A couple of letters from the school district, regarding the recent arrest of a 16-year-old Davis resident charged with the murders of prominent Davis residents Oliver Northrup and Claudia Maupin, triggered concern from some residents who felt that the messages seemed more geared toward covering the district’s track record, saying “we didn’t do anything wrong” rather than acknowledging potential problems in the district.
One letter that was sent last week to all DJUSD families from Superintendent Winfred Roberson stated, “As you are probably already aware, a Davis teenager was arrested on suspicion of a double homicide that occurred last April. To some degree, such news affects everyone in our community–students, families and staff members alike.”
Mr. Roberson continued, “We want you to know that the District has implemented a plan to address the media, to support our staff members and others who are most intimately close to the situation, and to reach out to parents with this information we hope will help support your child.”
“It is natural in situations like this to ask questions and look for answers that may never be forthcoming,” the Superintendent wrote. “Rumors or speculation about what may have occurred, or why all of this has happened, usually creates more anxiety for our children. It is important to listen to your child’s concerns, to remind them that they are safe and to encourage them to take a humane approach.”
Of particular note, the letter went on to suggest, “Coverage of these events in the local, national and social media platforms are escalating, which further exacerbates anxiety. We encourage you to talk to your child about the effect of visiting and/or contributing to social media sites focused on highly emotional and potentially hurtful content.”
“Much of what we have seen is mean-spirited, inaccurate and inflammatory,” he wrote. “This is a good time to help your child distinguish the difference between information and gossip. Instead, please help your child focus on if and how this event has affected him or her. In this way, you will know best how to help.”
After advising parents where they can call if they have concerns about their children’s state of mind, the Superintendent closed with, “We are part of a strong community that can come together in time of crisis to take good care of those in need and each other. Fortunately, summer is a great time to slow down, unplug, build our family ties and strengthen our relationships. We wish the best for all our students and families and hope these next months can be happy healthy ones.”
The letter to Holmes Junior High parents includes the first part, but also adds “Protocol for Mediating Social Interactions sent out by Derek Brothers, the Principal of Holmes.
He writes: “In general, the following guidelines will provide safety and direction to our students. In egregious cases, formal discipline may also be required as governed by the District Behavior Standards, student age and developmental stage.”
1)-When the behavior is reported, reach out first to the targeted student. For elementary students, contact parents and have a conference to determine what has happened from the student’s point of view, giving parents an opportunity to assist, mediate, or simply be informed of the situation. Listen and take notes.
2)-Encourage the student and family to immediately report any unacceptable behavior directly to the teacher or principal to maximize timely response and accurate reporting. Staff can arrange for that to be done in a way that does not unduly expose a targeted student.
3)-Speak to all of the other students directly involved. Generally, this should be done on an individual basis, although you may wish to speak with young children in a group. Gather information.
4)-Document the incidents in the student information system, including the level of response: conversation, parent notification, counselor referral, detainment, suspension, police advisement, etc.
5)-Warn all parties against retaliation of all kinds, and confirm willingness to comply with directives.
6)-Address bystander /coaching behavior with counseling, directives or discipline as needed.
7)-Regardless of the level of response, seek some method to restore the equilibrium to the student and/or student group. This may involve restorative justice processes, contracts, agreements, etc. Ideally, all parties would come together, but that may not be possible where physical safety and/or bodily harm are issues. In any case, at a minimum there must be a support mechanism for the targeted student, if not for all students, during this process. (Examples include: passes from class, regular check-ins with student and/or parent, teacher awareness, campus supervisor support, etc.)
8)-If, at any stage of this process, you need consultation, advice and/or an alternate person to facilitate this process, call upon a colleague and/or call Student Services.
Superintendent Winfred Roberson was out of town but directed the Vanguard to speak with Pam Mari of Student Services. Ms. Mari did not immediately respond to an email request to meet with the Vanguard.
The Vanguard attempted to contact school board members, two of whom are out of town. Nancy Peterson did not answer her phone or return the Vanguard‘s call and the Vanguard was able to meet with Gina Daleiden on Thursday, but she was precluded by legal counsel from making any formal comments. The Vanguard has a follow-up with Susan Lovenburg on Saturday, but under the same conditions.
