By Steve Kelleher
I am wondering why the AIM program has become such a pariah in the district. For years particular members of the community have been complaining about the AIM program. The primary complaint has been that it is elitist and has a negative effect on diversity. It has been characterized as “Institutionalized racism”.
Despite changes instituted by former coordinator Deanne Quinn that increased diversity to the same levels as are found in the district as a whole these charges continued to be leveled at the program. In point of fact the AIM program has greater diversity than any other of the special programs in the district such as Montessori, Spanish Immersion or the DaVinci Charter Academy. And yet the witch hunt continues.
After evaluating programs all over the state the district administrators produced and the board approved a new system for enrolling in the program. It failed miserably in enhancing the diversity of the program. In fact, I have more children of color in my single classroom than were admitted into the entire incoming cohort.
When this news came out the response from both the public antagonists and even a board member was, “Meh, so what, the program is too big.” How this was determined is unclear as well. When Spanish Immersion was scattered throughout the district and growing it was given its very own site.
West Davis Elementary was closed and Cesar Chavez established. When daVinci Charter was outgrowing its portables at DHS it was given room to expand at the Valley Oak site. Montessori’s growth has negatively impacted the regular ed. program at Birch Lane, as has been reported to the Board numerous times by both parents and staff, and yet it is not reduced in numbers.
Why do these special programs which service the regular education population receive special treatment whereas the AIM program which by both state and federal law service special needs children get the ax? No one has really stated the reasoning behind this prejudice.
It is not a cost issue. There are no real savings to the general fund by decreasing participation in AIM. The main cost is in testing which continues as we have a mandate to identify these special needs children.
Interestingly enough though, a Montessori classroom takes $10,000s to get started. DaVinci cost the district $50,000 in one year alone for laptop costs, an expense which has continued throughout its existence. Spanish Immersion students receive two sets of text books, Spanish and English. These programs although valuable put an additional strain on our general fund.
The AIM program is valuable as well and reaches children identified as needing special accommodations in their education. Back in the day the district attempted to use differentiation as a tool to help gifted children in the regular ed. program. It did not work adequately and parents were lawyering up to force the district to comply with the law. The district chose instead to expand the program to reach those children in need. Now with the winds blowing another way the board has decided to cut the program and return to the previous failed model. Still no reasoning behind it though. Still an egregious lack of input from the professional staff and the parents affected by the change.
The district has even failed to fulfill its promises under their new plan which stated that there would be 3 sites and no waiting list for the upcoming year. That plan has been abruptly cancelled and now we have two sites and a waiting list. This seemingly random change to a highly successful program is detrimental to the children who would benefit from this type of instruction.
The rationale behind the change is unclear and the remediation for its impact is inadequate. This decision seems to have been made on the basis of personal interest rather than any pedagogically sound reasoning and reflects poorly on this board’s judgement and its policy of openness and transparency.
“Why do these special programs which service the regular education population receive special treatment whereas the AIM program which by both state and federal law service special needs children get the ax?”
Gifted students are not entitled to special services under special education statutes.
“Back in the day the district attempted to use differentiation as a tool to help gifted children in the regular ed. program. It did not work adequately and parents were lawyering up to force the district to comply with the law. ”
Can you please be more specific about the facts of the case or cases you are recalling? I know there was a lawsuit about placement preferences. Is this what you are referring to?
I have wondered about the animosity toward the program myself. I think there are several different constituencies and no consensus on, who should be served, or how they should be identified was ever reached. The only consensus seemed to be that private testing was being abused. However, underneath it all I think there are several complaints that can be identified.
First the test score barrier was very divisive and it seems there was not a vocal constituency to do away with a test score threshold even though there is no quantitative definition of giftedness. Thus we are left with a football game like argument that will never be settled and we find now that every decision ends up back at the board taking up endless amounts of time. Are we on the 98th yard line or the 96th? With all the different tests available might we really be on the 86th? What about those who fall just short of the line? Do we take into account other factors?
Second, are we serving those who can’t function and learn differently or simply those who ace a test in the third grade? Is it a program to serve high achievers or those who have social emotional issues? These questions were never decided and the community seemed to be deadlocked so rather than do the heavy lifting of trying to reach agreement the school board took it upon themselves to gut the program but did so without trying to consider how to appease the gate advocates.
The board heard from the community on the issue but never explained where they were going or why. What I find fascinating is that the board members who advocated for change have never bothered to write an op-ed either here or in The Enterprise laying out what they were doing and why they were doing it.
The board has also claimed at various times that the Brown Act standards prevented them from explaining while at other times they acted without explaining to the community what they were doing while claiming the Brown Act had been met. Interestingly the two attorneys on the board have regularly been on the opposite side of the board majority on issues surrounding Brown Act compliance.This failure of leadership has left the community wondering what is going on and honestly it seems nobody knows beyond they want to shrink the program an argument that they have never logically explained to the community or pedagogically supported.
No, the law doesn’t require it, but do we need a law to force us to give an appropriate education to our students. We do plenty for regular ed students as I pointed out, why not this identified group?
About 20 years ago we had students arrive from other districts already identified as GATE. Having no room in the single strand available they were supposed to be given appropriate instruction in the classroom. This was found to be inadequate and the district was pressured to open new strands.
We are back to pitting programs against each other? From someone who has been there and done that I can say that it generally doesn’t end well for anyone, and the ones who pay the ultimate consequences are usually the kids.
Again AIM parents are being their own worst enemy. I understand they are frustrated, I get it, a I really do. But these tactics are doing far more harm to their program, our schools, and our community than good.
Blame the victims Michelle.
Right, GATE is a victim…sure.
It is today. Or at least those who organized their life around Gate at North Davis are victims of broken promises by the board majority.
I’m not trying to blame them. I’m trying to keep them from making things worse for themselves and their program. I have been this parent and I have seen how destructive this path can be, both for myself and for my school.
How is getting the Montessori and Spanish Immersion parents up in arms going to help the situation?
If AIM parents are looking to gain community support pointing their weapons at other programs is not going to help their cause, it is only going to get other groups of parents defensive of their own programs.
Michelle, so what do you suggest AIM parents do? Just sit and quietly watch the Board crush the program?
My recommendation is to stick to facts, and let people draw their own conclusions. They have legitimate concerns which are getting lost in all the finger pointing and unfounded accusations against the school district and school board members. They are not portraying themselves as credible sources of information when they behave this way. It turns people off.
For example, they could point out the fact that the North Davis strand was shut down even though this was the most popular choice of qualified families, without accusing the district of making this decision in a subtle attempt to kill the AIM program.
” without accusing the district of making this decision in a subtle attempt to kill the AIM program.”
Except for the problem – I think that’s exactly what they did. And you can say, well you can’t prove it and the reality is that we’ll never be able to prove their motivations, but actions and a string of actions speak very loudly here.
