Questions from the Press, Thursday, October 12, 2023.

On Saturday, October 7, Sonoma Valley Unified conducted a study session of its special education programs.  I received questions, per usual practice, from the Press Democrat/Sonoma Index-Tribune. Answers are below. 

I've uploaded the pdf of the presentation, because I think this is something the public should be able to review over time. There's handwriting from me on the document, noting that the parent surveys only reach parents whose children are receiving services, which I compared to searching only under streetlights for lost keys. We need to hear from parents whose children aren't receiving services, but should. 

Further, I wrote "insular minor," a reference to footnote 4 of Carolene Products. (United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938) 304 U.S. 144 [58 S. Ct. 778; 82 L. Ed. 1234].) That footnote points out that "discrete and insular minorities" that cannot expect the normal protections of the political process deserve a heightened standard of review. In Sonoma Valley, while 2/3rds of our students are Latinx, 2/3rds of our voters are white, the type of situation I think contemplated by the court in that case. 

Photo this time is of Margie at a recent soccer practice. Without further ado: 

1-5. (answered together): Why was the meeting important? What do you feel were the main findings presented? What are some of the problems the district is having in addressing the needs of special education students? What are some specific steps that need to be taken?

Sonoma Valley Unified consistently directs Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions (which Special Education is a part of) towards white students at double (Speech/Language Impairment) to nearly triple the rate (Specific Learning Disability) it does for Latinx students. This is a wildly disproportionate allocation of resources, suggesting that Sonoma Valley's structural racial discrimination problem is being replicated in the administration of its special education program. I believe this is almost certainly due to under-identification of Latinx students; I am not persuaded there is any "over-identification" of white students.

 

Our District needs to identify those students who SVUSD should have known require services (our "child-find" obligation). The existing data suggests that we are failing to pinpoint at least 50 Latinx students who require Tier 2 and Tier 3 support. If the prevalence of Speech/Language Impairment and Specific Learning Disabilities is akin to that in our White population, the number in our Latinx community could reach as high as 350 missed students. Based on my experience reviewing student disciplinary files as a trustee over the past seven years, which is often where the unidentified students are revealed, I estimate that the actual figure is likely between the two numbers, probably around 170-190 students, equating to approximately 10-15 students per grade.

 

To provide those services, Sonoma Valley Unified should fully implement Universal Design for Learning ("UDL") strategies. These form the cornerstone of our multi-tiered systems of support ("MTSS"). Our Tier 1, our general education program, serves as the initial instructional approach and is expected to address the needs of approximately 85% of students. Our Tier 2 supports, partly administered by our special education department, are designed to support roughly 10%, whereas the remaining 5% should be obtaining Tier 3 support.

 

Overally, Sonoma Valley Unified is a wealthy basic aid school district that nonetheless exhibits poor performance across a range of measures. This situation is unusual, considering that rich districts like Sonoma Valley make up only about 9-10% of the approximately 1100 districts in the State, and are anecdotally known for their good results. Likely, the persistent poor performance despite ample resources is linked to how many students are not receiving the services they deserve. I believe this has probably led to behavioral issues that fester over time, as students are not being educated in a fashion consistent with their rights under the law.  

 

Further, the situation has been exacerbated by a footprint that is too large for the current student population, which has declined nearly 35% in the past decade. Realignment is urgently needed to focus resources on our at-need students. Spreading out Tier 1 implementation across too many sites, while not effectively supporting any of them, robs Tier 2 and Tier 3 of the resources to identify and serve students who are at need.

6. Would you like to say anything else?

On a personal note, I had a very hard time reviewing this information, and anyone who would like to view the Youtube video of our meeting is welcome to go and see that. I do not apologize for my emotional reaction. This is a situation that should shock our consciences. We all should be upset, together, to see that this situation has been allowed to develop, and to continue, for so long. Only concerted action will begin to address the situation and right the wrongs that have persisted without remediation, which will take action by the entire community. 

Questions from the Press, April 15, 2023.

Today, Sonoma Valley Unified's board held a meeting to discuss its Superintendent search. Because I generally get questions shortly after meetings from the Sonoma Index-Tribune and the Sonoma Valley Sun, I took the time during the session to write down what I thought happpened, and my meeting notes are below. Also, the photograph included is of my daughter Siena, a lacrosse player for Sonoma Valley High School, of whom I am very proud. 

---

The public portion of the meeting concerned the findings in the Leadership Profile Assessment conducted by Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates (HYA) for the Superintendent position. The data was collected from virtual interviews, focus groups, and an online survey involving various stakeholder groups, conducted between March 10, 2023, and April 7, 2023. The purpose of this assessment was to assist the Board in determining the desired characteristics in the new superintendent, as well as to identify the district's strengths and upcoming challenges.

Participation in the data gathering process included a diverse range of stakeholders, with 621 respondents to the online survey, which was offered in both English and Spanish. Parents and support staff were well represented, with 325 individual responses. Sonoma Valley Unified School District's strengths include community partnerships, a value for diversity and inclusion, and talented, dedicated staff. Challenges and concerns facing the district include a pervasive sense of mistrust towards the district, a high rate of superintendent turnover, a need for improved governance practices, and addressing student mental health needs.