Several people expressed concerns to the Vanguard that the aim of the message by the Superintendent was wrong. The implication here is that everything is fine, the district has policies in place.
The Vanguard was told that the district is reviewing their protocols; however, that message was not broadcast to the public.
During the course of the Vanguard‘s investigation last week, we talked to a number of peers and even more parents.
There is an ongoing concern about the climate on a number of the campuses and the conversations that the Vanguard had noted widespread untreated depression, substance abuse, and bullying.
The Vanguard believes that the district should be publicly reviewing their policies and investigating as to whether there are additional changes that need to be made.
Blaming the accuracy of the social media accounts is frankly a cop out. The district needs to be able to acknowledge problems while reassuring the public and parents that they will be proactive in dealing with these problems.
Unfortunately, that is not the message that came out in these letters, and the confidence in the ability of the district to deal with these crises, at least in some quarters, appears to be on the wane.
The Vanguard will continue to investigate this matter and report more as information emerges.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“…some residents who felt that the messages seemed more geared toward covering the district’s track saying “we didn’t do anything wrong” rather than acknowledging potential problems in the district….Several people expressed concerns to the Vanguard that the aim of the message by the Superintendent was wrong. The implication here is that everything is fine, the district has policies in place….Unfortunately…the confidence in the ability of the district to deal with these crises, at least in some quarters, appears to be on the wane.”
This is the oddest of the Vanguard’s “dark underbelly of Davis…right under our noses” series of commentaries. Without a scintilla of evidence or even a rationale, the finger of guilt (for ?) is pointed at our school system.
Not a single allegedly critical or upset person is quoted directly on any aspect of this commentary masquerading as “the Vanguard’s investigation.” Instead, we have vague thoughts attributed to no one in particular (“some residents'” “several people,” “in some quarters”) that supposedly lead to the Vanguard’s contention that the district needs to “acknowledge problems while reassuring the public and parents that they will be proactive in dealing with these problems.”
“This is a good time to help your child distinguish the difference between information and gossip.”
Instead of criticizing the district for giving this advice, the Vanguard should be evaluating its own role in passing along information from “sources” with no attribution or foundation.
The correspondence from the superintendent about how the event might affect students and what resources are available seems appropriate, timely and, probably, standard when tragedy touches schools. Providing the school’s mediation guidelines seems appropriate given comments that the suspect MIT might have been the subject of bullying at some time. Letting the public know during your interview that the protocols are under review seems appropriate. How do the district’s actions provide any foundation that “confidence in the ability of the district to deal with these crises, at least in some quarters, appears to be on the wane”?
This commentary provides nothing to suggest that the school district did anything other than act appropriately in its communications to parents–where did “covering its…” even come from?–and in its responses to the Vanguard.
The Vanguard’s ongoing attempts to direct this double killing to some community guilt has no basis. So far, it’s relied on a series of unsubstantiated, anonymous, general comments. Why that approach would continue with today’s “investigation” is a mystery, except that it advances the writer’s predilection toward blaming the community for the bad acts of individuals.
In addition, the rush to get this “some people think” criticism to publication is unnecessary and unseemly.
well i was one of those who emailed the vanguard with my concerns. i feel that my identification publicly and on this board would jeopardize other aspects of my livelihood. i have serious concerns over how this was handled and think the district needs to be much more introspective in terms of figuring out how to do this better.
So if I understand you correctly, JS, you think there’s nothing wrong with what the district said and this is much ado about nothing?
[quote]So if I understand you correctly, JS, you think there’s nothing wrong with what the district said and this is much ado about nothing?
[/quote]
Yes, there’s nothing wrong with what the district said. We might or might not find out if it’s much ado about nothing, why jump the gun?
I agree with everything Justsaying wrote.
For what it’s worth, I agree with Just Saying…. There was no way for the schools to address this topic without someone getting something in a bunch…
So is headline of “District’s Letter on Murder Triggers Criticism, Concern” justified if only .01% (est. only, probably less) of Davis residents react negatively?
What I think, DG, is that the district’s two letters were totally appropriate for the situation, that the Vanguard’s “investigation” offers no basis for criticizing the district’s communications with parents, that the introspective revaluation of protocols you reported is a good thing, and that the unattributed, general expressions of a few “residents” about two letters are not an adequate foundation to connect blame to the school system for the child’s alleged crimes.