Consider this as strategic advice. If you are trying to convince people of something provide them facts and let them draw their own conclusions. It will have a much greater impact.
“Consider this as strategic advice. If you are trying to convince people of something provide them facts and let them draw their own conclusions. It will have a much greater impact.”
The problem, Michelle, is that facts don’t have much impact on the current majority of the board of trustees. There comes a point, after facts and history are ignored long enough by those entrusted with public service, that a rational person must give up on the intelligence or the honesty of the intended recipient and must make alternate plans for the well-being of his or her community and family. You strike me as quite willing to ignore this reality.
I think you are missing my point. If AIM parents want to gain the support of the general public on this issue they are not doing themselves any favors by making slanderous comments against board members and school administrators. Nor will the gain much traction by targeting other district programs. Rational people who have no stake in this issue will not want to get involved. Some potential AIM parents don’t want to be associated with the hostile environment and choose not to enroll their child in the program.
You can not control how individaul school board members act or how the administration acts, but you can control how you react, and those choices will impact whether or not you are able to get the community support you need to make the changes you seem to want.
“they are not doing themselves any favors by making slanderous comments against board members and school administrators.”
By definition, the truth is not slander. Ignoring the truth is akin to the lemmings ignoring the cliff face when they come to it. Pretending that certain board members and administrators have acted honorably or truthfully is to ignore the truth.
Napoleon Pig IV- In response to a perceived injustice you seem to have become the thing you claim to hate. Do you really believe this where a solution lies? Why would anyone without a stake in this want to support you? You are doing all of things you seem to despise in others.
“Consider this as strategic advice. If you are trying to convince people of something provide them facts and let them draw their own conclusions. It will have a much greater impact.”
Wrong again, my naive friend.
http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
http://www.targetmarketingmag.com/post/facts-dont-matter/
“Most people aren’t going to change their opinion because now more than ever facts don’t matter.”
Michelle: You’re putting Steve’s comments on parents, but he’s a teacher.
This isn’t pitting any program against another. Except maybe by the board. I am pointing out the Board’s unequal treatment between special programs for regular education children and a special program for a group identified as special needs.
Michelle,
The problem with your approach is that Archer has proven to be a liar. She hid her true agenda concerning the AIM program during the election. For example it turns out she supported PAGE and made the comment at a July board meeting that she had worked to reform the AIM program for seven years. She purposely concealed her Aim reform agenda to avoid controversy.
Concerning the Montessori program in Davis how many schools have a non-profit by which parents raise money for their children’s schools. From recent articles it seems clear that the Montessori schools lack the same levels of diversity than that of the neighborhood schools. Is the Montessori program in Davis simply cover for white flight from the neighborhood schools that aids parents in raising additional funds for their children? Wouldn’t that make the Montessori program in Davis eligible for “elitist” and “segregationist” labels?
Where has the author been? Does the author really not understand the community’s aversion to educational tracking based on a test taken in 3rd grade? Increasing students of color through the hand selection and misuse of an alternate test to reach exact percentages in the District demonstrated tokenism and private testing for the rest for families that could afford to pay made it evident that the admission process had been corrupted. How much money was being spent, and continues to be spent, on all of this testing and was it truely identifying children that could not be served in their neighborhood school? Or was this all about association and opportunity – that golden ticket?
The issue at NDE seems to be about wanting a particular teacher, and I suspect that the teacher is heavily lobbying parents and others. I can’t believe that Steve supports three classes of 22 students? Steve should focus on why only 66 families have accepted placement. A letter to the Davis enterprise and reprinted here yesterday was a peak into their thinking – wanting to stay at their elementary school (because they love it) but interested in entering GATE in 7th grade where it is believed that the academic opprtunities become more pronounced. It isn’t about their child not thriving and needing special education, it is about getting on the “honors” track. GATE swallowed up the previous honors courses in Junior High so this is the only avenue for anxious parents.
The aggressive behaviour of GATE parents egged on by GATE teachers and the bullying by GATE students toward non-GATE students also hasn’t helped.
Where has the author been? Teaching in the schools.
He also served on the addmissions committee for this year and GATE advisory boards and was the DTA president. He’s now claiming ignorance?
Ignorance to what?
TP: Where has the author been? Teaching in the schools.
But not in the Spanish Immersion program.
Kelleher: Spanish Immersion students receive two sets of text books, Spanish and English.
They definitely do not. They receive one set of text books, just like everyone else.
Kelleher: Interestingly enough though, a Montessori classroom takes $10,000s to get started…. These programs although valuable put an additional strain on our general fund.
I understand that the additional money comes from fundraising done by Montessori parents, not from the general fund.
Kelleher: In point of fact the AIM program has greater diversity than any other of the special programs in the district such as Montessori, Spanish Immersion or the DaVinci Charter Academy.
Diversity in what sense? There maybe diversity of race/culture/ethnicity that is reflective of the UC Davis community, but participation in AIM/GATE is highly correlated to the parent education level of the student. A student is likelier to be in the AIM program if the parent has college education. 98% of AIM students come from families who have college education.
The Spanish Immersion program is often the recipient of migrant students (of farm laborers), if it is determined that the student’s English language level and past educational history deem that the child would be better served having instruction in Spanish. Migrant families almost never have college education.
At UC Davis, however, more than 40% of students admitted come from families in which they would be the first to graduate with a college degree. (source) Can the AIM program have better diversity of SES?
Start up money was provided by the district to provide supplies for Montessori classrooms when the program first got started about 15 years ago.
The program has expanded since that time. Cost associated with this expansion (i.e. the purchase of additional Montessori supplies) have been covered by parents through a non-profit that was set up for this purpose.
Kelleher: Spanish Immersion students receive two sets of text books, Spanish and English.
They definitely do not. They receive one set of text books, just like everyone else.
They are dual immersion and do not have English books?
Kelleher: Spanish Immersion students receive two sets of text books, Spanish and English.
wdf1: They definitely do not. They receive one set of text books, just like everyone else.
Kelleher: They are dual immersion and do not have English books?
Dual Immersion actually means something different than Spanish Immersion. I haven’t had direct discussions of curricular delivery with teachers, students, or families in the Dual Immersion program that is currently offered at Montgomery. But if you want to include something about Dual Immersion in your advocacy statements for AIM/GATE, then for the love of God, consult your professional colleagues at Montgomery about it first so that you don’t make errors of fact.
The Spanish Immersion program that has been offered at Chavez Elementary starts off in the early grades as 100% Spanish instruction through about 2nd grade (one is “immersed” in Spanish). Then after that English language instruction is added in 3rd grade, and then a little more instruction in English with each grade. In 6th grade I think it’s 60% Spanish, 40% English, or something close to that. There aren’t two separate sets of texts as you imagine. Social studies textbooks are in Spanish. Science instruction is in Spanish.
82% of students currently in the AIM program come from families who don’t just have an undergraduate degree, but also have either a graduate or professional degree.