The focus group meetings allowed participants to build upon each other's comments and respond to questions regarding stakeholder values, current and future challenges, and desired characteristics in a new superintendent. The search team thanked all the participants and the SVUSD staff for their assistance, and particularly Kyra Sherman for organizing the stakeholder scheduling.

The data presented summarizes the participation of various stakeholder groups in personal interviews, focus groups, and an online survey conducted for the Sonoma Valley Unified School District Superintendent search. The key insights from this data were:

1. A total of 95 stakeholders participated in personal interviews or focus groups, while 621 stakeholders responded to the online survey.

2. The online survey had broad participation from different stakeholder groups, with the highest participation from parents (269), followed by support staff (56), students (22), and community partners (10).

3. Among the interviewed stakeholders, site level administrators had the highest participation (20), followed by teachers (103), and central office administrators (5).

This data indicates that there was considerable engagement from various stakeholder groups, particularly parents, support staff, and site level administrators, during the data gathering process for the Superintendent search.

The profile was essentially that SVUSD is seeking a Superintendent who: 

• Is Visionary and has a student-centered approach, emphasizing instructional focus, special education, and balancing district strategies with classroom innovation;

• Fosters trust, respect, and a positive climate among stakeholders, with an emphasis on relationship-building and engaging with the Latino community;

• Collaborates with the Board, supports teachers and staff, and seeks input from educational specialists in decision-making;

• Involves all stakeholders in strategic planning and implementation, maintaining a track record of positive working relationships and approachability across the community;

• Demonstrates experience in managing enrollment, reconfiguring schools, strong financial acumen, and commitment to biliteracy and biculturalism.

The trustees, before entering closed session, reviewed the analysis of the survey data from HYA. The data revealed a significant disparity between the opinions of administrators and community members, with no clustering observed on the State of the District. In contrast, more clustering was found in the weighted Leadership profile. Interestingly, "understanding and being sensitive to the needs of a diverse student population" ranked within the top concerns for both community members and students. Indeed, the two highest priorities of students were that the superintendent be visible throughout the district while actively engaging in community life, and understanding and catering to the needs of a diverse student population.

The trustees then entered closed session. The closed session adjourned at 12:20, with no action reported.

@TheEconomist and @duncanrobinson on #RoaldDahl.

Puffin, the publisher of Roald Dahl (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach, etc.), recently edited some of Dahl’s works for sensitivity, removing words such as "fat," "flabby," "ugly," and "Kipling." This act, which sparked a backlash, it is argued by Bagehot, the Economist’s British politics columnist (Economist articles are traditionally unsigned, but this one is by Duncan Robinson) is part of a broader trend in British publishing, where books are being censored or dropped, and sensitivity readers are employed to ensure adherence to modern morals.

Roald Dahl, 1954. 

While the right to prepare derivative works is at the core of copyright, the editing of Dahl's work by Puffin, a Penguin imprint, is argued to be just one symptom of a deeper issue in the publishing world. Making an impressive leap, Bagehot contends the argument that suppression of speech is only a problem in totalitarian states fails to recognize the "veiled censorship" in British publishing. There is an orthodoxy that right-thinking people are expected to accept without question, and resistance to the same leads (at least in the mind of the columnist) to being silenced with surprising effectiveness.

Publishers, in an attempt to look likable, often panic and preempt offense, leading to the removal or editing of content. However, this nervousness and desire to look nice can have nasty results, as it stifles creativity and prevents important discussions from taking place. The observation that the publishing industry is susceptible to peer pressure sounds in truth, as any observer of media generally is keenly aware of herd effects and the power of groupthink in the industry.

Where the columnist goes awry (and this is perhaps to be expected for a print journalist) is that there are a variety of means where unorthodox ideas can reach a broader audience. If anything, the rise of misinformation through alternative channels presents far broader problems for democracy than were ever perceived twenty to thirty years ago. Editors and publishers are not all wrong, and sometimes, they are even right as a group. I feel I can understand both the germ of the argument and the (veiled?) frustration of the writer given the unique power of publishing in certain professional and cultural circles. Sending ideas out into the world in book form is a form of professional and social recognition oftentimes far exceeding the economic import of such an activity.

Given the foregoing, I think the argument advanced, and particularly the vignette of how the suppressive mechanism works, is powerful. “What is striking is how apparently mild the sanctions are for speaking out … what really terrifies you is that your colleagues will think a little less of you. Most people do not require the threat of being burned at the stake to shut them up; being flamed by their peers … is more than enough.” Nudges in favor of conformity are often powerful precisely due to their superficial innocuousness – a timeless observation if there ever was one.

Questions from the Press, March 27, 2023.

 As has come up here from time to time, I serve as a trustee of the Sonoma Valley Unified School District, in the northern part of the San Francisco Bay Area. My practice is to post answers I am asked by the press in that capacity, because the amount of information that can be conveyed by a newspaper is necessarily limited. On Monday March 27, I received the following questions from Dan Johnson, a reporter for the Sonoma Index-Tribune (Sonoma County has three "major" newspapers, the I-T, the Petaluma Argus-Courier and the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, all of which are owned and controlled by the same company). I have printed his questions and my written answers to them below. The questions concerned the realignment of our District, which is often reduced down in practical terms to which schools sites will continue to operate, and which will not, given declining attendance. 

---

 1. During the portion about School district reconfiguration, did the board decide to end student enrollment at Dunbar and enroll its students at other districts beginning in the 2023-24 school year? Was a vote taken, and if so who supported and did not support this?

 No. The agenda was changed at the start of the meeting, and that item was struck on a 3-2 vote. Trustees Knox, Winders and I voted to strike the item.

 2. Were any other decisions made regarding reconfiguration of the district in 2023-24 or any subsequent years?

 No.

 3. What did you feel were the main points made during the Perkins-Eastman presentation?

 The trustees, after extensive discussion, focused on Scenario 1A provided by the Perkins Eastman consultants, which would see the Dunbar campus made available to Woodland Star Charter, with middle schoolers at Altimira, and Prestwood remaining open. This would be the 3-1-1 alignment discussed previously, where the three District elementary schools would be Flowery, El Verano and Prestwood, the middle school would be at the Altimira campus, and the Broadway site for SVHS and Creekside. I have attached the "skittle" graphic illustrating this alignment below.

 The board gave direction to staff to answer two questions at the April 20th meeting, first, what are the costs to retrofit Altimira as estimated by the engineers versus the costs to expand Adele Harrison, and second, what are the pros and cons, and costs, of moving to a 7-8 middle school model, with 6th graders remaining at elementary sites. The board gave direction to staff bring a motion for the trustees to act on April 20th to realign the District in this fashion, with discretionary language included regarding choosing Altimira or Adele as the District's middle school, and with discretionary language included regarding shifting to a 7-8 middle school model. The Board also gave direction to staff to implement the timeline over two academic years, with the Dunbar campus being addressed in academic year 23-24, and the remaining realignment in academic year 24-25.

 4. During the school safety discussion, did the board discuss whether or not to bring the SRO program back? Was this topic agendized for the April board meeting?

 In the proposed scenario, what would happen to Sassarini, Adele Harrison and Sonoma Charter School? No, the board did not discuss whether to bring the SRO program back. No, the topic was not agendized by the board for April 20th. Staff informed the trustees that there is a trustee request that the SRO be agendized for April 20, and I believe the request is from Trustee Landry.

 5. What did you feel were the main points made during the school safety discussion?

 The materials for that agenda item were not provided in advance to the trustees. This violated our norm of "no surprises." Further, there was no description of the item in any way, including the minimal description required by the Brown Act. The materials were also not provided to the public in advance. These procedural failures necessarily limited discussion. There was no explanation offered by the Board President for why the item was added to the agenda without this routine and ordinary requirements being met. 

 In the room, Director of Educational Services Jillian Beall gave a presentation on statistics regarding incidents of student discipline, which are down by 58% this academic year versus last. However, suspensions are up by 11%, and there have been five (5) expulsions, versus just one (1) in the previous academic year. 

 Sonoma County Sheriff's Office (SCSO) Lieutenant Brandon Cutting (who also serves as Sonoma's Chief of Police) gave a report on handling emergencies at SVUSD campuses, including discussing the general aspects of the prepared responses of the SCSO to school sites located in the County portion of SVUSD, and then in the City. The specifics were not included for operational reasons. Because the meeting ran quite long the agenda item was concluded at approximately 2:45 without discussion of the SRO and without any listening circles being conducted regarding school safety. 

 6. Would you like to say anything else?

 On March 9, and again yesterday, members of the public showed up and treated the school board meeting as a "sporting event," cheering and booing positions with which they supported or disagreed. This is unacceptable behavior from members of the public. The Board President must instruct members of the public to either maintain decorum or excuse themselves from the room, especially when she agrees with their position. Individual school board members should never have to use points of order to ensure effective uninterrupted conduct of the meeting, which indeed did happen on Saturday.

---

 Shortly thereafter, Dan Johnson asked the following additional question, which I answered as well.

 7. In the proposed scenario, what would happen to Sassarini, Adele Harrison and Sonoma Charter School?

 The trustees requested a motion be prepared that is specifically focused on what facilities will be used by SVUSD for its existing instructional program, with an emphasis on cutting waste. The board gave no direction for a motion to be drafted to repurpose any of the sites you referenced and I do not expect such a motion on April 20.

The Life Pressed Out.

 George Floyd was murdered May 25th, aged 46. Suffocated by a Minneapolis police officer over the course of 8 minutes and 46 seconds, his death has rightfully become a rallying moment for Black Lives Matter. Many (but not all) are astonished that three police officers stood watch as he was asphyxiated. Protests against police brutality and police killings of black people, and broader issues such as racial profiling, and racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system, continue with cause. 

"The Life Pressed Out"

Obituary, George Floyd

The Economist, June 4, 2020

available at https://tinyurl.com/yagm25jm

 In this kaleidoscope of horror, though, one fact in particular stunned and shocked me. For George Floyd knew Derek Chauvin, the police officer that killed him. They were coworkers.  Both were employed by the El Nuevo Rodeo club, a Latinx music venue in Minneapolis. George was known in the workplace for his calm manner, big smile, and physical presence. Chauvin, who had done the job for 17 years, was described by Ann Wroe of the Economist as "an off-duty white police officer with jittery eyes, who would reach for his pepper spray as soon as a fight broke out and fire it over everyone."  More than mere corruption, worse than the principal-agent problem, did Chauvin strike to settle a grudge, believing in protection from the Thin Blue Line? 