The fact fact that the district acted on its present policies and protocols should not be a surprise to anyone. Of course they do, and they likely have had similar protocols in place for decades.
To say that following them in this situation somehow gives “the implication here is that everything is fine, the district has policies in place” is plain bullshit. Nothing suggest that “everything is fine”–the letters provide advice to parents and students facing non-fine situations and outlines current practices.
But, by claiming an implication that most reasonable people wouldn’t come close to inferring, you open the door to rehashing the “dark underbelly…right under our noses” theme.
Since Davis Progressive claims credit, I’d like to have read his “serious concerns over how this was handled” (attributed to his nom de plume) and his recommendations about how the district could have handled its communications to parents/students better. I’d still like the specifics. Maybe you could print DP’s letter as a column or, DP, you could lists your criticisms and ideas for a better approach to follow future tragedies.
There is much to consider about your “investigation” ) supposedly finding claims of “widespread untreated depression, substance abuse, and bullying” in our schools. Before you rush these serious allegations to the Internet (conflating them with these letters in such an awkward manner) and give credence to the gossip, how about determing whether these issues already are of concern to the district?
“So is headline of “District’s Letter on Murder Triggers Criticism, Concern” justified if only .01% (est. only, probably less) of Davis residents react negatively? “
It did trigger criticism, so the headline is accurate. It just didn’t trigger criticism from the people reading it and commenting on it here.
JS:
“are not an adequate foundation to connect blame to the school system for the child’s alleged crimes. “
I agree with you on this point.
“To say that following them in this situation somehow gives “the implication here is that everything is fine, the district has policies in place” is plain bulls**t. Nothing suggest that “everything is fine”–the letters provide advice to parents and students facing non-fine situations and outlines current practices.”
But I don’t think they gave the proper advice. The advise they gave especially on the district level was: advise your kids not to read the media on this, and then they won’t be upset.
I’m more concerned with the kids who are talking to me about bullying and substance abuse and depression than whether or not media coverage might upset some kids.
“Maybe you could print DP’s letter as a column or, DP, you could lists your criticisms and ideas for a better approach to follow future tragedies. “
There is not much to read, it was a few lines. Most of which he restated here.
“There is much to consider about your “investigation” ) supposedly finding claims of “widespread untreated depression, substance abuse, and bullying” in our schools. Before you rush these serious allegations to the Internet (conflating them with these letters in such an awkward manner) and give credence to the gossip, how about determing whether these issues already are of concern to the district? “
I did and have.
I’m not sure how you get from this:
[quote]“Coverage of these events in the local, national and social media platforms are escalating, which further exacerbates anxiety. We encourage you to talk to your child about the effect of visiting and/or contributing to social media sites focused on highly emotional and potentially hurtful content.”
“Much of what we have seen is mean-spirited, inaccurate and inflammatory,” he wrote. “This is a good time to help your child distinguish the difference between information and gossip. Instead, please help your child focus on if and how this event has affected him or her. In this way, you will know best how to help.”[/quote]
to this:
[quote] The advise they gave especially on the district level was: advise your kids not to read the media on this, and then they won’t be upset. [/quote]
“The advise they gave especially on the district level was: advise your kids not to read the media on this, and then they won’t be upset.”
That’s not what you reported; please reread your “investigation” report above. Your report notes that the superintendent said that escalating media reports would cause anxiety in students. What you wrote originally was:
“‘Much of what we have seen (in social media) is mean-spirited, inaccurate and inflammatory,’ he wrote. “This is a good time to help your child distinguish the difference between information and gossip. Instead, please help your child focus on if and how this event has affected him or her. In this way, you will know best how to help’.”
Please directly quote the superintendent’s “advise your kids not to read the media on this.” Please provide direct quotes from his letter that their kids “won’t be upset” regardless of how they deal with with this tragedy.
It’s obvious that this set you off because you wrote, “Of particular note….” But, apparently you read something into it that isn’t there and, now, misquote it to justify your journey into unsupported “criticism and concern.”
Don already pointed this out while I was struggling on my iPad. Never mind….
I was being a bit too flippant so I apologize for that comment. Nevertheless I feel there was a whole area that went unaddressed in the letter, the one district wide.
