The Vanguard covered the school board’s March 8 special meeting at Harper Junior High, where they listened to opposition from parents, particularly parents of Pioneer Elementary School students, to a recommendation possibly splitting the elementary schools.
On Thursday of last week the board gave specific direction to the superintendent to follow up, in the form of three options. First, they asked the superintendent to look into the extension of Spanish immersion that would go from K-6. It is currently K-3.
Second, they are looking at dual immersion at Montgomery.
Finally, they are looking at the allocation of resources. Superintendent Roberson indicated that they have already changed the principal, as well creating a community liaison position at Montgomery.
“We are looking at some other tweaks that could be done with personnel to assist the program there,” Superintendent Winfred Roberson said.
Board President Susan Lovenburg felt the meeting was a positive overall.
“Everyone who attended the meeting received the presentation of data and weighed the pros and cons of the various strategies considered. They listened as their neighbors expressed their hopes and fears,” she said.
“Every person left that meeting better informed of the facts and with greater understanding of the diversity of views,” she added. “I can only believe that will build tolerance and a willingness to work together toward solutions.”
“To consider effective programs for all of our students, we need to look at the evidence and the likelihood of successful outcomes, and that’s what we asked our staff to do in the coming weeks,” Board Member Gina Daleiden told the Vanguard.
“We do not yet know if a form of dual immersion is the right program for our district, but we do know that there is a body of evidence ( with some indications of success) behind various models of this program, and so the Board directed staff to investigate dual immersion (different than full immersion) to better understand this option,” she added.
On Friday, Superintendent Winfred Roberson told the Vanguard that he does not believe there is a problem with prejudice at play here, though he was very critical of at least one comment made at last week’s meeting where a parent said that she told Spanish speakers to speak English while volunteering in her daughter’s classroom.
“The District’s position on that is that we don’t support it,” Dr. Roberson told the Vanguard. “Our job is to help students to transition and become proficient in English but we don’t tell students that they don’t speak Spanish because we teach Spanish in our schools – it’s one of our foreign languages.”
“I had a chance to talk to the principal about the comment to address that. We love our parent volunteers but we have protocols in what’s said towards our students,” he added.
Overall, he told the Vanguard he did not have data that would suggest prejudice.
“What I see are parents who are really being protective of their school, of their neighborhood program,” he said. “I don’t know what’s behind it -I just think it’s natural for parents to want to protect something that they’re familiar with.”
Board President Lovenburg told the Vanguard, “I was impressed by the mostly respectful dialogue.”
“These are difficult societal issues grappled with by communities all over the state and nation, and there are simply no easy answers. The inequities are more immediately apparent to the Montgomery community who live with them on a daily basis,” she said.
“The Pioneer community does not yet feel the same imperative. Their response is to resist changing what they view as a favorable environment for their children,” she added. “I have empathy for both school communities.”
Some of the demographic issues have to do with residential patterns within Davis. Many have noted the location of some of the affordable housing, a factor likely to be exacerbated with the development of the New Harmony affordable housing project in South Davis.
Winfred Roberson noted that that portion of Davis, adjacent to the Montgomery school, is one of the least expensive parts of the city.
There are a number of factors overall that have contributed to the trends that have emerged, including the choice and distribution of programs across the city.
“I can’t say that any one [factor] in particular would be the sole blame or cause of it, but there are multiple factors that have led to it,” he said.
Others have suggested that the district has created some of these problems through liberal transfer policies and school choice options, coupled with specialized programs that vary school to school.
“Choice has really been one of the hallmarks of Davis,” he said. “What we are looking at… is how they impact our program enrollments. I don’t have enough information right now to say this is the problem. But it’s something we’re looking at.”
Despite the troubles, Superintendent Roberson and the board believe that they are making progress to solve these concerns.
Board Member Gina Daleiden told the Vanguard, “A more thorough look hopefully will include some site visits and talking with experts, staff and parents in other school districts who have implemented a version of the program with both successes and challenges.”
She added, “If we’re serious about continuing to address the achievement gap, we have to look at the evidence, research and experience behind approaches. When we have this information, then it can be a fuller conversation with our parents and staff about options, and we can better evaluate the fit for DJUSD.”
She noted, “We also asked for some information about how we might expand the Spanish Immersion program at MME, what the benefits and impacts would be for the school site(s) and students, if it would preclude other options down the road, etc.”