 The use of government authority and power for personal ends is the genesis of so much that is disquieting about the past two decades of American public life. But the events of May 25th must not recur.  An officer sworn to protect the public "dragged [George] aside, threw him to the ground helpless and then, for almost nine minutes, knelt on his neck, pressing, pressing as [George] cried out for his mother and his breath and his life. [George] possibly never knew that this was the same white guy with jittery eyes who had worked El Nuevo Rodeo, the one so ready with the pepper spray to keep the blacks in line." 

 But we know. And we can act. But it requires the efforts of all. As former President Obama noted, "the elected officials who matter most in reforming police departments and the criminal justice system work at the state and local levels[.] Review your use of force policies with members of your community and commit to report on planned reforms[.] Change America and make it live up to its highest ideals."

 One of the 13 guiding principles of the Black Lives Matter movement is a commitment to restorative justice, a vehicle for decarceration in the United States. In criminal cases, victims can testify about the crime's impact upon their lives, receive answers to questions about the incident, and participate in holding the offender accountable. Meanwhile, offenders can tell their story of why the crime occurred and how it has affected their lives. It's not a panacea, and real limitations exist in the context of domestic violence and racism. But it many cases, the conflict in the community calms.  

Sonoma Valley Equity & Inclusion Task Force, 2016

Report available at https://tinyurl.com/ybo9tyg6

 As Sonoma Valley Unified's Equity & Inclusion Task Force pointed out in 2018, "recent best practice for discipline in schools has included a movement toward incorporating restorative justice practices. Restorative justice has been shown to be an effective alternative to punitive responses to wrongdoing. Inspired by indigenous traditions, it brings together persons harmed with persons responsible for harm in a safe and respectful space, promoting dialogue, accountability, and a stronger sense of community." The Task Force noted some past attempts by SVUSD to implement restorative justice practices.  "However none of these attempts resulted in across-the-board implementation of the practice. While there has been some training for staff, without full implementation of the practice that includes appropriate allocation of staff, policy development, and training, change has not occurred."

 It's time for full implementation. Restorative justice practices, such as the one utilized by the Los Angeles School District, show significant decreases in suspensions. The LAUSD posted a 92 percent decrease in the number of days lost to suspensions as a result of its restorative justice program. As our Task Force noted, "[t]hese statistics are especially relevant to this [D]istrict that has a disproportionately high level of low [socio-economic status] students who are suspended and/or expelled.”

 We have the power in our Valley to make this change, and democratic self-governance starts with each one of us participating in bringing about a better shared future.  The way has been shown and the report of the Task Force is ready for implementation. Let’s make it happen. After all, it’s the least we can do to honor George Floyd's life. 

@noahpinion on how Colleges affect Communities.

I tend to spot articles over time that I can tell will have some future relevance, but I can't always put my finger on it.  A good example of why saving copies of such pieces is important is here -- I didn't know what to make of that oil price article in 2012, but I certainly did by the end of 2014.

Similarly, I am linking to an article today from March, that I had thought would be part of a more complicated piece.  It's from Noah Smith, a former finance professor who blogs himself professionally for Bloomberg. The piece is interesting on its own merits because so many of us seem to think of a college as a place that educates the local population, and because, in true academic fashion, Noah points in a different direction:

"... ideas and technology leak out to surrounding businesses in myriad ways ... [a]cademics consult for local businesses. [Staff] start local businesses of their own. Companies ... hire smart people away from... campus jobs. [Colleges] provide forums for local entrepreneurs, inventors and academics to meet each other, exchange ideas and offer employment ... [h]igh-productivity technology businesses therefore tend to cluster ... in order to take advantage of the rich flow of ideas and skilled workers. That, in turn, draws smart educated people from other regions, boosting productivity and raising wages even for less-educated locals."

That the impact of an educational institution is, economically, in many respects due to the private-sector activity it influences in the surrounding economy, rather than the degreed individuals marching out the door in regular intervals, is I think a key to understanding the intuitive interest so many have in the fate and future of their local schools and colleges, beyond whether they or their children did, will, or do attend at any given time ...

Casa Del Maestro, Pt. 1. #teacherhousing #sonoma

"Casa Del Maestro"
3380 Lochinvar Ave, Santa Clara, California
image available at http://tinyurl.com/htm8n2z

On Monday, the Press Democrat’s editorial board described a “brewing fiscal crisis” for Santa Rosa's schools, who must, as of their first interim report for 2016-17, implement a ~2.2% budget cut going forward.  SRCS is confronting flat enrollment coupled with declining rates of return on pension funds, that will increase budget pressure over the next four years. At least one board member’s suggesting a parcel tax in response.  