And, Don did it more succinctly. And, more nicely. Sorry as well. But, flip or not, the point you tried to make was obvious. It just wasn’t supported even by the facts you reported.
You’re correct that there was a whole area that went unaddressed in the superintendent’s letter. I’m sure you’re not referring to the baseball team or water-wise gardening. So, I ask again for you to be specific about what the letters did not address, why they should have addressed your specific concerns and how you would have handled the situation they they faced better than they did.
The Superintendent’s letter was about the murder and its impact on the students, faculty and staff. To broaden it to discuss a perceived [i]”… ongoing concern about the climate on a number of the campuses and … widespread untreated depression, substance abuse, and bullying….”[/i] would have made the letter less effective. The Principal’s letter described the policies that are in place. It didn’t say those policies are immutable. It was also appropriate to the situation.
You want to broaden the discussion, but to criticize the school district for failing to do so seems unwarranted.
[quote]“I’m more concerned with the kids who are talking to me about bullying and substance abuse and depression than whether or not media coverage might upset some kids.”[/quote]Me too. But, you dropped in only a single sentence about this, just enough to imply there was some connection to the two letters beyond the timing of your talks with some school kids. Just enough to continue your initial reports that tied the accused murder to community failings of similar problems.
The fact that schools deal with “depression, substance abuse, and bullying” has been true since I was in school a long. long time ago. (And, you didn’t even mention all the sex that probably is going on with some of these kids.) it goes with the territory.
I’m not sure whether your sources are good judges of whether the depression is “widespread” and “untreated.” When you first tied this to the alleged killer, I pointed out other reports that he got extensive Kaiser out-patient and residential treatment. You noted that you’d read that in the paper, but you believed your own sources instead.
I found this insistence not credible at the time, and you haven’t provided anything since that suggests the young man was untreated or under treated by school counselors or his parents’ private health care.[quote]“I did and have.”[/quote]I’m unable to find anything in your report that verifies this claim. The nearest reference that I read was: “Ms. Mari [u]did not immediately respond[/u] to an email request to meet with the [i]Vanguard[/i]”
I have a theory. You are very interested in community improvements of many kinds and want the [i]Vanguard[/i] to be a catalyst to making them happen. Since you know in your heart that people don’t know that things need to improve (“the dark underbelly,” “problems right under our nose,” etc.), many of your stories try to make connections between news events and the “bigger (bad) picture.”
The problem is that you jump to these connection conclusions without much evidence, sometimes before there’s much of the story available to report.
I have a suggestion. Take a deep breath before implying or stating a [i]Vanguard[/i] conclusion or commentary, particularly ones that just happen to fit a previously documented, preconceived [i]Vanguard[/i] notion.
I suspect that simply reporting the story of the two district letters would have teased out Davis Progressive’s concerns (which still are a mystery to me) without the [i]Vanguard[/i] announcing the triggering of underwhelming criticism and concern.
Every bad thing that happens doesn’t directly tie into a failure of local institutions or of the community in general.
Making these connections convincingly credible requires time, research and listening to and on-the-record reporting of supporters, detractors and those who work in the targeted institutions. Rushed, knee-jerk responses should be avoided even if it seems that it’s time for an “I told you so!”
“There is an ongoing concern about the climate on a number of the campuses and the conversations that the Vanguard had noted widespread untreated depression, substance abuse, and bullying.”
Are any of these campuses elementary schools?
Remember how, in the immediate wake of these tragic murders, you tried to tie it to some weird budget issue that fits with another of your themes, austerity. I must agree with Just Saying that you have this tendency to try to manufacture arguments in support of your agenda. First austerity, then community guilt for the crimes of an outlier, and now bullying, depression, drugs and the schools inability to address these cultural problems. Funny you have omitted the most vexing real problem the country faces, young white males who commit senseless murders. A problem not confined to Davis.
“Funny you have omitted the most vexing real problem the country faces, young white males who commit senseless murders. A problem not confined to Davis.”
Just because the problem is not confined to Davis doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address it.
I read this article a while ago and it stuck with me. It describes some of the drug/alcohol/bullying problems in our schools. I got the impression after reading this article that our VP’s are struggling, because they are spread to thin, to deal with these issues.