How does that compare to the general population or to the population of the other special programs in the District?
WDF: that would seem to reinforce the concerns about demographics – no?
I don’t know what the profile is of other special programs. I assume you mean Spanish Immersion, Montessori, Dual Immersion, Da Vinci.
I have been a GATE teacher in this district for nearly 2 decades. And I don’t see a community’s aversion so much as I see a group of discontents agitating for change for no sound pedagogical reason.
I cannot address a charge of hand selection and misuse of test as I have no evidence of such occurrences.
We test the children because we have a mandate and a duty to identify children with special needs. Universal testing and the costs associated with it will not change because the program is reduced in size as pointed out above.
We have numerous regular education classrooms in the district with class sizes at or near 22. It is not a special accommodation just for the gifted to have their class sizes in that range.
And I focus on what I choose to focus on as the important points in this issue.
You throw up so many points in your reply, hoping some will stick I suppose, and yet don’t really address what was written above.
wdf1
But if you want to include something about Dual Immersion in your advocacy statements for AIM/GATE, then for the love of God, consult your professional colleagues at Montgomery about it first so that you don’t make errors of fact.
This information came from a professional colleague. The CCE site has also been working to institute dual immersion at its intermediate level. I worked with the 4th grade team a few years ago around issues related to its impact on the teachers. Admittedly, given the negative impact its roll out has had on the teachers I do not know if it stuck. At the last report I heard they were still working on it.
A colleague from Chavez Elementary? I’ve had direct connections to that school for several years and personally know a few teachers and staff. I actually ran into one of them last night and asked once again just to make sure that my understanding hadn’t changed. And again, your original comment was about Spanish Immersion. I can find no information about two sets of textbooks. Based on that, it appears to cost the district more to administer the AIM program (because of testing/identification) than it does the Spanish Immersion program.
If you’re really referring to Dual Immersion, that is actually a different model. The two are not the same program. Based on how you appear to use the words interchangeably, I think you’re conflating the two. Maybe you need to talk to someone from a Spanish Immersion program.
My God, Steve. Where have you been? Are you really that far out of the loop? There are two research reports that were presented to the School Board and made available to the public on the District’s website that brought to light the misuse of the TONI and the coordinator’s efforts to increase diversity through a “search and serve” process where every student selected and tested scored in the 99th percentile. This was not duplicated this year, despite staff making a concerted effort to test, and sometimes retest, students.
I would say that the program has fallen into disfavor because all efforts to point out problems with identification and admission and reform the process have been met with responses such as yours – a covering of the eyes and ears, a complete rejection of evidence and a refusal to look at the facts, repeated false allegations that reforms are intended to abolish the program, and that these efforts are based on hatred.
Are you serious Ryankelly? Those “researchers” are friends of Archer and Lovenburg (you can still see their names prominently displayed on both of their election websites as endorsers) and have never been able to provide any data to back up their claims even after repeated requests to do so via the Freedom of Information Act. So much for using the scientific method where you get repeatable results.
AND did you see the board meeting last night? You are the one covering your eyes and ears and refusing to look at the facts! They have, at a minimum, reduced the program by at least 50% in less than a year, failed to serve all of the kids who still managed to navigate through all of the district’s testing mistakes, and you say they are not killing the program? Time to uncover your eyes and ears and take a look around…you may perceive their motives as sunshine and roses but that does not make it reality
Yes, I am serious. I seriously doubt that two researchers would falsify data in their research and risk their professional reputations and their careers for some small town political reason or even friendship. This is a very serious allegation you are making that has deep reprecussions. I urge you to rethink your statement and its consequences.
The issue really isn’t whether they falsified data, the issue is that if they had submitted this as a study, it would have been peer reviewed. That means their research techniques would have been evaluated including the methods they used. The study involved the use of advanced statistical analysis that is tricky to use. There’s a reason why research requires a peer review process – it’s not about falsifying the data, it’s about having experts being able to evaluate their work. In this case, it wasn’t a peer reviewed study. Nothing nefarious about it, but we need to take the findings with that in mind.
ryankelly,
The outrage is directed at the board and district administration for two actions. First raising the eligibility score from 96 to 98 for not reason other than to shrink the program. Secondly for misleading the public concerning the elimination of the lottery where they could have filled a third strand with 95s or high achievers thereby meeting the needs of all the children.
The aggressive behavior and the campaign of slander was initiated by parents attacking the AIM program.
“[T]he bullying by GATE students toward non-GATE students also hasn’t helped.” So now you are claiming that the nerds are bullying the jocks. Really. What fantasy world do you live in.
Which brings up another point – all this discussion about size of the program and the cut off is still at 96
Someone give a convincing argument as to why any test score should be a requirement for the AIM program. Why not give the OLSAT to identify gifted children (at whatever cutoff seems reasonable), as mandated by the state, but ultimately let parents decide if they want to enroll their kid in the program, regardless of their test score. This way no one will feel left out, which I believe contributes to the stigma of the program.
Exactly Grant. Further, getting rid of a definitive test score qualification is the only solution that will ever end the acrimony. The school board spent another four hours on this last night. The question I would ask is when are they going to start looking for solutions that can settle the gate issue once and for all? As long as people remain wedded to a qualifying score the school board will never get there.
Nerds can be bullies. Microsoft proved that years ago.
There have been issues about kids using gate eligibility to taunt other kids. Denying it only serves to perpetuate problems that exist with the current model of a qualifying score as a pre-requisite for acceptance. If you want to honestly address the issues with the program you can’t be in denial about what the issues are that divide the community.
“GATE swallowed up the previous honors courses in Junior High so this is the only avenue for anxious parents.”
Good point Ryan but why not fix it with a scalpel instead of an ax?
Implementing re-testing using the appropriate test for the students’ risk factors is not a scalpel? That is really all that has changed.
That’s not an accurate comment.
Sure it is. Private testing was eliminated, but students being re-tested had average scores in the 80th percentiles and did not have to have a risk factor at all.
Testing is the only thing that has changed this year.
See Misanthrop’s comment.
Getting rid of private testing (a good thing), firing the coordinator and eliminating the position, lip service to universal differentiation and wasting money on a differentiation coordinator, establishment of a new selection process, total disregard of the gate advisory committee, the board taking unto themselves the oversight of the program, instituting top down authority of its management by school board people who have no training in educational pedagogy. I could probably go on but I think you purposefully understate what is going on because you favor the policy shift.
Misanthrop is absolutely correct. The Board majority continues to tell us publicly that there have been “no significant changes” made to AIM, but their actions say the opposite.
The only change implemented is changing the testing process to give the appropriate test for the students’ risk factors.
Implementing that change required intervention on the part of the Board, working with school administrators and teachers, including GATE teachers. I applaud them for recognizing how the admission process was corrupted and taking action, despite venomous attacks by GATE parents and members of the community who wanted to keep the status quo.