“The final piece of Board direction was to ask the teachers at MME if they had additional requests for resources or ideas for program exploration,” Ms. Daleiden stated.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]On Friday, Superintendent Winfred Roberson told the Vanguard that he does not believe there is a problem with prejudice at play here, though he was very critical of at least one comment made at last week’s meeting where a parent said that she told Spanish speakers to speak English while volunteering in her daughter’s classroom.[/quote]
[quote]Overall, he told the Vanguard he did not have data that would suggest prejudice.[/quote]
In other words, no “white flight” as was suggested in a previous Vanguard article. Only a single parent who made the comment she wished all students would speak English in the classroom…
Elaine: You can interpret it however you want. My interpretation is that he wasn’t going to tell me nor was anyone on the school going to tell me if it was on the record.
Also have SEVERELY misrepresented what that person said. Severely.
“Many have noted the location of some of the affordable housing…”
Who are these “many”? What did they say and where did they say it? I’m skeptical since I don’t think we have much affordable housing stock in town, particularly in numbers to invade any particular school.
If anyone made such observations, they should be identified and questioned about the source of their impression. In no one really made such implied racist comments–let alone “many have noted…”–why toss it into this story?
“…at least one comment made at last week’s meeting where a parent said that she told Spanish speakers to speak English while volunteering in her daughter’s classroom.”
“AT LEAST one”–and what does this mean? Was it really eight or two or JUST one comment? Did the superintendent really suggest the was “very critical” of more than one comment or do you just think there must have been more?
What did he say to you that led you to the conclusion he was “very” critical of “at least one” comment. (The only comment shown here barely seems worthy of criticism as racism at all.)
This kind of writing and tone looks like an attempt to exaggerate the “racism in the school neighborhood” than the evidence would allow. I’d rather just wait for you to produce the tapes to justify the assumed racism charges you made last week about the meeting than to accept this odd and minimal innuendo.
JS: I suggest you read the first two articles and the comments.
At least one means that is the comment I chose to highlight since it is clear and unambiguous, there are others that concerned me.
Roberson said that the district did not support the view of the parent and that the principal was looking into the matter.
“Elaine: You can interpret it however you want. My interpretation is that he wasn’t going to tell me nor was anyone on the school going to tell me if it was on the record. Also have SEVERELY misrepresented what that person said. Severely.”
This might help point out the problem with your reporting on such subjects. You assume racism before you even see it. And assume that responsible people are lying to you about their considered evaluations because they conflict with your preconceived notions. Then, you justify your bias by suggesting that truth can’t show up In your “on the record” interviews.
Given that you refuse to directly quote either the parent’s supposedly offensive statement or the superintendent’s supposedly lying statement, you have provided little basis for readers to understand what really happened or to understand your own conclusions. And even less basis for you to criticize Elaine for “SEVERELY misrepresenting…severely” what “that person” said.
Wouldn’t it be better to find out what happened and evaluate it objectively BEFORE you write? Then, it would help your readers if you’d tell us WHY you conclude the worst by directly quoting people instead of characterizing their comments and by being up front about it when you don’t believe what they’ve said to you. How can you expect anyone to follow if so much of you think is disguised behind the words?
I’ve read the previous two “white flight” articles and don’t think they justify your conclusions about racism any more than this one does.
You’ve now provided a second interpretation of what the superintendent meant–why not just report what he really said and allow all of us to decide whether his judgement is accurate, whether he’s being truthful and whether he was referring to more than one offensive comment.
There’s nothing wrong with highlighting things for which you have some evidence–although you apparently don’t know what this parent really said anymore than Elaine does or anymore than anyone who wasn’t there to hear it does. It certainly doesn’t “clearly and unambiguously” show much of anything nefarious. How racist would it have been for a volunteer parent to encourage others to use English when helping students learn in that classroom? “Clear and unambigious,” indeed. Of what, do you think? Please!
“why not just report what he really said and allow all of us to decide whether his judgement is accurate”
I think that’s what I did
I think the Vanguardians are now expressing their opinion – they appear to disagree with David’s conclusions.
It seems that David has a story that he desperately wants to write, but he can’t yet find the facts to support his story. Don Shor provided some very informative statistics (or better yet, facts) that provide some context for the issue. Until David or someone else provides some facts that disprove Don’s, I don’t think there is much to talk about with respect to racism.
Much ado about nothing just like I said. Some people will go to any length to try and stir up the race pot.
While I agree that the factual information presented in these articles does not support such a dramatic claim as “white flight” I would like to present three examples of out right racism from when I lived in North Davis. The statements all came from caucasians with regard to neighborhood minorities living in affordable housing units.
1) one neighbor whose home was close to the North Star park referred to a minority family enjoying the park as “riff raff”
2) another neighbor informed me that my kids would not have to deal with “those people” if I got them into Gate
3) in a third instance when there was a party at one of the duplexes, yet another neighbor came over complaining that we wouldn’t be subjected to that kind of music if people of “that background ” weren’t in the neighborhood.
I remain ashamed that in none of these instances did I call out the neighbor in question with regard to their intolerance. I simply remained silent and avoided the obvious implication, and subsequently those particular neighbors.
While I do not believe that David has made a strong case in this instance, I think it is equally an error to believe that racism does not come into play in our community.
[quote]“why not just report what he really said and allow all of us to decide whether his judgement is accurate”
“I think that’s what I did”[/quote]I’m so dang sure that you understand exactly what I keep saying that I’m reluctant to try yet again. But, here goes….
When you directly quote the person you interview, you report what he “really says.” It requires the use of quotation marks.
When you indirectly quote the person, you report what you think he meant rather than what he said. It invites subjective additions to what really was said or meant, things like “he was very critical about at least one comment.” Usually, it wouldn’t make much difference–reporters are trained to be as objective in writing either type of quote.
Should you get the same assumption of fair and objective reporting as other reporters? I’m not sure you’ve earned it, the way you’ve covered this “white flight” story so far. It’s true that your account of the superintendent’s criticism might be accurate.
Since you didn’t have any trouble directly quoting others you interviewed and the superintendent on his other statements, there are three things that stand out here. His direct quotes seem to contradict your accounting of his criticism; you chose to characterize rather than directly quote his most significant comments; and the characterization just happened to support your two earlier unsupported stories about racism at the school.
[quote]“While I do not believe that David has made a strong case in this instance, I think it is equally an error to believe that racism does not come into play in our community.”[/quote] I half agree with you. I believe David has tried to make a strong case, but has made no case. I also believe that racism does “come into play in our community.” You’ve gave three personal examples and I could add dozens from my own UCD, sports and business experiences in Davis.
Of course, your comment suggests that people are making this error in this discussion (that “racism does not come into play in our community”). I don’t think I see it. What I see is fair argument made by people who think David should have some basis for his specific claims of racism and “white flight” in this specific issue. Instead he seems to be depending on the eternal truth you’ve noted to justify his unsupported claims.
JustSaying
I think we will have to disagree that some are not arguing against the existence of significant racism in our community.
From this thread, ” …
“Much ado about nothing just like I said. Some people will go to any length to try and stir up the race pot.”
Or from Jeff Boone on previous threads:
” …demonstrates the prevalent “false racism” problem of today”
And with regard to a comment made by Osahon Ekahator regarding police stops :
“Either he is lying about this or there were other reasons other than the fact he is a minority. My guess is it is a bit of both.”
So in other words, Jeff, without any direct knowledge of the incidents in question, is willing to call someone a liar rather than even consider the possibility of profiling.
I do think their is denial of racism by some in our community and that it is seen reflected in this discussion.
We will not disagree much if we’re limiting ourselves to this discussion, as I was trying to do. The one example you provide that fits the category (“Much ado about nothing…) also illustrates my point.
People who criticize David for hollering “racism” without justification in this case aren’t denying the existence of racism in Davis. Or even at this school. They’d just like people who call other people racist to deliver up the reasons why it applies in any given case. Most of the evidence that Don and others have offered about this school issue seems to prove that David’s charges lack credibility.
Jeff’s comment came from the previous post on the same topic of the Davis schools. I’ll stand by my statement.
A letter to the editor posted at Enterprise on 3/17/12 on the topic of Montgomery/south Davis: Educate all before kindergarten ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/letters/educate-all-before-kindergarten/[/url])
[i]I think we will have to disagree that some are not arguing against the existence of significant racism in our community.
[/i]
There have been very disturbing racial incidents in Davis over the years. That wasn’t the point. David Greenwald’s thesis was, apparently, that racism was a significant factor in the exodus of students from Montgomery elementary school, and that this was proven by the comments at the meeting and apparently in emails that he is seeking.