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/sunday-best/our-sunday-best-junior-high-vice-principals-they-seem-to-do-it-all/
i agree it needs to be addressed but the Vanguard has failed to make that connection. Yet would all this reflection about how society failed the perpetrator be a concern if the accused had been from Woodland or West Sac?
“Yet would all this reflection about how society failed the perpetrator be a concern if the accused had been from Woodland or West Sac?”
I think so. It happened after Columbine and Newtown on a national level. The difference is that the accused is from our community, he went to our schools, the ones we are involved and invested in, because of this we are in a position to examine what went wrong here and try and figure out what we can do better. The district’s letters did not seem to address these last two things, which is why for me they raised concern.
My guess is that with a legal case pending, district officials felt — or were advised — that it would be unwise to address school climate issues in the context of the case.
Thanks, B. Nice, for the link to last year’s great write up on the problems with which Davis vice principals deal everyday. I think the article actually pointed out how the VPs would be struggling if the school pink slips would have switched them to part time VP/part time teacher. Fortunately, the money arrived to keep them on their important work.
Toad:
[quote]I must agree with Just Saying that you have this tendency to try to manufacture arguments in support of your agenda.[/quote]
Exactly !
” I think the article actually pointed out how the VPs would be struggling if the school pink slips would have switched them to part time VP/part time teacher”
I read it that they were struggling and understaffed as it was, and that pink slips would make it even worse.
An example of what they are faced with:
“All four junior high vice principals report alcohol and marijauna use among their students as the most significant ongoing issue they deal with.
But they’re also seeing an increase in the general stress level among students. Some are essentially self-medicating with illegal substances. Others, Duffy said, “can’t get out of bed and get themselves to school, or do their homework.” More students than ever have been subject to involuntary psychiatric holds because they present a danger to themselves or others, Kelleher said.”
“My guess is that with a legal case pending, district officials felt — or were advised — that it would be unwise to address school climate issues in the context of the case.”
Similar thoughts had crossed my mind.
B. Nice: [i]I agree it needs to be addressed but the Vanguard has failed to make that connection. Yet would all this reflection about how society failed the perpetrator be a concern if the accused had been from Woodland or West Sac?[/i]
School climate issues are a problem everywhere (not just in Davis). DJUSD has the means to make improvements and can be an example of what works.
Frequently (every two years?) the district does a climate survey. The survey results get discussed at the school board level, and apparently at a general administrative level, but I don’t see much evidence of those results and consequent actions in discussions at the contact level with students, among certificated and classified staff.
What does good school climate (a school environment that would minimize unproductive & destructive behaviors in students and optimize involvement and engagement) look like?
wdf1: just to clarify Mr. Toad originally wrote this:
“I agree it needs to be addressed but the Vanguard has failed to make that connection. Yet would all this reflection about how society failed the perpetrator be a concern if the accused had been from Woodland or West Sac? “
My response was similar to yours, we should look into what’s not working as well as it could be and actually make the necessary improvements.
Your last question is a good one….A few things off the top of my head… I personally think we need more councilor “in the trenches” so to speak, and more training for the adults, especially certified staff, who are in charge of supervision on campuses (do they even get any?)
I also think kids need more guidance on how to respond to bullying, and I’m not just talking about the kids being bullied, but also the bystanders. Hopefully the bullying issues will be addressed as district works to comply with AB.
The school councillors expressed some of their concerns and suggestions at a recent school board meeting, I hope they are listened too….
As a side note, I wish the problems with climate issues on our campuses invoked a similiar level of response and concern from parents, teachers, and students as have the recent issues revolving the coaching staff at the high school.
Amazing, isn’t it, B. Nice, how the outrage compounds when sports is involved.
Until we know more about the relationship of our school system to the problems involving the young man, there’s no reason to assume the school district is responsible in any way. Gossip isn’t the basis for the school district to start flagellating itself, for initiating some new introspective evaluation or for triggering training or communication programs.
The school district was right in trying to help parents and students deal with the potential problems that could come with the events that happened as the school year was wrapping up. Criticizing school officials for how they handled a difficult situation not of their making doesn’t make sense to me.