The editorial describes a problem familiar to Sonoma Valley Unified. SVUSD will implement a ~5% budget cut in a similar fashion to SRCS. While Santa Rosa must deal with a 1.6% reserve reduction due to an accounting error, and Sonoma Valley's audits have consistently been clean, it is the medium-term funding squeeze, with costs rising substantially faster than revenues, and an increasing inability to make up the difference via one-time funds, that’s driving concerns. SRCS' potential pursuit of a parcel tax is one solution that certainly appears to be on the table, but it could cause voter confusion, if not outright fatigue, given Santa Rosa's successful $229 million bond in 2014. As Jenni Klose, president of the SRCS board noted in a letter to the editor today, "[SRCS], as with all California districts, is simply wrestling with how best to meet its increased pension obligation while continuing to fairly compensate staff[.]" 

Sonoma Valley, grappling with the same situation, should investigate creating structural, long-term advantages to ensure our teachers and staff aren’t crushed between stagnant funding and our ever-rising cost of living. Housing remains the single largest expense for many teachers and staff, whether laterals or new graduates. Meanwhile, those further up the step-column need salaries that can pay for mid-life expenses, such as children starting college. Addressing one issue means more’s available to deal with the other. Much as our schools confronted rising power prices by getting on the supply side of the equation with solar panels, so too should our district pursue construction of high quality, reasonably priced teacher and staff housing, an advantage in recruiting and retention independent of state funding.

2.83 acre Sonoma Valley Health Care District Property

432 W MacArthur, Sonoma, California
image available at http://tinyurl.com/joonh66

Serendipitously, Sonoma Valley’s health care district must make a decision regarding 2.83 acres on West MacArthur in the next 18 months. The land is four houses from Sassarini Elementary, and down the street from the SVHS/Adele/Prestwood campus.  Due to some (very) recent changes in the law, SVUSD has an opportunity to pursue a teacher housing project there, before the main front of the financial storm hits our budget.

The model for such housing is Santa Clara Unified’s Casa Del Maestro. Commenced in 2002 on a previously closed middle school, the project utilized certificates of participation to fund construction of 70 units, subsequently rented out to teachers and staff via a functionally integrated public charity. Construction was done at market rates. No subsidy was involved. One bedroom apartments rent for ~$900, and a large two bedroom for ~$1,450 (typically $2,390 for one in Santa Clara, $2,930 for two).

The cost advantage has four parts. First, the District owns the land, and thus land costs are not included in the cost of ownership or operations. Second, the capital structure allows for tax-exempt finance. Third, the land and construction are both property tax-exempt. Finally, there is no profit -- rents are set at a level sufficient to pay back costs of construction, financing, maintenance and operations, and to fund a long-term reserve.

Former Cal. State Sen. Mark Leno
image available at http://tinyurl.com/zbw9tum

Despite such success, few K-12 housing projects have gone forward since, due to an aura of legal uncertainty. Is restricting residency to teachers and staff consistent with California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act? Can land held in educational trust be used for teacher and staff housing? Can Certificates of Participation be used to fund construction? Can schools cooperate with other agencies on projects? Are there legislative findings that the housing crisis is hitting teachers and staff?

We got our answer January 1. Mark Leno’s SB 1413, known as the “Teacher Housing Act of 2016,” codified at Health & Safety Code § 53570 et seq., provides the express authority to proceed. The law’s factual findings and statutory language gives the same type of guidance for K-12 districts long available at the junior college, CSU, and UC levels. Doubts regarding limiting the rentals to teachers and staff, about the use of lands held in educational trust, and the availability of innovative financing and intergovernmental cooperation were all addressed.

2.83 acre Sonoma Valley Health Care District Property
432 W MacArthur, Sonoma, California
image available at http://tinyurl.com/gtmavhq

And this brings us back to the 2.83 acre parcel. Ideally located, the site is nearly identical in size to the Casa Del Maestro. It’s within walking distance of supermarkets and the Sonoma Square. The neighborhood already has several master planned facilities (Village Green, Sonoma Hills, Pueblo Serena, Moon Valley). Further, the school district has broad powers available to support the project, given the financial flexibility of the authority granted by Health & Safety Code § 53573.

What of the hospital, the current owner? Hospital sites must be “multi-decade,” allowing new buildings to be constructed as others pass from use, like a wave traversing the property over decades. For now, the MacArthur parcel is surplus to requirements. But the two districts could allow for a future exchange of land with fair compensation. The Andrieux site could become housing and MacArthur a hospital, when contemporary structures reach their end of life.

There are any number of problems that could interfere with teacher housing at this site (or another), but the rough contours are clear.  Making sure teachers and staff can afford to live in our community was the first item I discussed when walking Sonoma door to door this past fall. There are few more effective proofs of the power of small-town cooperation, especially in the face of discord we now witness washing over our small valley.  Let’s get our government agencies talking about working together, and let's set an example, by having our health care and school districts discuss how they might make this land continue to serve the public interest for decades to come.

@SVHSDragons @SVUSD1 #SonomaValley College Readiness Going Up.

It's a day of sorrow, and for the acknowledgment of tragedy for Sonoma Valley's school district. But it's important to remember that great work is being done overall in our public schools.

Per Person Income vs. College Readiness, California Counties.

Sources and methods available here.

PDF version available here.

In particular, this year has been a strong one for SVUSD, because both governmental and commercial measures indicate our schools are having increasing levels of success.  For instance, US News & World Report found that Sonoma Valley's College Readiness Index, at 36.7, is now exceeded by only three Napa-Sonoma area schools: Maria Carrillo, Casa Grande, and Roseland University Prep.