GATE teachers were not involved in this process in any significant way. We were given an hour or two with the superintendent after the research and the policies were determined to “solicit our input”. None of which was taken into account. The changes are far more than just a change in the testing regimen. You write with some depth of knowledge on the subject so you must be aware of all of the other changes.
You were one of two GATE teachers who served on the committee overseeing admissions this year. Are you saying that this was un-meaningful?
This is a great first sentence.
Why is AIM perceived as elitist? Who has the power to change or influence this perception? An what have they done, to change or influence the perception?
I have been looking to teachers in the program and administrators for that leadership.
Where is the negative effect observed and who is harmed?
I am beginning to think that the issue is all of the Special Programs in our district and the fallacy that co-existence is a valid educational model in a Democracy that wants to make it to 300 years.
ryankelly: “The issue at NDE seems to be about wanting a particular teacher, and I suspect that the teacher is heavily lobbying parents and others.”
It is absolutely not true that this teacher is lobbying parents. My daughter is in this 4th grade AIM class at NDE and the teacher has actually been very quiet about the AIM program changes. Only when directly asked by parents did she refer parents to the information provided on the DJUSD website.
OK, that’s good to know. I do know that the sixth grade GATE teacher at NDE is writing letters and making comments.
That sixth grade teacher has spoken on her own behalf but has not lobbied parents or even informed them of the Board/district actions with the rare exception of information she has bee officially asked to pass on to parents. For the record she is the parent of a child currently in the AIM program, so I would think she is allowed to speak up for the benefit of her own child if nothing else?
Please don’t misrepresent teachers who find themselves in a very difficult spot politically and professionally. The AIM teachers have been walking a tightrope while trying to teach as best they can. They did not ask for this, and I think they deserve endless appreciation for what they have alread by put through being in the middle of this firestorm.
“Please don’t misrepresent teachers who find themselves in a very difficult spot politically and professionally”
Excellent advice, DavisAnon. Personally, I look forward to seeing Lovenburg and her minions in the rear view mirror since they are the ones creating so much difficulty for parents, teachers, and students.
We should not be misrepresenting teachers. Just like we should not be misrepresenting school board members, or administrators, or other DJUSD programs, (like the author of this piece has done.) None of this leads to positive results for anyone, much less our kids.
A lot of people are angry and have been for some time. I think we need to have this out or people like me will end up just voting no on everything.
How does slandering each other, and other district programs accomplish anything? It creates a hostile environment for everyone involved and this rarely leads to anything productive happening.
We don’t need to create a hostile environment, it’s already there.
I get the picture of an obstinate small scowling child with his arms crossed in defiance because he didn’t get the toy that he wanted.
“we should not be misrepresenting school board members, or administrators, or other DJUSD programs, (like the author of this piece has done.) ”
My observations and experience convince me that the author of this piece has misrepresented nothing, and that in fact his words are an important clarification.
Sometimes the truth is unpleasant, but it is what it is.
By the way, take a look at the definition of slander.
I can speak directly to the fact that he has misrepresented how Montessori classrooms are funded. How can I be sure that other claims are also not true? This is the point I’m trying to make. Legitimate arguments get lost when false claims are made. I would urge AIM supporters to stick to facts, you will get more leverage with the community at large.
What do you consider the facts to be, Michelle? What would you urge the board to do?
At this point this would be my recommendation:
The board determined a criteria to qualify students for eligibility in the AIM program. If AIM is truly a special education program than every child who qualifies for it should have access to it. (I don’t think there should be a waitlist for special education programs) If I was a board member I would direct staff to find a way to ensure that every child who qualifies has a spot, even if that results in smaller than normal or larger than normal class sizes, or combining grades, which happens all the time in neighborhood programs. . (This does not mean filling classes by changing the eligibility criteria to allow more students)
I also think that a legitimate argument can be made by families that if demand for the program is highest at North Davis, than a strand should be located there.
Today is the first day for the rest of your life.
Days are long; years are short.
Why put off tomorrow what you can do today?
Dragging a ball and chain of history prevents one from moving forward.
No matter how hard the past, you can always begin again.
-Buddha
Take it down a notch America (fill in subject as appropriate).
-Jon Stewart
“The truth will set you free.”
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” (And, as an overdue update, let’s change men to people).
“Personally, I look forward to seeing Lovenburg and her minions in the rear view mirror since they are the ones creating so much difficulty for parents, teachers, and students.”
Regarding logs and specks, the source of that quote is not entirely unimpeachable. Personally, I find more value in the dialog of Shakespeare than the dialog of Jesus. For example, “Corruption wins not more than honesty.”
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster”
-Nietzsche
“All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” – Arthur Schopenhauer
Unfortunately, by the time the value and importance of AIM education are understood and accepted by the members of our community who are ignoring the imminent threat to quality education in Davis, it will be too late for current elementary grade children.
Lovenburg, Archer, and Adams will forever bear the guilt of intentionally destroying that which might have been.
ryankelly – just because I make comments occasionally, does NOT give you the right to make the accusations that you have made….Please be respectful.
You have absolutely NO idea what it has felt like over the past year while the school board has made drastic changes in a program that is beneficial for a certain set of kids – just like Montessori, DaVinci, DSIS, and ALL the other unique programs in DJUSD.
Is every program perfect? No.
Is every program a good fit for every kid? No
What I do know is that I have taught students that really benefited from the AIM program. I don’t want the program to be chopped up. Except for when we, as AIM teachers, have requested a meeting with administrators, our expertise has never been listened to. I, for one, do not ask an auto mechanic for help when I a house painting quote. Nor do I seek medical advice from my Southwest pilot while boarding a plane. I go to a source that is “in the know.” Now, I am certainly NOT saying that I am a guru because I fully believe that I am consistently learning and progressing as a teacher; however, I do feel that I have some fairly good observations as an AIM teacher in a classroom.
Two of the four district members who have advocated (and given recommendations to the Board) are NO longer employees of the district. I just want the district and Board to understand the ins and outs and the teachers that are in the trenches are the best resources.
Anyway….heading off to another Board meeting to see what happens tonight…..
Thank you, Steve, for this thoughtful article. It’s good to get the perspective of a teacher who sees the reality of the local world up close and personal.
Thanks for your kind words, Napoleon.
A nuance… not 100% sure, but I believe most folk have no problem with GATE/AIM as a program… I strongly support the program…
But what many have a problem with, over many years, not just the past one, is that many vocal GATE/AIM parents have: challenged any consideration of any change in the program, unless it meant additional funding/resources; characterized any thought /action for change as an attempt to dismantle it (some have even likened that to “hate”); and have used (and liked to use) “bragging rights” if their kids were in GATE/AIM… flaunting it…
We had two children GATE-identified… one went thru it, the other didn’t (the reason being that the younger child would be under the same under-qualified teacher, who actually did not serve the older sibling well, but who posts as a strong defender of the program).