Your list of more counselors, teacher training, student guidance, etc., sounds good. I’m no longer close to the school system, so don’t know how much of these things already is part of the program. I’ve generally been pleased with the discipline, resources, teaching, atmosphere and results from Davis schools as our children and grandchildren passed through.
However, I tend to look to wdf1 for insight about what’s happening in the schools these days. The frequent “school climate” studies sound just like what David wants to have happen. The fact that wdf1 doesn’t see much implementation resulting is troubling.
If you want to evaluate DJUSD climate survey data for yourself, you can go here ([url]http://www.djusd.net/climate[/url]). You can spend hours looking through all this.
Generally what I see is that climate data look better at the elementary level, but more troublesome at the secondary level. I think the transition from 6th to 7th grade is probably the key. Most elementary schools seem to create a great climate for most students, though it isn’t perfect. They readily draw in parent volunteers to assist. The junior high campuses have a culture that seems to keep parents at a greater distance from school involvement than is the case at elementary schools. That also coincides with the beginning of adolescence when it seems that kids are naturally seeking more separation from their parents.
Two of our kids went to Emerson JH a few years ago, which had a great 7th grade orientation program, called WEB. That seemed to be a great mechanism for creating a positive, connected climate at the campus. Climate survey stats for Emerson seem to show the positive impact in places. I don’t know what the state of that program is right now. Back then I heard that the other JH campuses were seeking to emulate that program.
When I think of creating a positive school climate, I imagine something at the secondary level that is a little more organic and bottom up rather than providing additional counseling or VP staff. That additional staff might help, but I imagine a positive school climate as one where there are plenty of clubs and activities — yearbook, drama club, band/choir/orchestra, athletics, chess club, skateboarding club, service club, spelling bee, geography bee, etc. — and students are scrambling to participate.
School budget stress tends to pare back emphasis on positive school climate through these mechanisms because these activities seem to be viewed as expendable compared to traditional classroom subjects and cognitive goals — “reading, writing, and ‘rithmatic”, etc. As class sizes increase and the number of teachers and support staff is reduced, there is less incentive for district staff to serve as faculty/staff advisers or sponsors. And for those who do step up, there is less time available to invest. In job contracts for most staff, participating in these climate-improving activities is not necessarily a top priority. Obviously class-based activities like music are a little different because there is dedicated paid staff.
But connected to creating positive school connection and environment, I think it’s important to be aggressive at recruiting and inviting students to participate. I have often seen a more passive attitude, hoping students will show up/enroll/sign up. At this age, I think students are flattered to be personally asked, even if they decide not to participate. Aggressive recruiting by district staff and even member students shows that you care, that it’s important, and spreads an attitude of caring among newer club/group members.
I would like to see school climate as a higher priority, above even concern about achievement gap in math and English standardized test scores. If school doesn’t feel safe, engaging, and welcoming to all, then almost nothing else matters. Right now I don’t see clear demonstration by the school district that school climate has the high priority that I’d like.
The recent Enterprise interview with the new DHS principal ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/brown-has-ambitious-goals-for-davis-high-school/[/url]) suggests someone who is very “climate” oriented. His personal story seems to play a big role in his approach. I hope he’s a good fit.
[quote]Gossip isn’t the basis for the school district to start flagellating itself, for initiating some new introspective evaluation or for triggering training or communication programs.
[/quote]
When someone reports that trash and food are being thrown at a student it should be investigated. While Pam Mari, (who I trust) says they “take these allegations seriously”, responses like these strike me as generic , and don’t instill faith that they are actually do something. That’s my biggest complaint with districts responses so far.
Here is one example of where I see a problem with climate at the elementary level.
I see a lot of aggressive behavior among elementary kids, pushing, shoving, hitting, kicking, I’ve seen kids knock each other to the ground. Response from adult to this behavior is not consistent, with some just ignoring it. While our school has an excellent counselor that works with kids on appropriate ways to resolve conflict she is only on site 2 days of week. I would love to see a comprehensive plan set in place, that adults (teachers, administrators, janitors, para-educators, substitutes, yard-duties etc,) on campus can follow when they observe this type of aggressive behavior. As a part-time district employee I’ve never been given any guidance on how to deal with these types of behaviors. I think parents should also be given guidance on how to deal with this situation when they observe it on campus.