This result is confirmed by State measures of performance, as the graph on the right shows. In general, Sonoma County rates poorly given what's expected for a county of its wealth. It is one of the clearest and worst under performers.

But Sonoma Valley is different.  SVUSD does 40% better on preparing students for college than the rest of Sonoma County. Sonoma Valley now outperforms Napa as well. SVUSD deserves a lot of credit for turning in such a strong result.

One of the best things about working for the past couple of years with the District's trustees, our very strong Superintendent, and so many dedicated principals and teachers, is that it gives some context concerning the regular and sustained progress being made.

@eloisanews, nice article on #Sonoma grad rates ...

Eloísa Ruano González
image available at @eloisanews

So, I don't personally know Eloísa Ruano González. I do read her articles via the Press Democrat from time to time, though.  Her writing caught my eye earlier this year regarding Cloverdale High; recently it was a piece about graduation rates in Sonoma County overall. I'm typically favorably disposed towards education writers, particularly those that focus on the interplay between education and economics, and so I'm very supportive of Eloísa for focusing on statistics for the different parts of Sonoma County.

Of course, a well researched article on an important subject often makes people want more of the same, and I thus wonder whether an article on the County's A-G graduation rate might now be a good idea, too. For those who find education jargon impenetrable, that's the difference between whether a graduate has or has not met the college entry requirements for the University of California ("UC") or for the California State University ("CSU"). The technical requirements of A-G completion are complicated, but can (very roughly) be boiled down to passing the second semester of Algebra II with a C- or better.

Most parents and voters think that a graduate's a graduate, and that anyone receiving their diploma is ready for college, but that's not necessarily the case.  And that's where Sonoma County seems to have trouble, because while the statewide rate for A-G is 43.4%, in Sonoma County it's only 33.7% (for my friends and neighbors reading this post, Sonoma Valley High's rate is 47.2%).  I feel like I'd really like to see our educators explain the overall rate of preparation for college being achieved by Sonoma County's high school graduates to a reporter like Eloísa ...

Restorative Justice, and the Sonoma County Teen Court.

It must have been the fall of 1992.  There was an article in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, talking about Sonoma County's new diversion program for the juvenile courts. They were looking for teenage volunteers, to serve as attorneys.  The cases would be real, referred by different local police departments. A meeting was set a few weeks out, and there was a phone number for more information.

About 30 high school students showed up. We heard from a panel of court officials and criminal defense attorneys. All of the accused were misdemeanor defendants, and they had to admit guilt to participate in the program in the first place. The goal was to attempt to reintegrate them into the community, while sending a message about unacceptable behavior. Our job would be to explain, to the jury of teenagers, what had happened, after piecing together a police report and hearing from the client.

I was a typical over-scheduled accelerated student in high school, with honors and AP courses, football practices, and play rehearsals, so the time commitment mattered.  But the program held my attention.  The teen court illuminated the fabric of the lives of the families working their way through the system, for the parents would usually come to court, too. So many of the situations I encountered cried out for more effective social services and, above all else, for empowering schools so that the courts wouldn't be called in so often to pick up the pieces.

Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility

Photo available at http://tinyurl.com/obt3p8q

The hearings were in a courtroom at Sonoma County's Main Adult Detention Facility (jail). I must have handled at least 50 cases before heading to college. Most ended with the defendant making restitution and doing some community service, including sitting on a later-convened teen court jury. The program successfully reduced recidivism–the data I've seen indicated the rate was substantially lower than normal.  Further, the impact on the lives of the volunteer teenagers is revealing; a number of them (I think, actually, all) went on to complete law school and become attorneys.

The program went on for some time after I graduated from high school. About a decade later it became a victim of budget cuts, back when things were so bad Santa Rosa had to turn off streetlights to save money. But the restorative justice principles that the system embodied have only become more relevant in education and in juvenile justice since.  Teen courts like Sonoma County's promote accountability and community protection, but they also foster the development of competency in the defendants, a point that deserves special attention.

About a year ago I taught a class with one of the Sonoma County Superior Court judges at our Juvenile Hall, for the toughest kids in the system.  The last question of the 90 minute session was the most poignant.  The guy looked like he might have been 16, and he was clearly bright as hell.  He was very specific with us. He wanted to know if a felony conviction as a juvenile would, when he became an adult, prevent him from becoming an attorney.

For that young man understanding and mastering the principles of justice represented something special.  It was power, but also it seemed to signify achievement. The aspirational element that is so often the motivating spark to commence a legal education was clearly there. The emphatic reply he received from us was that it was wide open for him.

And that is the final element I choose to illustrate what the Sonoma County Teen Court was all about. For teen courts are special because they require the defendants to then participate in the system as jurors. It causes them to witness the functioning of the court as a person responsible for the wielding of power, rather than just as a defendant, feeling confused and helpless when subject to it.

Dyan Foster

Photo available at http://tinyurl.com/negx47u

This is at the core of restorative justice-that the system should help reweave the fabric of the community torn by the transgression, rather than focus only on punitive retaliation. In a smaller way, when those defendants served, they took a certain amount of ownership of the system. Like the young man in juvenile hall, they developed an understanding of the importance of justice, something particularly clear to those who have once been judged themselves.

