-all-the-rage-6461891
Maybe because it’s not a bigger story. There aren’t more questions than answers. The substitute teacher smoked pot, got high, acted out of the norm, police were called, they found weed on them and they were cited and released. End of story.
Using a butane torch on campus in an altered state isn’t a bigger issue? Using the crack cocaine of pot isn’t a bigger issue?
None of this happened here
Almost… remaining ‘piece’ is she will, most likely, never serve as a substitute teacher for DJUSD in the future. OK with me… unless as a volunteer to be a motivational speaker on the problems associated with being ‘under the influence’… I could support that. Might be a good “diversion” from any fines, jail time. “Restorative justice”?
Sorry, connection issues here.
In spite of the PD being there? Or because of them being there? Is that all to the statement? Maybe the Principal shared the stuff the Sub used? That is about as cryptic a statement from an administrator I have seen.
Poor use of ‘but’.