BTW the non-gate identified child graduated college, has earned a Masters [first in family], and is a medical professional…
pierce
“the non-gate identified child graduated college, has earned a Masters [first in family], and is a medical professional…”
Congratulations !
Kelleher does not list my primary objection to the AIM program–an objection that is entirely due to how it’s administered and not that it exists. Here is my primary objection–
Because I know them and they are my children and my neighbor’s children, I firmly believe AIM fails some students as often as it helps others–and may be directly responsible for some children’s complete blow-out. We know 4 high school drop-outs who were in our child’s 6th grade AIM class. Four children from middle class educated homes, two of color, who dropped out. Four! Over this past year, in a number of posts, I have criticized the program for its non-scientific approach to claiming “success”. There is absolutely no evidence that the AIM program of the last 40 years or so had a positive effect on any individual’s outcome–not even a basic measurement like (1) number of years enrolled in high school math courses or (2) high school graduation rates. All success AND failure of the AIM program is anecdotal. Maybe there is some national data that self-contained AIM classes affect outcomes, but no one has ever asked or examined–Is it true here? If more students of color enroll, does it help them HERE?
Where we may be in agreement is our community needs something else from our administrators. Families plan their lives around their children’s school schedule and location. Basic, fundamental good manners would suggest that the District would not lead parents to plan one way and then change the plan–with no apparent effort to mitigate the logistical impacts of the change.
DJUSD’s poor behavior towards families is not limited to how they treat AIM parents, they treat everyone poorly. It’s enough to turn anyone cynical about public education.
Question: Would a higher percentage of top-performing teachers in the regular classroom eliminate the need for self-contained GATE for all but those kids with more severe learning disabilities?
All teachers are top-performing.
Clearly.
The Teacher’s Union claims that there is no fair way to assess quality teaching, so all teachers are, at best, average. I know from personal experience that is not true, but that is what the Union demands.
I don’t think that is true. I think they object to using student performance on a test not designed to evaluate teachers as a basis for evaluating teachers.
Frankly: Would a higher percentage of top-performing teachers in the regular classroom eliminate the need for self-contained GATE for all but those kids with more severe learning disabilities?
I think identifying top-performing teachers is akin to identifying top-performing parents. How do you decide that?
Every teacher on campus knows who are the good teachers and who are not. It isn’t rocket science.
This is an urban myth.
I think the myth is a myth.
Teacher-student interaction is relational, as in it’s about a relationship. I have found some teachers worked better with one of my kids than the other, and the opposite. I can agree that there are some teachers capable of working well with a wider range of students. But when you get into the realm of relationships, then you are dealing with subjective judgement. Arguing about which teacher is better can quickly get to be as ridiculous and pointless as arguing about whether my kids are better than your kids or whether my wife is better than yours.
But I think that teachers get better over time (able to reach a broader range of students) if given opportunities for appropriate professional development, which includes collaborating with colleagues.
I think at least 25-30% of teachers are people that get into the profession and before they figure out it was wrong for them, they are already thinking about retirement and decide to ride it out.
Unfortunately, those 25-30% bring down the performance of the whole.
Kelleher: DaVinci cost the district $50,000 in one year alone for laptop costs, an expense which has continued throughout its existence…. These programs although valuable put an additional strain on our general fund.
Da Vinci, as a charter school, operates its own budget apart from the rest of DJUSD. Also as a charter school they have access to other funding sources that are not available to the district. It is incorrect to say that Da Vinci’s computer expenses put a strain on the general fund of the DJUSD budget.
Yes, it is accurate say. I was president of the DTA when I attended a board meeting which specifically allocated at least $50,000 (possibly $75,000 or more) to daVinci for laptop costs. Tim was hazy on how much that translated into per laptop costs. The 5th grade teacher in me calculated that it was over $2,000 per machine. They needed the advanced computer to run the software required for the program. That was only one budget meeting of many. Any idea who paid for the science lab they had installed there?
You were DTA president (ca 2006) when Da Vinci was not a charter school, but had recently received grant money from the Gates Foundation, to the tune of several $100Ks, specifically to start up Da Vinci as a small-school community with computer-based instruction.
Also, Da Vinci students carry electronic versions of their textbooks. (I had a kid in Da Vinci for a short spell) That saves costs in the physical production and shipping of the textbook, as well as labor costs in storage, processing, and repair.
Kelleher: Any idea who paid for the science lab they had installed there?
That sounds like a facility fund issue (restricted funds), which isn’t the same as the general fund. Da Vinci also has access to separate funding sources by virtue of their charter school status. But I would suggest contacting your science colleagues at Da Vinci, or their admin staff and see what they say.
This is true for any program; not just AIM program. Does this mean we should close all the other programs? Those who don’t like, always will argue that a specific program is not useful.
http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Redefining%20Giftedness%20for%20a%20New%20Century.pdf
The board should provide resources to different programs in the district. How the board allocates its resources should be made more transparent. Just because some don’t like AIM/GATE does not mean that the program should closed.
The important fact that the community is ignoring is that the “board changed their course in the middle of the implementation this year”.
So, presented with a reasonable option by Alan Fernandes and Madhavi Sunder, and pressed repeatedly and politely by Alan about the options and their rationale, the board majority instead continued with their path of destruction. That was a very disturbing board meeting to watch, honestly.
Madhavi Sunder’s closing comments were very accurate and I expect her prediction of a further significant reduction to the GATE program will be correct. This is reduction by attrition. If that is their intent, they should say so.
I only watched parts of it, here and there and didn’t see the final board discussion. Did your idea of a cluster model get entertained as an alternative?
After yesterday’s meeting, I am really disturbed that we have these kinds of board members representing Davis School Community. Archer, Lovenburg, and Adams goal is to eliminate the AIM program in coming years. They are too afraid to say it. Lovenburg and Archer’s discussion on cluster program is basically aimed at this.
From the tone of the discussion by Archer -she care less for students or parents; especially NDE kids and parents. She talked about physical responsibility. If having AIM program costs money – why didn’t she say in the beginning that this year we would only have two strands irrespective of number of qualified students. Archer and Adams were basically saying we have given you a seat in AIM program – you take it or leave it. Your kids performance does not matter; we are doing you a favor by giving your kid a placement. We are making this decision for you and you have no say in this matter. They have a nerve to ask about “choice”. It is not trivial to coordinate kids school schedule and after school activities with two parents working. They seem to be living in the past; we did this, we did that 10 years or 20 years ago. Archer, Lovenburg, and Adams – I have news for you, the world has moved on.
Archer, Lovenburg, and Adams – put the blame on the staff. Poor staff – they can’t vote like the board members but they take all the heat. Lovenburn was so vague in her arguments – we can ask the staff to come up with the plan. If the plan fails then they will again blame on the staff. When do Archer, Lovenburg, and Adams takes responsibility for their actions? At least I was glad to hear apology from Sundar and Fernandes on the boards mistake in handling this years AIM placement.