I hear that, possibly, the program may be restored by the County. On the merits, I'm in favor. But quite apart from whether that decision is made one way or the other, as readers of this blog are doubtless aware, as a lawyer, education sits at the center of my practice. The kernel of that comes from the Sonoma County Teen Court, and a 17-year old version of me, who as a teen attorney was trying to understand how people's lives had caused them to bump into the police, and how more effective education could have helped so many avoid such problems in the first place. And for that, I owe a continuing debt of thanks to  Dyan Foster and Routes for Youth, who made the program possible.

@SVUSD1 @svhsdragons 2015-16 Budget "Best 3 Year Projection in Years."

The Sonoma Valley Unified School District had the first read of its 2015-16 budget on Tuesday night, presented by John Bartolome, the District's Chief Business Official.  John, for those of you who don't know him, is a graduate of Purdue University, helps out faithfully with the Sonoma Valley High School Wrestling Team, and apparently is one hell of a golfer.  He also had the chance, with this budget, to give Sonoma Valley Unified some of the best budget news it has ever had. I got the video courtesy of SVTV, which is very much appreciated. The video runs about 20 minutes, but I recommend it to anyone interested in a succinct picture of how things now look after the past half-decade of cuts.

John does a very nice job of explaining what's taking place; there's some terminology that can be confusing. To make sure nobody gets lost, LCFF stands for "Local Control Funding Formula," which is the new (reformed) method of financing public schools in California.  It was supposed to be phased in to its planned level through 2021–that is, schools weren't planned to be fully funded in California for another half a decade.  But, given the improvement in California's budget, school funding under LCFF has reached 70% of the 2021 figure. 

There's some discussion of deficit spending.  The district "planned" to run a deficit in the last year, and has done so for several years; that was due probably to the conservative projections made on funding.  When the local economy takes it in the teeth, that's what reserves are, of course, for, and the level of State funding has gotten to the point where the budget is essentially balanced as of 2017-18, which is a very significant change from years past.

There's also some discussion in the presentation of the concept of "Basic Aid," which is a special system under the line of legislative responses to Serrano v. Priest that allows some Districts to receive more funding than others due to their very high levels of property tax received.  During the most recent economic mess, State funding fell so low that Sonoma Valley actually became a Basic Aid district–which is expected to end in the next year.  Not a bad thing, as John points out, but instead more of a sign of the consequences of an economic recovery (... or of another speculative bubble). 

@svhsdragons @svusd1 47.7% of Seniors on Path to Complete UC/CSU A-G, well done.

Data courtesy Sonoma Valley Unified School District &
California Department of Education
available online at http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/

The Freshman Teams data discussed here before, and some newer data on Sonoma Valley High's A-G Completion Rate, were both on the Sonoma Valley Unified Board of Trustees agenda on May 12. The Freshman Teams handout that was discussed is here; there was an additional handout regarding the A-G completion rate, which is here. The main table from the second handout is on the right, and the video of the presentation (~29 minutes) is below.

The findings discussed were relatively straightforward. As of the end of the 1st Semester of 2014-15, 136 Sonoma Valley High School seniors are on track to complete the A-G requirements, with a C- or better. With the 
exception of St. Helena,
 whose per-pupil 
expenditures are
 approximately $17,590 
per students versus the
~$9,389 spent in Sonoma
 Valley, SVUSD 
consistently rates as the
 highest performing
 District in the area amongst those with 100 graduates per year or more.

Further, since creating Freshman Teams, Sonoma Valley Unified has moved the majority of its students into the college-potential category as of the end of freshman year, nearly doubling the number in the top tier.  The change in performance is not attributable to either grade inflation or weighting, although there has been a recent substantial increase in students taking advanced coursework.  Should the general performance of the 2010-2011 freshmen (~90% of 3.5 A-G complete three years later, ~50% of 3.0+ A-G complete three years later) be replicated amongst the 2013-14 freshmen when they are seniors, SVUSD’s A-G rate in 2016-2017 would be expected to demonstrate further growth to the neighborhood of 51.9%.

It's kind of dry to read on a page. Seeing it discussed amongst the Trustees, the Superintendent, Sonoma Valley High's Principal, the Student Trustee, and our County Office of Education Representative is another matter entirely.  The video is about 29 minutes long, but if you're interested in education in general, I recommend it to you. And yes, that's me you see speaking from the podium.

Freshman Teams, Student Performance, and the Case For SVUSD's Master Plan.

So, it's my birthday today, and those of you that know me will be unsurprised that my gift to myself was speaking at "Career Day" at Adele Harrison Middle School in Sonoma. I always find it rewarding to talk with students about their plans for the future. But this year, and in this instance, I had just that little extra bit of a reason to be positive. Because I've been spending some time reviewing the consistently increasing performances delivered by students just like those I spoke to today when they reach Sonoma Valley High.

---

Data courtesy Sonoma Valley Unified School District.
Framework from Elaine M. Allensworth,
Julia A. Gwynne, Paul Moore, and
Marisa de la Torre, "Middle Grade Indicators of
Readiness in Chicago Public Schools.”
available online at http://tinyurl.com/myq87ag

On the right is a graph tabulated from freshman grade information at Sonoma Valley High since 2006. But first, a bit of background.

Recent research shows that middle school attendance and GPA, when combined, are the single best predictor of high school GPA. Qualitatively, most (public) high schools grade students similarly; however, similar students perform differently depending on school, with some schools improving performance up to .5 of a grade point – and with most of those benefits received by the students between a 1.0 and a 3.0. Those student who manage to reach or exceed a 3.0 in high school increase both their chances of attending college, and graduating from college, the higher their GPA moves.

The study really caught my eye because, beginning in 2011, Sonoma Valley High School created their Freshman Teams, small communities of incoming students with shared schedules. To the extent that the context students enter high school can affect performance, should the Freshman Teams have been functioning positively, an improvement of approximately .5 of a GPA would be expected, with the primary benefits impacting students who would have earned between a 1.0 and a 3.0.

And lo and behold the graph shows exactly what I'd hoped when I started looking at this data. Since the program was instituted in the 2011-2012 school year, Sonoma Valley Unified has moved the majority of its students into the college-potential category as of the end of freshman year, nearly doubling the number in the top tier. Attendance improvements were positively correlated with GPA improvements. Further, as would be expected, the biggest GPA change impacted students between a 1.0 and a 3.0, with essentially a third of the students expected to fall into the range moving into the college potential or college probable tiers.

That wasn't all -- at the same time this was going on, the number of students taking accelerated coursework (math & language) nearly doubled.  Sonoma Valley High gives the students no break on grading for their initiative in choosing a harder schedule – there is no bonus weight assigned to their GPAs for this effort.  So not only are the students earning better grades, but they've been doing it taking harder classes at the same time.  

The students I saw at Adele will now more likely than not be in a position to pursue college when they attend Sonoma Valley High in the years to come. The full handout (with the citations and backup) is here.  And the question this data makes me ask myself is: will we give these students the schools and the facilities that their performance deserves?

Can we execute on our school district's Master Plan?

---

Poll, Sonoma Index-Tribune

screenshot taken February 12, 2015.

The voters of Sonoma have long been the heroes of their own community's schools, not leaving that role to the State of California.  The electors of the Valley, time and again, have fully committed to public stewardship of our educational infrastructure. As parents (and grandparents), our lived experience shows the enormous benefits to health, safety and education that have always accrued from carefully spending the money necessary to develop the structures, fields and facilities worthy of a Valley as successful as Sonoma.

The men and women of our community have always counted on their educators and trustees to manage — cautiously — the development of our school campuses.  We want our District to be neither the family shopping only for the day's needs at 7-11, nor the one gone Costco crazy.  Instead, we hope they'll be like a mom and dad sitting around the kitchen table, carefully deciding on the nutritious groceries they'll buy for the week ahead, before they go to the store.  For like that family, we as a community know we'll face expenses to maintain our District, and we'll have to frugally weigh options, one against the other.

I think this is the moment that we find ourselves at that table. For notwithstanding the emergence of a second dot-com bubble to our south, interest rates remain at historic lows because investment and demand in America remains depressed.  These conditions were not seen for seventy years, and it is quite possible they will not be seen again for another seventy.   As prudent shoppers, now is the time to write our list of the purchases we know we're going to need — the framework for accelerating our students into the balance of the 21st century that lies ahead.

The green eye shade of the accountant, and the graphs of the economist make the dry case for improving our schools — that action now can reap outsized dividends, consequences we will see in the improved living standards and enhanced productivity of our entire community. But it is our concern for justice that should ultimately resolve questions in favor of an investment in our shared future.  It is no accident that I started this section with a rewrite of the first sentence of David Copperfield, Dickens' story of individual perseverance despite an undisciplined heart. Our shared belief is that America is defined by the notion that the condition of your birth does not determine the outcome of your life, a truth voiced by both Paul Ryan and Elizabeth Warren. Whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, our covenant with our future selves is that education will remain the key to unlocking the American Dream.

However, it is our common fear that each element that leads to such success is eroding before our eyes. We find ourselves in a time where educational opportunity in the United States has become inverted. We are one of only two members of the G20 that spends more on richer students than poorer (the other is Turkey). We cannot rely on the State of California to resolve these issues for us. Our Governor is backing away from California's School Facilities Program.  The State is essentially leaving Districts like ours on their own in providing for future school facilities and modernization.

This is where the case for implementing the District's master plans, now,  for all of the campuses, finds real traction. As Winston Churchill said, "we shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us."  The voters of Sonoma have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape the future of the Valley for decades to come — and there is no one else ready, willing, and capable of doing so. We can put in place the scaffolding our students, the voters of tomorrow, will need to succeed.  

We have an opportunity to make educational equality more than a dream.  We have a chance to make it a reality.  

---

So despite being another year older, I found in the faces of our students reason for optimism.  But I also found a challenge and a call to action.  Rare indeed are opportunities such as the one available to the voters of Sonoma today. It is my hope, and indeed I believe we can make it our shared goal as a community, for us all to pull together to create the infrastructure to match the performances being delivered by our teachers and students.

And so I say to the students who gave me a resounding cheer today when their principal told them all it was my birthday, that we can see that they are doing their part.  And that I hope that, as voters, that we will now be able to do ours.