Access and Equity Policy: What To Do Next?

I'm stating facts here. The man can be long-winded and rambling, and likes the sound of his own voice. Not criminal activities, just kind of obvious to anyone listening to him.

And, yes, I don't much care for his politics. You are correct. I don't think that he can claim those things listed above as "accomplishments." First, the Board HAD to conduct a superintendent search. Why should he take credit for this? And, second, the Access and Equity policy was, in fact, not "his policy." This is misleading. Yes, he supports it in its current form, but the draft he submitted was completely rewritten by Dr. Ramos, who found it lacking in significant ways. In the original draft, there was access, but no equity. So I think the most he can say is that he's part of a school board that has affirmed this new policy. He should not be saying what he has been saying: that he is its "architect." In addition, he's been on the school board for NINE years. Why is it only when there was a legal complaint that the district had to respond to that he felt it necessary to draft anything? This isn't leadership in my book.

But even more galling is where he did nothing when he should have done something. As Board President, where was he when Mr. Uglialoro, a district employee, and, according to many parents and teachers, an excellent administrator, was targeted by a group of disgruntled teachers, and bullied out of his job? One parent at a school board meeting called this, and rightly so, a "vile smear campaign." Where was Mr. Eastman? Did he do the right thing and address these false accusations? Did he do what was necessary to support this employee? No, he did not. And the district lost a talented young principal to another suburban district. This is not leadership either.

Unlike you folks, I'm not working for anyone. I live in this wonderful community, I pay extremely high property taxes, as do we all, and am trying to do due diligence before I cast my vote for the next school board. Why are there an unprecedented number of challengers to the incumbents in this year's election?

@mod and any others interested in further discussion of your thread title:

As someone who knows and respects Madhu (but is not involved in the campaign and is still weighing other candidacies), I took to heart her Village Green opinion piece, "What Does a Board Member Do (and Why You Should Care)?" In it, she explains: "It’s important to note that management is not the role of a school board. The Superintendent manages running the district, focusing on details like developing curriculum, managing staff, creating the budget and recommending specific educational programs. A good BOE doesn’t interfere with the Superintendent’s operation with the district, or with the day-to-day work of principals or teachers."

http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/opinion-board-education-member-care/

I'm interested in how people who praise the "specific and practical proposals" from Peggy Freedson (whom I have met and talked with briefly) view them in light of Madhu's description of the job. Where do you think they'd fit into the board's role in "what to do next"?

Johngillam189 said:
Why are there an unprecedented number of challengers to the incumbents in this year's election?

From my recollection, previous elections also had very high numbers of people who stated an intention to run, but ultimately did not for various reasons.

This year, perhaps due to more stability of the economy/employment or other random family-need factors, more people ended up having the time and money needed for the effort to run.

Are people running because there are big driving BOE issues that drove these candidates to run? What big issues are some candidates "for" and others "against" that are coming up? I'm seeing more subtle differences than polarized slates -- but let me know if I'm missing something.

Johngillam189 said:
I'm stating facts here. The man can be long-winded and rambling, and likes the sound of his own voice. Not criminal activities, just kind of obvious to anyone listening to him.

Classy. Ranks up there with the "sleeping" thread. Who are you posting on behalf of again?

[ EDIT: Just looked back at your thread history and it's pretty obvious who you're working for, and it's not SOMA2015 or Pai-Eastman-Freedson. ]

Johngillam189 said:
the draft he submitted was completely rewritten by Dr. Ramos, who found it lacking in significant ways. In the original draft, there was access, but no equity....

Like how do you know this? You've got to be working for someone, or have some inside knowledge.

It's not hard to gather these facts if you ask around. There are a lot of close school board watchers among us. Dig, and you shall find.

I don't think there's ever been this many candidates running for the board in my two decades here, but my memory may be failing me. Anyone know?

I think Mr. Schmidtt raises an excellent question: what exactly can our school board do? Does it matter that someone on the board has educational or curriculum expertise? Or is it more important to have financial expertise? My guess is that latter is more important, and even there, with the 2% cap, it's not all that important. Perhaps the most important criteria in selecting a candidate is a candidate's values. What are a candidate's priorities? What will he or she cut first from the budget? What would he or she never agree to cut? Sad, but making decision about which programs to cut programs in this 2% budget cap era is the school board's main task. Unless we can figure out how to change policy at the state level or how to secure significant private funds from non-state sources. Inflation rises faster than 2%. So which candidate do you trust to make the best decisions about where to allocate scarce resources?

DaveSchmidt said:
@mod and any others interested in further discussion of your thread title:
As someone who knows and respects Madhu (but is not involved in the campaign and is still weighing other candidacies), I took to heart her Village Green opinion piece, "What Does a Board Member Do (and Why You Should Care)?" In it, she explains: "It’s important to note that management is not the role of a school board. The Superintendent manages running the district, focusing on details like developing curriculum, managing staff, creating the budget and recommending specific educational programs. A good BOE doesn’t interfere with the Superintendent’s operation with the district, or with the day-to-day work of principals or teachers."
http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/opinion-board-education-member-care/

I'm interested in how people who praise the "specific and practical proposals" from Peggy Freedson (whom I have met and talked with briefly) view them in light of Madhu's description of the job. Where do you think they'd fit into the board's role in "what to do next"?

I can see some of Ms. Freedson's proposals morphing into Board policies. For example, there could be a district wide policy for increasing focus on reading interventions in K-5 and making it a district wide priority.

DaveSchmidt said:
@mod and any others interested in further discussion of your thread title:
As someone who knows and respects Madhu (but is not involved in the campaign and is still weighing other candidacies), I took to heart her Village Green opinion piece, "What Does a Board Member Do (and Why You Should Care)?" In it, she explains: "It’s important to note that management is not the role of a school board. The Superintendent manages running the district, focusing on details like developing curriculum, managing staff, creating the budget and recommending specific educational programs. A good BOE doesn’t interfere with the Superintendent’s operation with the district, or with the day-to-day work of principals or teachers."
http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/opinion-board-education-member-care/

I'm interested in how people who praise the "specific and practical proposals" from Peggy Freedson (whom I have met and talked with briefly) view them in light of Madhu's description of the job. Where do you think they'd fit into the board's role in "what to do next"?

@DaveSchmidt, that is a very good question . My thinking is that while it is administration's job to manage the district, board members oversee and inform the administration by way of Guiding Change documents. These were used extensively last year on things like Gifted and Talented program planning. Peggy's knowledge of curriculum and teacher training could make the board oversight role more finely tuned. Knowing the right questions to ask will go a long way in guiding and inspiring our administration as they implement this important policy.

Board governance is a fine line, particularly when it comes to curriculum . Our district will need to turn to improving curriculum to a greater extent as it seeks to improve educational outcome for all students. Improved curriculum is considered budget neutral and will be key as our new policy is implemented in our tax stressed community. Peggy's expertise will be greatly beneficial

Maybe just say what it is that you like about the candidates you do support?

breal said:
Maybe just say what it is that you like about the candidates you do support?

+100

Johngillam189 said:
In addition, he's been on the school board for NINE years. Why is it only when there was a legal complaint that the district had to respond to that he felt it necessary to draft anything?

Eastman has been in a minority contingent on the BOE for most of those nine years, "Johhngillam189." He only assumed the board presidency last January.

It is your own preferred political contingent that was running the show until then, peddling $8M pool renovations, denying the district's children G&T opportunities, and insisting that getting rid of levels would eliminate the achievement gap when at best it could only accomplish some temporarily mollifying optics. (I say "at best" because the district's own data suggest that middle school deleveling has had a disastrous impact on high-performing black students' rates of achievement.)

But maybe that's good enough for you, so by all means, pick at the substantive candidates for rambling before 5th graders.

I'm curious about this data that show "the disastrous impact" on "high achieving black students." Aside from a few off-hand remarks by Ms. Malespina's slate, deleveling is not an issue in this campaign. Maybe we could discuss your claims about the disastrous impact of middle school deleveling after the election? My impression is that high achieving African Americans, especially boys, sometimes leave the district for high school. But I don't have any data in front of me about this.

Sorry, but I still do think 9 years on a local school board is enough, minority status or not. Time for fresh ideas for our stale debates.

Thank you, dg64 and mod.

I like Freedson's essay on the access and equity policy but I have some general questions. First, I am shocked that what is proposed for High and Middle Schools (syllabi with learning goals posted online etc) isn't standard practice already. I am most interested in what she has to say about elementary school though.

However, I don't see her making the leap from outlining what she sees as best practice to actually suggesting ways how this could be implemented. What is it that we need in order to do this? So, some teachers already do what should be done and others don't. In other words, some teacher have initiative and some don't. Is there a way to even overcome that?

Is she arguing for more teacher training? For a better selection process on how we pick our teachers so we stop employing those who don't go the extra mile? do we need a better curriculum and from that better teaching will follow? I am not sure where Freedson locates the point of action.

Who actually decides what the curriculum should be and on what basis? Is our curriculum accredited?

How do her recommendations differ from Maini's who is the other education specialist on the slate? Looks pretty similar to me for the untrained eye.

This is a statement made by Ms. Pai in one of her Op-Ed. pieces on the Village Green:

“I’m very proud of our most recent policy: The Access and Equity Policy. The architect of the
policy is my running mate and BOE president, Wayne Eastman.”

This statement is demonstrably false.

Since a few people here have asked for clarification on whether Mr. Eastman is somehow more responsible than others on the Board for the new Access and Equity Policy, below is a record that shows what actually transpired.

The main problem for me is with Mr. Eastman’s misleading campaign rhetoric. Credit-taking is normal for incumbents, but this “architect” thing just goes way too far. First, as I stated before, in claiming credit for the new initiative the Eastman campaign never mentions the fact that the district had to do SOMETHING. The OCR started an investigation that ended in a settlement in Oct. 2014. Something absolutely had to be done.
However the Eastman campaign makes it seem like the new Access and Equity Policy was just a grand idea that they devised.

Worse still, they say they ran on this “choice” policy in 2012. If they did, then why did it take until 2015
to say a word about it? Why was it that the many problems with our student placement policies never moved them to do or say anything before? