After lengthy discussion by the school board in the face of parent complaints on the elimination of the North Davis AIM strand, the board voted 3-2 to put 66 incoming AIM qualified fourth-graders at Willet and Pioneer next fall on a potential waitlist or with an option of increasing class size or starting multi-grade classes. President Madhavi Sunder and board member Alan Fernandes voted to oppose.
A motion put forward by President Madhavi Sunder and board member Alan Fernandes was withdrawn when Mr. Fernandes realized they did not have a third vote.
The motion put forward by Ms. Sunder and Mr. Fernandes said, “Continue a third AIM strand for the 2016-17 school year, to accommodate those students who meet the qualifications of the AIM program. The class size for AIM strands shall be comparable to the average class size for that grade level and remaining seats, if any, shall be filled as an inclusion classroom with a preference toward high ability students.”
It would also: “Direct staff to reassess students who are English learners, low income, learning disabled, or from historically disadvantaged minorities, for the purpose of ensuring the identification for these at risk student groups to ensure equal access to the AIM program in the 2016-17 school year.”
The nearly four-hour discussion featured numerous parents frustrated at the lack of communication by the school district, and at times contentious debate between board members. Ultimately, the board majority continued with the path forward that some believe will result in the ultimate end to self-contained AIM, especially once the district transitions to the 98th percentile cut off for next year’s AIM qualification cut off.
Madhavi Sunder said that “the most important thing in this district, in fact many of the people on this board ran on the issue of trust as the preeminent issue with respect to our relationship with families and parents in keeping that trust.” She said, “Process and being clear about the rules and honoring that process in a transition year when we have lost key staff and personnel and made a lot of changes, that seems to be important.”
She quoted former Superintendent Winfred Roberson, “We move at the speed of trust.”
Ms. Sunder also pointed out the number of students retested using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. When challenged as to whether this was on-topic, she stated, “I do not feel that our identification process is complete yet. I believe that there are students that we have not given fair opportunity to see whether or not they actually have gifted potential.”
She believes that the Naglieri, and other new tests they used, have “failed.” She said we need to make sure we are giving fair access to English-Language Learners, low income students, learning disabled students, and racial minorities “that we know are often unfairly disadvantaged on the OLSAT [Otis-Lennon School Ability Test].” She said they retested these groups “and we failed to identify almost any.”
Board Member Susan Lovenburg stated that this is off-topic for this discussion, but added, “I don’t agree that the process that the board put in place is a failure. It functioned as it was intended to and if not, we need to make changes going forward.”
Tom Adams stated, “The use of the TONI [Test of Nonverbal Intelligence] before was not appropriate – it’s a test intended for English Learners (and) we were using it as a second test for a lot of groups for whom it’s really not intended.”
Barbara Archer responded, “I would add, do you know how many African-American third-graders there are?… So if there were two and we identified one, how could you call that a failure?” She added, “I don’t think we have the number to say (it’s a failure).”
Ms. Archer would later add, “I do agree with President Sunder that we have to address this year, but I really object to calling our program a failure when you don’t know the percentages of third graders in the different minority groups.”
Madhavi Sunder said they already have some numbers and “we are three percent African American in this district and the number that is identified is zero percent.” She pointed out that there was only a three percent success rate on the Naglieri and a 32 percent success rate for the CogAT (Cognitive Abilities Test).
“That was the test (CogAT) that we gave to more advantaged students,” she argued. “What upsets me is that we gave the disadvantaged students a much harder to succeed on test.” In the past, they were given the TONI which had a 14.6 percent success rate. “We didn’t give the TONI to a single low income student this year.”
While Tom Adams and Barbara Archer argued that TONI was to be used only for English-learners, Ms. Sunder pointed out that the makers of the test disagree and believe TONI should be used more generally for disadvantaged children who often lack the language skills of their more advantaged counterparts.
Following public comment, Alan Fernandes said he “wouldn’t call it a failure,” but “I would also not say it’s a total success.” He argued the need to continually work through a problem. “I actually don’t believe you are hearing much difference from us all,” he said, arguing that everyone wants to best serve every child in the district.
He added, “As a representative of the district, I want to apologize – what I want to apologize for is just the lack of clarity. I’m not going to say misinformation and mistrust.” He argued that, at a minimum, “there was some confusion” as to what the district promised in terms of the number of AIM strands and where they would be housed.
Barbara Archer said, “I think this is a transition year… I think that obviously there were some clarity issues.” She said she wants to “honor all the placements on the wait list, however, for me, I think that equity and fiscal responsibility come to play.” She said, “I can’t conscionably run an 18 kid strand at Pioneer or a 20 kid strand Willet and then hear a story about a neighborhood student who has 32 kids in her class.”
She sees the way forward as elevating the class sizes at the two strands, and by offering a combo 4th-5th grade class as well.
Ms. Archer added that she did not think this would go to two strands, “but I didn’t have the numbers – none of us did.”
After Madhavi Sunder and Alan Fernandes introduced their motion, Barbara Archer argued, “I don’t think you need a third strand, I think you can accommodate the numbers by means I had spoken about.”
Following some discussion, Ms. Archer stated, “I can’t support (Motion Sections) 1 or 2, I’m sorry.”
Tom Adams said that the main point is not whether or not to have three strands but rather “to accommodate those students who meet the qualifications of the AIM program.” He was opposed to the part that stated, “The class size for AIM strands shall be comparable to the average class size for that grade level and remaining seats, if any, shall be filled as an inclusion classroom with a preference toward high ability students.”
To him, this created a selection issue, “I just think it’s kind of divisive.”
Susan Lovenburg said that they entered into this reform of the AIM with a 5-0 vote and she wants to maintain that. She said, “I actually don’t see how this differs from what we were doing when (we) implemented reforms.”
She said that this motion takes us back to combining the truly gifted with high achieving students and “adding some squishy assessments to make sure that the demographic matched the demographic of the district as a whole. That really seems to be what this is – that may not have been what was intended.”
Ms. Lovenburg pointed out that the researchers from UC Davis studied “this program, our students, our children, and it showed that this model did not have a positive benefit for our students and it did not have a serious negative consequence.”
Madhavi Sunder stated in response to a comment as to whether staff should be spending their time on this as opposed to working on the achievement gap, “This is the achievement gap. It so crucial to close the achievement gap when you identify low income, English language learners, students whose parents did not have a college education and they are high potential, they’re doing well in school… to give them, this kind of a class – that is what is going to benefit them.”
Barbara Archer said, “You can’t keep retesting them until you get the results that you want.”
Ms. Sunder responded, “It’s not about retesting them, we have the data available if this board directs the staff to say can you look at their grades. When we are talking about the most at-risk students in this district, that the state tells us we need to keep a sharp eye on to make sure we are meeting their needs equitably, giving them the same fair chance to access every program as possible – if we as a board care about the achievement gap, we would be directing the staff right now saying we don’t need to retest these kids, we have the data…”
On the immediate issue for the night, Barbara Archer reiterated that she is not comfortable running a low class number and pointed out that they had no idea how many will come in the next year.
Ms. Lovenburg proposed placing all the fourth grader AIM classes at Willett and Pioneer, while offering spots for all AIM students with no lottery or wait list. They would resolve the issue through increasing class size or multi-grade classes.
Ms. Sunder continued to believe that offering two strands rather than four would serve to “cut self-contained AIM down to half the size.” She pointed out that this would occur without the board voting on such as reduction and this was in advance of the raising of the threshold.
At this point, Ms. Sunder believes that we are looking at a one-strand program.
However, that is not how the board majority saw it and they approved Ms. Lovenburg’s motion 3-2, with Ms. Sunder and Mr. Fernandes dissenting.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Time for the public to decide what they think of the school board’s latest decisions… and act accordingly.
I agree. The choices are (in no order of preference and not mutually exclusive): 1. do nothing, 2. initiate and win recall elections on the three incumbents, 3. elect better board members with or without the recall, 4. take students out of a failing system and band together to start a new one (charter school, etc.), 5. take students out of a failing system and switch to existing private schools (too expensive for most), 6. vote down the parcel tax and build anew in the subsequent chaos and hand-wringing, 7. move out of Davis to a community that more higher values quality education and honest board members (too expensive for most), 8. pray (not proven effective in controlled experiments).
[moderator] edited. No name calling, please
My plan is to vote no on any parcel tax while Archer is on the board due to he lack of ethics and work to put Lovenberg out to pasture. She should go since she no longer has children in the schools. My preference is for board members to have children in the district schools.
zaqzaq,
I’m strongly tempted to join you in voting no on any parcel tax as long as Archer is on the board, but I was also persuaded to reconsider by Poppenga’s recent article arguing in favor of supporting the tax renewal. So, I suppose the question is, can the parcel tax achieve good for our kids despite Archer’s best efforts to do the opposite, or is a vote in favor simply speeding the demise of quality education?
On the one hand, listening to Archer speak is revolting; on the other hand, I’m encouraged to see the announcement that Poppenga is running for election to the board.
Further thought required, I suppose. . . but clearly the status quo must not endure.
zaqzaq: My plan is to vote no on any parcel tax…
Here are results of a recent survey commissioned to evaluate community support for a November parcel tax. Care to guess what percent of folks like yourself opposed the parcel tax in this poll for reasons of dissatisfaction with the school board majority or the decision on AIM/GATE policy?
“This is the achievement gap. It so crucial to close the achievement gap when you identify low income, English language learners, students whose parents did not have a college education and they are high potential, they’re doing well in school… to give them, this kind of a class – that is what is going to benefit them.”
This is confusing to me. I thought that AIM was for students who were not doing well in the traditional classroom. If we are talking about students who are already doing well in school, why would this be an argument for additional spots in AIM ?
“. I thought that AIM was for students who were not doing well in the traditional classroom.”
AIM has never simply been for students not doing well in the traditional classroom. Roberson said last fall they couldn’t distinguish between gifted and high achiever with their testing.
IMO, you missed the question, David… many gifted children do quite well in the regular classroom… they tend to be both gifted, and high achievers… the litmus test for those who need ‘special’ attention are those who have the intellect, but (for many reasons, including negative peer pressure) UNDER-perform, in relation to their potential… special ed, however it is labelled, is for those who do not thrive in the “one size fits all” environment. They are “wired” differently, as to learning modes… those are the ones that desperately need our attention, and support… GATE/AIM should not be viewed as an exclusive ‘country-club’.
This is why I strongly support the program, yet equally strongly question how it has been carried out.
The poster you responded to was “spot-on” as to the main issue. You deflected.
Why do you believe that giftedness isn’t normally distributed within all populations?
Oops, responded to the wrong post.
Good answer, David. S. Lovenburg told me personally that she always has felt the AIM program should only be for the gifted students that can’t do well in the traditional classroom. The question has been posed and remains unaddressed, how does anyone tell whether a gifted student is thriving since even those with many factors that would mask giftedness will do well in a traditional classroom, depending on how little is asked of them. What does doing well mean to Lovenburg? — working at grade level? All students need work that moves them forward at their rate, not at whatever rate Lovenburg thinks is sufficiently rapid for the likes of THEM. If your student starts making intentional mistakes in math to be seated with the rest of the class and not off in the corner in a table “group” of one, is this a kid who is doing just fine ?
The best thing about AIM classes is that no matter how good a student is in one or many subjects, there will always be someone else who is better at something else. That’s why there is just as much need for differentiation in an AIM/GATE class as in an average class. But to hpierce below, there is a way of telling which gifted children are not doing well academically in a non-GATE classroom: ask THEM. The third grader in my life asked me, “They can’t spell ‘they’re’ there! What am I going to do for the rest of the year?” I suggest it’s well within their role as trustees for the holy troika to get out there and meet a few. But would it be worth the children’s time?
Her comment quoted was actually in direct response to a challenge from Barbara Archer. Something to the effect of “But what about the achievement gap?” To which Madhavi Sunder replied (emphasis added), “This is the achievement gap.”
Do you agree with/support Sunder’s reply, Don, or just clarifying?
“Achievement gap” depends on many factors… including the most basic… we all have our limitations… for whatever reason… some of those reasons we can address as a society… we cannot address them all…
Will bet that 10 years from now, folk will be pointing to the ‘achievement gap’ between kids growing up in Flint, MI and the rest of the kids in MI. They’ll probably ignore ingestion of lead, and point instead to racial or socio-economic biases.
It seems to me that Sunders assertions should go through some sort of peer review before we abandon the use of tests for admission into the self-contained GATE classrooms. For it to be a transparent and fair process, specific conditions would need to be met before testing can be completely bypassed. Sunder’s directions are vague – low income, non-educated parents, English learner, academic excellence – is it one or a combination of all of these? I agree that if the testing doesn’t appear to match a student’s demonstrated exceptional academic performance, then there must be a way to admit these students as an exception to policy, but these students should stick out as an anomally and not require testing over and over and over to identify them. I am not convinced the the district should use GATE as a solution to the achievement gap. We’ve had a very large GATE population for many years, with a very generous selection system of at risk students and the achievement gap has not budged. Sunder’s advocacy for at risk students is laudable, but her proposal regarding GATE needs a closer look.
What I think you’re saying is that staff needs to take a closer look at her expressed concerns and see if there is anything to them and whether they are using the correct tests. I’m troubled frankly by the decision to use the Naglieri when it appears from experience in the New York schools not to have increased the number of low SES kids in the gifted program.
Are you saying that SES kids are the same as all others as to gifted educational needs? Evidence? I recognize that there is a statistical possibility, given the limits of our evaluation methods, that perhaps ONLY SES kids should be eligible for GATE/AIM… I also believe the ONLY possibility is extremely low. Are you looking for “affirmative action” which was often construed to imply that every ‘classification’ of person was equally represented in everything, and if not, the system was unfair and/or biased?
Then if you believe in that, perhaps we should ‘mitigate’ by excluding the “privileged” folk until any less so were not only served, but over-served.
I still believe, regardless of ethnic/social/economic/gender/whatever status, a child who comes into our school system deserves to be served well, based on their needs and abilities/limitations. I reject race/gender/socio-economic factors as a good litmus test.
I also note that the most of the GATE/AIM proponents (I’m an exception), don’t seem to give a damn about students on the OTHER end of the bell curve. They are people, too. We need to focus on serving ALL, as best we can
“Are you saying that SES kids are the same as all others as to gifted educational needs?”
Why would you expect them not to be?
Why would you expect them to be? Why not even more likely?
Another inane deflection to the issues, David… between your and other’s manner of deflecting questions, or requests for documentation of the reason you posit a ‘fact’, by asking loaded questions… well, perhaps it’s time for some to be more adult.
Can only come to the conclusion that by any metric, including but not limited to race, gender, political leanings, social-economic status, gender identification, physical disability, mental-illness, BMI, you believe that unless every conceivable ‘group’ is equally identified, there is ‘obviously’ bias and/or discrimination. I just can’t get there, particularly in the limited population of students served by DJUSD… am pretty sure you’ll respond with a question…
“I also note that the most of the GATE/AIM proponents (I’m an exception), don’t seem to give a damn about students on the OTHER end of the bell curve. They are people, too. We need to focus on serving ALL, as best we can”
This is not true. Most parents also care about other end of the spectrum. There are many existing and ongoing programs to elevate these kids at least in our school.
In our daughter’s class – some kids go for a special math class; some go to English reading class. The kids in her classroom are divided into 3-4 groups. According our daughter, her teacher does spend quite a bit of time teaching kids who are in the other end of the spectrum.
But do you see any issue(s) with this? If a teacher spends more time brining these kids up to speed – then the kids in the higher end will get bored. Striking a balance is important; but this is easier said than done considering there is only so much time per day in the classroom. If teacher spends one hour per day for math – how do you advice the teacher to allocate time for different group of students. Often, in these classes the kids teach other kids or at least help kids who are lagging behind. Yes, this is a great way to improve all kids. Then, what will kids in higher end of the spectrum gain by going to school?
David, Yes, that is what I am saying. Sunder’s assertion that we could solve the achievement gap if only we could increase the students of color participating in GATE seems unproven with our decades of historical data and experience. Her concern seems to be that we are not identifying gifted students of color because of unconscious bias or the design of or the choice of the testing tools used determine giftedness and for these at risk students we should bypass the testing process altogether. Evidence of this should be investigated clearly, especially if the student’s exceptional academic performance is not reflected in the test scores. A judgement call may need to be made to place an exceptional student in GATE, regardless of test scores. However, if a merely thriving and successful student fails to qualify, even after repeated testing, maybe the best place for that student is right where they are already.
It seems that her concern is that low SES and others don’t have the same access to this program than others do. That would seem a realistic concern.
She has not made the “assertion” that we “could solve the achievement gap.” She suggested this, based on recent research, as one possible way to enhance outcomes.
This is not even remotely what she said.
The proposal was to fill out the classes with students, already tested, from the high-risk groups. The assessment committee would review the students, and the principals would make the call.
On what basis would the students be selected? Sunder’s directions seemed vague. Is it just students of color that would be selected, skipping over white and Asian students with higher test scores? Before we do that, I believe the reasoning for that stategy needs some kind of review based on actual evidence that the testing process is giving false results for low SES and students of color and that these children have the attributes of giftedness and placement in GATE is appropriate. It brings into question all of the test results. Are we really identifying giftedness – exceptional students, or have we only identified bright students who are good at taking tests from an affluent, educated, privileged environment. If that is Sunder’s concern, then that is a realistic concern.
The headline “School Board Doesn’t Increase Number of AIM Strands” could easily have been “Board Majority Votes to Place All AIM Qualified Students in AIM Classrooms With No Lottery”.
That is correct ABC that headline would have worked but so would this one:
A diverse group of parents ask for one more section to be filled by underrepresented minorities. Mostly white school board refuses, holds the line citing costs.
By almost all definitions, the entire board is “white”…
Madhavi Sunder says hi
Checking the US census site, I stand corrected. I know a number of years ago that folk descended from Indian/Pakistani roots were classified as “white/caucasian”… the current definition considers those folk “asian”.
Definitions change, and I missed that change… didn’t get the memo…
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html
Unlike some posters here, I admit my errors of fact, more often than not.
I think the problem with your title, ABC, is that it doesn’t identify context for the ultimate vote.
From an earlier letter signed by a group of parents, it appeared that their primary complaint was that their AIM identified student might not be admitted to AIM because of the limited slots in 2 classes. It seams that issue was addressed in the vote to admit all of the AIM identified students without a lottery (but was lost in the title and all but lost in the article).
That was one group, and I believe you are correct…
However, there are other strident voices, be they parents or not, who won’t even be close to being satisfied (apparently), until, at a MINIMUM, that all genders/races/cultural groups/social-economic groups are equally or greater represented than the DJUSD population %-ages for those groups. Regardless of “evidence-based” criteria.
Somehow, I don’t think they’d object to 3-4 stands, with no “privileged white males” in the mix.
Need (those who learn differently, and don’t thrive in a ‘regular’ class) should be the driver, and we need to serve those children regardless of other superficial criteria.
Unfortunately, “all AIM qualified students” have not been placed “in AIM classrooms with no lottery.” There are plenty of kids in upper grades who were assigned low lottery numbers, and remain languishing in classrooms where their educational needs remain unmet.
Apologies, I was referring to the new class of soon to be fourth graders. To your point, I’ve met some of those bright students lotteried out of AIM in prior years and would not describe their current school needs as unmet or that they were/are languishing in their classrooms (though their parents were/are very upset with their child being lotteried out). That being said, it’s possible that some lotteried out children truly were/are disserviced by not being placed into a special education classroom. As such, it seems good that the last board vote addresses the issue for future classes by eliminating the lottery (at least for this next year). It’s too bad that it was not a unanimous vote.
Another headline could easily have been “Board Majority Further Implements Deceptive Plan Intended to Dismantle AIM Program.”
I think that the most important observation from the last board meeting is that Fernandez seems to have broken with the three stooges on the AIM issue.
[moderator] no name calling, please.
Could be that the tide is turning. We will see in November. What was interesting about public comment was the overwhelming support for three sites while the stay the course contingent was reduced to three die hard and dogged opponents, none of whom had a child whose placement was currently in question.
If you have been following the gate issue closely since the current majority placed gate on the agenda without first consulting Sunder or discussing it as a priority at their first retreat early last year you would see a shift in who has turned out at the meetings. Early on the anti-gate faction packed the audience but it seems that ever since their numbers have declined while the pro-gate faction has continued to challenge every decision. Sometimes they did so with good arguments, sometimes not, but they have relentlessly turned out and not let the issue die.
Now it could be that the anti-gate faction represents a silent majority who feel that with their majority firmly in control they don’t need to turn out. But as the issue has dragged on, with countless hours of public testimony, the absence of many supporters for the majority makes it seem that they aren’t being responsive to people they are supposed to represent.
When 20 or 30 people speak on an issue and only three argue to stay the course while the overwhelming majority of speakers is asking the board to make a different choice and that majority of speakers includes many who never turn out, with some saying they have never spoken publicly at a board meeting before, it makes staying the course extremely difficult for the majority. When Lovenburg said “Its too painful” I have no doubt she was saying what Archer and Adams must also have been feeling. Yet they remain locked into their position despite evidence that doing what Fernandes and Sunder proposed was the path that a majority of those who turned out wanted and, I believe, on the merits, was the correct path forward.
Further, having watched this debate go on for many years since first becoming aware of it when Marty West was on the board back around the turn of the century, I can’t help but notice the racial divide that infuses this debate. This was pretty stark and on full display the other night when a relatively large and diverse group of parents asked for a third section. They were opposed by three white people whose position was backed up by three more white people on the board. This racial divide was made more apparent when this same board majority refused to accept the solution Fernandes and Sunder suggested, to fill a third section with underrepresented racial classes of students who tested at the margin. Students that I doubt anyone feels could not be successful if they were admitted to the program, while in fact, the evidence supports that admitting them would actually help them thrive.
Now I’m sure that since I have injected race into the discussion arguments of the affirmative action type will follow as they have in response to my imagined alternative headline above. Yet whatever position you want to take the facts, as I observed them, are not in debate. An all white board majority supported by three white speakers turned down a request by a much larger and diverse group of speakers who asked for a third section to be filled with underrepresented minorities who tested near the margin.
What I observed really bothers me and leaves me shaken by the racial implications of what this says about the state of representative democracy in Davis today.
Misanthrop,
Important analysis. Thanks for the clear, factual commentary.
Raising the requirements makes this strand problem an easy fix. If the 98 percent threshold had been in place this year a total of 46 students would have qualified. All we have to do is fill in the additional slots via lottery with students who qualified with a 97. That way, everyone knows going in that we will have two strands and how many students will be admitted.
As for the ethnic balance according to the results released by the district, if the threshold had been raised to 98 this year, only 12 white kids would be in AIM this year. That’s 26 fewer white kids than the number that qualified with a 96 percent threshold. Only 30 Asians would qualify. Thats 8 fewer Asians. Latinos would drop by one from 4 to 3. Blacks would drop from 1 to zero.
The biggest changes that will occur if the threshold goes up to 98 is that AIM will be more Asian and less Caucasian. The other changes are that no one is now able to game the system by using their resources to gain an advantage by retesting their kids (a practice that has traditionally helped the children of wealthier parents.) Another change is that we also no longer have an AIM coordinator who just “coincidentally” happens to identify the exact number of ethnic minorities necessary to exactly match the district’s demographics down to a number of decimal places.
The racial statistics aren’t very accurate anyway. Lots of the kids in AIM are half Asian and they may be being counted as Asian even though they could just as well have been counted as being White, or Latino, or whatever.
My son’s AIM class has two students in it who happen to be half Chinese and half Mexican. If you disregard half of their ethnic makeup when compiling the statistics, you don’t really get an accurate picture of who is in the class.
So by making AIM tougher to get into, you solve a lot of problems. The top scorers are guaranteed a spot and the remaining spots are filled by lottery from the very next percentile group. Folks who were complaining about watering down the program no longer have a leg to stand on and the folks who claim that the selection process isn’t fair don’t either. And if this year’s test scores are any indication, underrepresented minority representation won’t be unduly affected by moving up to the 98 percent threshold.
I would also suggest moving all AIM strands to Montgomery. That would make it easier for Latino students from Montgomery who qualify to participate without having to change schools, something which poses a problem especially if they are also of lower SES. It would also help integrate Montgomery, raise their test scores and expose the AIM students to a more diverse environment than they would see where the strands are currently placed. It might also make the parents of students who qualify but don’t really need AIM think twice about taking up a slot that they don’t really need. If they really think their student needs to be in AIM, they Should be willing to relocate the same way students from Montgomery have been relocated to Pioneer and other schools for years so they could participate in AIM.