Don
Understood and agreed that this was not your point, and not that of some other contributors.
I also believe that there are a subset of contributors who, every time David posts the word ” race” in virtually any context, feel the need to assert their position that racism is not a factor here.
I think David owes the parents of South Davis an apology.
A few things that should satisfy no one.
First, I have said from the start that I await the emails. Under the public records act, an entity has ten days to provide them and I made the request only on Monday, March 12.
I am greatly frustrated between what people are willing to say personally to me versus what they are willing to say when the mic comes on or many who won’t say anything at all on the record.
At this point I have only a few comments that back up my initial belief that was based in part of representations made to me off the record. I stand by that belief.
I believe there is an underlying current of at least classism that permeates this discussion, but I don’t have that story of now. So until I do, I back off previous comments.
DMG: [i]I believe there is an underlying current of at least classism that permeates this discussion…[/i]
I think it’s more accurate to characterize the situation in terms of classism — classism that is based on income and educational level of the families. Clear racism is harder to pin down in this situation.
[quote]It seems that David has a story that he desperately wants to write, but he can’t yet find the facts to support his story. Don Shor provided some very informative statistics (or better yet, facts) that provide some context for the issue. Until David or someone else provides some facts that disprove Don’s, I don’t think there is much to talk about with respect to racism.[/quote]
Well said.
I do not deny for one second that racism exists in this day and age, and very well may be alive and well in Davis. However, that is beside the point in this context. The crux of the articles on this issue is the charge there is “white flight” from MME, with the term “white flight” having very definite and negative connotations. Nothing that dmg has produced so far back’s up his contention of “white flight”, period. The only thing that has been shown so far is that a few (perhaps only one) disgruntled parents made some unfortunate comments at a school board meeting that could have been interpreted as racist. I agree with JustSaying, that a comment indicating a preference that English be spoken in the classroom is hardly grounds for charging racism. Even if the statement was slightly different and a bit more incendiary, or a few others actually did make racist statements (which I do not yet concede bc there is no proof thus far), it is unfair to tar all South Davis as being racist, which is what these articles seem to be doing with the overbroad claim of “white flight”.
[quote]I believe there is an underlying current of at least classism that permeates this discussion, but I don’t have that story of now. So until I do, I back off previous comments.[/quote]
Which is it that you want to tar all of South Davis with, “classism” or “racism”? I doubt either fits as a broad brush generalization…
[quote]I am greatly frustrated between what people are willing to say personally to me versus what they are willing to say when the mic comes on or many who won’t say anything at all on the record. [/quote]
Which are more RELIABLE, comments made on or off the record?
Elaine: I don’t believe all of south Davis should be labeled as anything.
Which is more reliable? That’s a much more interesting question than you perhaps intended. On the one hand, the comments off-the-record tend to be more candid and the ones on the record are concerned about politeness and appearance. That leans me toward off-the-record being more accurate. On the other hand, people will tend to say what they can completely back up with facts on the record and they may be more inclined to speculate off the record.
In this case, I thought the off the record comments were more accurate while the on the record comments, some of which I did not use were politically nuanced and sanitized because they did not want to be incendiary.
It will come down to what I get in the emails.
[quote]“On the one hand, the comments off-the-record tend to be more candid and the ones on the record are concerned about politeness and appearance. That leans me toward off-the-record being more accurate. On the other hand, people will tend to say what they can completely back up with facts on the record and they may be more inclined to speculate off the record.”[/quote]People who tell you stuff “off the record” and refuse to be accountable for what they say just don’t deserve your “more accurate” label. If you don’t care about the [i]Vanguard'[/i]s credibility, these people are perfect sources for provocative stories that have little basis in fact.
If you insist on continuing this questionable use of off-the-record “evidence,” how about agreeing to some basic rules to minimize getting suckered in by people who don’t mind misleading you to benefit their own agenda’s benefit (like [u]any[/u] politician, for example, or anyone with an axe to grind)?
First, find and report evidence that backs up their off-the-record tips rather than basing stories and conclusions on such comments. Then, find at least one person with the courage to say the same thing for the record.
Third, identify nonspecifically the person and the rationale for not identifying the off-the-record commenter. (Almost every legitimate outfit does this now, to minimize misuse of such commits.) Avoid, at least, anything that attributes off-the-record statements to a gaggle (“Many say….) without providing on-the-record examples.