What baffled me is that they don’t care!!! This is why election matters – I am ashamed as a Davis community member that these people are representing our district and kids. Folks – Lovenburg is up for election this November; the only way to send a message to Archer and Adams is to defeat Lovenburg and put some one who cares about all of our kids.
To paraphrase a famous New York Daily News headline: School Board to North Davis parents, drop dead.
The 19 parents who have NDE as their neighborhood school request that their GATE identified children be clustered in regular classes and implement differentiated instruction. All children would benefit.
Did you watch the meeting Ryan? There are 28 at North Davis. It is the one place there were enough students for a full class. Yet the Board decided to make those who want the program go to another school. That makes no sense unless your objective is to dissuade people from participating in the program. Incredibly the argument for keeping it at Willett, where there are not enough current students to fill a class, was the long history of the program being housed at that site. Ironically Willett is the neighborhood school of the two board members who have led the battle to shrink the program because politically they cannot totally destroy it.
I watched most of it. There are 19 families where NDE is their home elementary school. The rest are requesting transfer to NDE from other schools. These could just request placement at the two schools that will have the self-contained class.
Glad you’ve got it all figured out for them.
19 families at NDE almost makes a classroom. Fernandes and Sunder proposed a way to make that work. The board majority rejected their proposal.
A combo class (students from two consecutive grades in a class together) by its nature is differentiated instruction. The district regularly has combo classes at many of its elementary sites. Why cannot a combo class of GATE and non-GATE students work, with a properly-trained teacher? As I see it, that is pretty close to a cluster model.
But here is the rub Ryan, those families were told there would be a class at NDE and organized their lives around that promise. Sure its easy for you to say those families could… Much more difficult to change horses in the middle of the stream and reorganize their lives. The School Board essentially gave these families the finger with Archer bellowing that Muhammed must go to the mountain.
This has a personal feel for me because we actually moved to organize our lives around the kids going to a school that housed a certain program. If after being told that a program would be available at a school and organizing the family around that promise the district summarily changed where that program was housed when other alternatives were available to the district I would be angry beyond words.
The board majority knew what the right thing was that they needed to do. They talked all around it, but in the end they didn’t do the right thing. They’ve just confirmed that the immediate needs of those students was less important than continuing to reduce the program size. The discussion about budget impact was a complete deflection, since there are plenty of examples of smaller class sizes already operating in the district — and the proposal by Fernandes and Sunder would have made that moot anyway. The comment about the achievement gap was almost laughable, and Madhavi Sunder’s reaction to it was very clear and direct. The proposal by Fernandes and Sunder could actually have had the effect of reducing the achievement gap.
Personally, I would have some difficulty dealing politely with someone who loudly contradicted me in public (incorrectly) and talked over me in the manner that was on display last night.
I think that would result in the further decline of self-contained GATE classes devoted to GATE identified students only. Think about it. Proponents were pushing for one complete self-contained GATE class at NDE and then two classes at Pioneer and Willet with 18 GATE/10 non-GATE and 22 GATE/6 non-GATE respectively. Then there is the under-enrolled classes at Korematsu. The majority of the Board voted against this proposal, leaving the families to make the decision to accept placement at Pioneer/Willet and possibly a combo class at Korematsu or remaining in their neighborhood or current magnate program – keeping the self-contained classes for GATE identified only.
Yes. They would have given the principals at those schools the authority to fill the remaining seats in the classes, with a very specific direction to seek high potential students from various at-risk categories.
So 16 students would be hand-selected and placed in a self-contained GATE class, regardless of test results? Would these hand-selected students be from the neighborhood program at Pioneer/Willet or would they also consider non-GATE students at Margarite Montgomery, Patwin, Korematsu and NDE? Would the District do this with every under-enrolled GATE class across the District? Would there be a concerted effort to consider racial diversity in the selection of these students?
Don’t you see how this is a step backwards to pretty much the faulty system and practices of before?
It was a very workable solution. To answer your questions, it would be a one-year action with the principals having the discretion subject to the guidelines provided by the board. It is not a step backward. It is not faulty. It was a workable solution to a serious administrative bungle. The only thing it doesn’t do is shrink the program as much this year, which is the goal of the board majority. And, apparently, your goal as well.
Not my goal at all. The program needs to accommodate the 66 students that were identified and requested placement in a self-contained class with other GATE-identified students. What you are pushing for is to accommodate these students in one GATE class at NDE and two mixed classes of GATE and non-GATE students at two other sites – all for the convenience of 19 families at NDE and 9 others who have requested transfer to NDE.
They could achieve fully self-contained GATE classes in three strands with 22 students in each. But the other board members didn’t want small class sizes. So they offered a solution that allows bigger class sizes. Bottom line, apparently there was no solution that kept a GATE class at NDE that would satisfy the board majority or you.
Convenience. Yeah, that’s all it is. Sure.
Don, Do you have to include a personal jab with every comment you make? Really annoying.
Has anyone asked the parents with GATE students at Willet and Pioneer if it is OK with them that their classes would be mixed GATE and non-GATE identified kids. Would that have changed their original placement request?
OK, I see. I guess I should be more polite. Is that what it’s all about?
At the very least you shouldn’t complain about someone taking personal jabs with every comment when that is your mode as well.
OK. I will strive to do better.
Here’s my question again:
Has anyone asked the parents with GATE students at Willet and Pioneer if it is OK with them that their classes would be mixed GATE and non-GATE identified kids. Would that have changed their original placement request?
Regardless of what the School Board might say, our experience after 10 years at CCE, is that differentiated instruction is not part of the teaching practice.
We had a student at Chavez who had an IEP and 504 designation. He definitely received differentiated instruction on that basis. Can’t comment on students outside that category, but his was a case where the need was blatant. If you go back 10 years at that site, then we definitely overlapped.
I witness differentiated instruction for students at every grade of elementary school. Jr. High and High school then offered different levels of classes, but students were offered special ed services where needed.
An IEP by definition requires differentiation but even so you still get teachers who are better or worse at implementing IEP’s. Most kids, around 85%, don’t have IEP’s. The notion that the school board can simply vote in differentiation for all the thousands of students in DJUSD and it will effectively happen is reflective of leadership that has no idea about what goes on between board level wishful thinking and the day to day classroom experience of students and teachers throughout the district.
WDF1 you are usually pretty thoughtful about education issues but arguing that because one student with a legally mandated plan for differentiated instruction means that differentiated instruction could be implemented for every child who needs it belies reality and I think you should know it.
Yes, there is differentiated instruction in the sense that there are pull outs for kids with an IEPfor special ed or slower learners. Ryan’s topic was about clustering and differentiated instruction in the classroom for higher performing kids. We had a very high performing child at CCE who needed differentiated instruction and there was none, other than he was expected to help the other kids with their classwork/homework because he finished his assignments early. We very strongly considered pulling him out the Davis school system because of the lack of challenge, but valued the spanish immersion portion that comes via CCE.
Misanthrop: you are usually pretty thoughtful about education issues but arguing that because one student with a legally mandated plan for differentiated instruction means that differentiated instruction could be implemented for every child who needs it belies reality and I think you should know it.
I am pointing out that differentiated instruction does in fact exist already in the schools. IEP is one example. Combo classes are another clear example. I don’t understand why those instances can’t be used as a starting point to figure out how to accommodate groups of GATE identified students who come in numbers less than a full classroom. Apparently there are teachers who have experience with GATE and with non-GATE classes. Why can’t such a teacher be tasked with running a combo-style class, or a cluster model? With that option, one would never ever have to worry about a lottery. I am disturbed that there seems to be an argument that AIM/GATE-identified students must be “hermetically sealed off” from the rest of the school population, when it comes to entertaining the notion of mixing with non-GATE students in the same classroom.
Actually, the proposal presented would have mixed non-GATE with GATE. The classes would have been predominantly GATE students, with some others selected by local principals. Those others were to be selected from high-risk populations.
I was also trying to follow what Adams and Lovenburg were saying about clustering students, but it wasn’t clear and they didn’t put forth any specific motion about it. Tom Adams seems to think that current differentiation is sufficient (I could be misinterpreting what he said, it was a little hard to hear). Susan Lovenburg was very fatigued.
I hope that a future board will take gifted education seriously and look at some other ways to provide it. Cluster grouping would be a logical and effective approach that would enable many gifted students to remain in their neighborhood schools.
Don Shor: Actually, the proposal presented would have mixed non-GATE with GATE.
I need to go back and listen/watch the meeting — the ~four hours for that agenda item. Only caught snippets last night….
Since the district has not mandated training in differentiated GATE instruction, your suggestion is hypothetically interesting but not being applied at this time. Once again, differentiation is being used as a rationale for dismantling self-contained GATE, but without actual implementation in place.
Has there ever been a robust-enough effort to diagnose the root causes to the problems of some kids not doing well in the regular classroom and to make reforms in the regular classroom that attempt to solve those problems… to rule out that a self contained solution is required?
I did some research on Finland and Norway… two countries that tend to be lauded by many of the same people on this blog that are strong advocates for self-contained GATE… as recommended models for the US to follow. It seems that Finland and Norway count on differentiation in the early grade-school years, and then there are certain academies that older students can select.
It seems too that attitudes have “progressed” in these two largely democratic liberal-socialist countries to begin to include personal academic achievement, along with personal economic achievement, as both being indicative of potential unfair advantage and privilege.
The 19 GATE identified children who have NDE as their home elementary school should request clustering in the regular classrooms. The rest of the students – 9 students – can either accept placement at Pioneer or Willet, or request clustering at their home elementary school. This is a reasonable alternative that the District could easily accommodate.
I also found it absurd when Archer tried to claim that she was concerned about the cost of a third class. If the board were truly concerned about costs they would have never wasted money on a Differentiation Coordinator position. How much is that position costing the district? How many more students could be served if instead the district hired another teacher. The real rational for this ridiculous waste of money was that the board needed cover for the reality that differentiated instruction was a mixed bag with each teacher having a varying ability to implement differentiated pedagogy. Yet the board had banked its rational for wrecking the program on a pipe dream of differential for all, a top down fantasyland approach to governing that calls into question their fitness to lead.
You need to remember last years lies to understand this years lies.
“You need to remember last years lies to understand this years lies.”
Good one!
I agree. That’s probably the best quote of this string.
As for Archer, Lovenburg, and Adams, were I to accurately comment on their taxonomy, the moderator would probably choose to delete my conclusion, so instead I merely suggest that all intelligent barnyard denizens give it due consideration as DJUSD accelerates in its rapid quality decline. Oink!
If only they would choose another barnyard and get out of ours. There was not even a pretense of having the best interests of children or providing them with an appropriate education last night.
Archer’s rudeness, ignorance, and disdain for others reached a new low last night. It is an embarrassment for our community that she is elected to represent us. It was absolutely appalling. Adams chose to chastise a member of the public for bad behavior? He should have been talking to the person next to him!!
I want to take back that last line about fitness to lead. I apologize for letting my rhetoric get away. There are policy differences here and we should stay focused on those differences and try to refrain from personal attack.
I have been ruminating on what happened last night and I think we should focus on what the choices were because I believe they are important. The board actually addressed an issue that goes on in school districts everywhere all the time, how many sections of a class should the board pay for and where should those sections be housed. This requires a cost benefit decision. The board made two motions the first one failed and the second one passed addressing the immediate question. The board could have just as easily gone for the motion that lost to settle the issue but chose to “stay the course” towards the goal of reducing the size of the program. However in doing that the board turned down an opportunity to do what the motion that lost attempted to achieve which was to add a section and round up the classes by filling the seats from willing participants who hopefully were from underrepresented minorities in order to try and lift these students up. This was a thoughtful and reasonable request considering that there is evidence that these students would benefit from such an opportunity and that the achievement gap is a real and persistent problem. At the end of the evening and after another exhausting 4 hour marathon the board majority held their ground and said no to a real opportunity to soften their position, reach out to those who have a different policy view and take a step towards increasing opportunity for the demographics whose general underperformance is a stated major concern of the community.
I believe the board members knew exactly what was at stake having discussed it thoroughly. I also feel that the board made the incorrect decision and that the policy suggestion of Fernandes and Sunder was the correct path that should have been pursued. Lovenburg was right when she said “Its too painful.”
But Don Shor was also correct ” In the end they didn’t do the right thing.”
Misanthrop,
You’ve made some reasonable points here, but I also think you are being too polite.
Your observation about “fitness to lead” was also spot on, and in my view, not a personal attack. Once a person assumes the responsibilities and privileges of public office, their fitness is a necessary and legitimate topic for periodic consideration. It’s not personal; it’s simply what is in the public interest.
In our unfortunate current situation, I believe a majority of the board (Lovenburg, Archer, and Adams) have more than demonstrated their lack of fitness and should be removed from leadership positions as rapidly as possible. What is at stake is no less than a generation of Davis children.
Mr. Pig
“You’ve made some reasonable points here, but I also think you are being too polite.”
I was not there and have not seen the board meeting. But I disagree that Misanthrop is being “too polite”. I believe that being polite is often what allows some one else to clearly hear a different point of view without needing to become defensive regarding their own view. Also, I think that it takes integrity to apologize when one has gone to far and Misanthrope just went up considerably in my estimation. He/she may or may not care, but it will enable me to be more appreciative of their future comments just knowing that they are capable of this kind of introspection and honest.
Tia,
” I believe that being polite is often what allows some one else to clearly hear a different point of view . . . ”
I agree with you on this point in general, but not in this specific case.
There is old mythology about the power of calling someone or something by her, his, or its true name. There is also clearly value in correct diagnosis of a disease state as the basis for beginning effective therapy, even if that therapy does damage to the patient along the way to a cure.
The true names and accurate diagnoses of what is wrong with this school board and district may be unpleasant, but that is just the way it is with truth sometimes. Sometimes politeness and gentleness must be set aside to effectively eradicate rot and disease for the good of the public/patient/children/system.
Wdf, it’s not about “hermetically sealing off” the classroom, it’s about finding something that works better for your child. If the district thinks they can make differentiation work, start at kindergarten and work up.
For many of us, by the time our child is in third grade, we have been watching things get worse for our child for multiple years and we start getting desperate to stop the downhill slide. We have spoken to teachers, looked for solutions in enrichment, and done our best to advocate for a child to administrators with closed ears.
AIM is not about the best teachers, extra funds, or a “sealed off” classroom, and all of this are false. Some teachers have been a good fit for my child, others not at all, but there are many other factors to consider such as the ability to find a peer group they can find a friend in or have a discussion where they are not ostracized for being odd. It is not a perfect solution, nor is it the optimal solution for each child, but that is why parents need to be given some latitude in deciding what is the better choice for their child.
If the district finds a way to make differentiation successful for these kids in K-3, their parents would keep them there. I have yet to see that happen but am open to the possibility. Forcing these kids to stay in a situation that is clearly not working when other cost-effective options have existed is irresponsible and narrow-minded.
For our family, I was told that GATE was the best placement for my gifted child, but it was a disaster. My student suffered terribly during the years he spent in the GATE community. We finally decided that being a bright student in a normal, diverse ability classroom would be healthier than the ultra competive environment of a GATE classroom.
Mr. Pig
“that is just the way it is with truth sometimes.”
This is certainly true in medicine where there often is a single “truth”. An example from my specialty. One is either pregnant or not pregnant and it is objectively definable and mutually agreed upon. The problem with “the truth” when one is discussing the motivations of others is that one individual’s “truth” may not be the “truth” for someone else. Frankly and I are the poster children for this on this blog. He frequently asserts “truth” and “morals” that I do not agree with at all and vice versa. So which of us holds the real “truth” ?
Everyone making definitive statements on this clearly emotional issue believes that their’s is “the truth”. But obviously if they are not in agreement, then someone is either in error or not being honest. When you are not a true believer on the issue, it can be difficult to decide who is the possessor of “the truth”.
Tia,
Yes, you are right about the difference between an objective truth in medicine and the more subjective truth of social mores and political positions. And, I agree that often patience, politeness, open-mindedness, and respect are key elements in reaching constructive consensus or in further developing “truth” or policy.
However, in the case of our local school board, I have witnessed them misrepresenting, evading, and misleading as opposed to clearly stating beliefs, facts, or plans. I’m sure we’ve all seen cases in press conferences where politicians evade answering questions or provide blatantly biased information before moving on to the next question. Unfortunately, that happens often at local school board meetings, at least when Lovenburg, Archer or Adams speak.
After someone in a position of public trust lies or evades a question enough times, it is fair to call them deceptive in public and to call for their removal from a position in which they can do harm to others.
What does “mutually agreed upon” mean?
Pseudocyesis is a medical condition, not a reflection of reality. It is a psychiatric delusional state. The woman’s belief that she is pregnant has no bearing on the fact that she is not pregnant. No matter how firm her belief to the contrary, she will not be delivering a baby. Mutually agreed upon refers to the acceptance of the verifiable facts, not impression, wish or delusion.
Since I have not attended nor listened to any of the school board meetings, I could pass no judgement on whether anyone is actually lying or whether or not, from their perspective, they are not expressing their own view of the truth. I cannot reject, out of hand, the possibility that they may be expressing what they view as true in their world view.
Video of meetings here: http://davis.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=4
On behalf of Da Vinci Charter Academy, we welcome the opportunity to provide the broader community with accurate information about our program. Da Vinci has been mentioned in the Vanguard in the context of a discussion of the DJUSD AIM program. In his recent commentary, Steve Kelleher, 5th grade AIM teacher at Korematsu Elementary, makes two comments which warrant clarification:
SK: “DaVinci cost the district $50,000 in one year alone for laptop costs, an expense which has continued throughout its existence…. [programs like this] although valuable put an additional strain on our general fund.”
SK: “I was president of the DTA when I attended a board meeting which specifically allocated at least $50,000 (possibly $75,000 or more) to daVinci for laptop costs… The 5th grade teacher in me calculated that it was over $2,000 per machine.”
These statements are, unfortunately, inaccurate representations of the impact of Da Vinci on the DJUSD general fund budget.
Da Vinci is a charter school, funded by the state on the basis of its ADA (Average Daily Attendance). DJUSD is the charter-authorizing agency; its trustees oversee Da Vinci funding decisions. While Da Vinci pays a percentage each year to DJUSD for services, facilities fee, etc., Da Vinci does not receive additional monies from the DJUSD general fund, nor does it receive any parcel tax funding. In fact, the Da Vinci charter requires that the school be “cost neutral” to DJUSD.
Thus, Da Vinci does not draw money away from AIM or any other district programs supported by DJUSD general fund monies.
As to the cost of laptops, the Da Vinci charter requires a 1:1 laptop-to-student ratio, and laptops are used in daily instruction. At the junior high, Da Vinci provides all of its students with $300 Chromebooks for school use. At the high school, 60% of students opt to bring their own laptops each year, at no cost to the school or DJUSD. Da Vinci provides the remaining students with Dell laptops (approximately $1000 each, including warranty). Our school laptops are replaced roughly every five years and are covered by the Da Vinci budget (again, generated by our ADA). The Da Vinci Booster Club, through family and community donations, also contributes to laptop replacement and repair costs.
On this note, Da Vinci welcomes all Vanguard readers to attend its annual Wine Tasting and Auction, organized by the Boosters each spring. The proceeds of this fundraiser support instructional and infrastructural needs on the high school and junior high campuses.
A “New Tech” academy, Da Vinci’s most valuable capital is not the net value of its laptops but rather its human element, the strong social community and academic differentiation that its dedicated teachers, through Da Vinci’s exemplary project-based learning curriculum, afford to students of all abilities. We encourage parents of all students, including those who are AIM-identified, to look at what the inclusive Da Vinci program may offer their families.
To borrow a frame used frequently in Da Vinci settings, we like that the discussion of special programs in DJUSD is generating community interest, but we wonder whether passionate discussion may unnecessarily — and inaccurately — pit good programs against one another. Discussions about any district program should be based in the facts, and so we felt it important to clarify that Da Vinci’s budget does not siphon away funding that could otherwise be used for AIM.
We look forward to seeing Vanguard readers at any of the many public events on our campuses.
Thank you,
Sharon Inkelas, Da Vinci Booster Club Secretary
Mary Briggs, Da Vinci Booster Club President