Most important, don’t allow a liberal off-the-record policy to lead to using manufactured quotes.
[quote]If you insist on continuing this questionable use of off-the-record “evidence,” how about agreeing to some basic rules to minimize getting suckered in by people who don’t mind misleading you to benefit their own agenda’s benefit (like any politician, for example, or anyone with an axe to grind)?
First, find and report evidence that backs up their off-the-record tips rather than basing stories and conclusions on such comments. Then, find at least one person with the courage to say the same thing for the record.
Third, identify nonspecifically the person and the rationale for not identifying the off-the-record commenter. (Almost every legitimate outfit does this now, to minimize misuse of such commits.) Avoid, at least, anything that attributes off-the-record statements to a gaggle (“Many say….) without providing on-the-record examples.
Most important, don’t allow a liberal off-the-record policy to lead to using manufactured quotes.[/quote]
Very well said!
[quote]“It will come down to what I get in the emails.”[/quote]But, will it.? Have you not poisoned the discussion by jumping to conclusions before you had any evidence? Even if you can glean out a dozen unquestionably racist statements from the meeting tapes, does that prove racist “white flight” in the face of other facts (like Don’s) that you should have considered before you made the charge?
Whatever the tapes reveal, the cause-effect connection questions will lead to more discussion like the stuff that troubles medwoman:[quote]“I also believe that there are a subset of contributors who, every time David posts the word ” race” in virtually any context, feel the need to assert their position that racism is not a factor here.”[/quote]I hope you’ll sort out those who simply are calling out David for asserting racism without adequate reason before you label everyone who protests.[quote]“I believe there is an underlying current of at least classism that permeates this discussion, but I don’t have that story of now. So until I do, I back off previous comments.”[/quote]Good for you, David. This is almost as admirable as the Ira Glass/This American Life episode Friday.[url]http://allthingsd.com/20120318/the-failures-and-fallacies-of-mike-daiseys-apple-attack-and-the-media/[/url] (/the-failures-and-fallacies-of-mike-daiseys-apple-attack-and-the-media/)
Of course, then we might be arguing about “poor white trash” and whether there’s really much difference between racism and classism….
[quote]Elaine: I don’t believe all of south Davis should be labeled as anything. [/quote]
YOUR WORDS:
[quote]That poll makes it very clear what this is about. The 1970s are apparently not over. We know what this is about, the affluent white families of South Davis apparently do not want their kids to go to school with Latinos and other lower SES Students.[/quote]
[quote]But, will it.? Have you not poisoned the discussion by jumping to conclusions before you had any evidence? Even if you can glean out a dozen unquestionably racist statements from the meeting tapes, does that prove racist “white flight” in the face of other facts (like Don’s) that you should have considered before you made the charge? [/quote]
Well said!
I think stronger indications of some so-called ‘racist’ sentiment in Davis could be presented than what Greenwald alludes to here; however I would propose that much of what is called ‘racism’ could be more accurately labeled ‘culturalism’ , e.g. medwoman’s examples above.
Yes there is a very small fraction of all races who hold strong views that would fit under the definition of ‘racist’.
In my experience, there are a far larger fraction of people who are strongly biased in favor of their own culture; sometimes these people are labeled racists. In my experience, most people don’t care that much about what race somebody is; they are much more concerned about their behavour, the sum total of which is generally culturally conditioned to a large degree. Of course David is right, there is a small fraction of people who are hung up on race and prejudiced against other races.
One advantage of framing the dialogue in terms of race rather than culture is that it guarantees perpetuity of conflicts, misunderstandings, and disagreements; after all one does not have the power to change their race; however they do have the power to adapt and integrate within different cultures (usually it is wise to be able to fit within the majority culture; something I would certainly endeavor to do if I moved out of the USA)
To jimt: Well said!
The Mexicans don’t want to be part of the school culture, they want to change it. they are pro Mexico, not pro US. The majority of the parents don’t care about their kid’s education (look at the test scores). There is more bullying now and other issues. More $$$ is needed to teach them English. So now we have fewer teachers and the rest are piled into classes like sardines. Surprised that you completely ruined a great school? And don’t mention racist or classism. I wouldn’t care if the people were Mexican or Irish. I think others feel the same way, and we have the right to be protective.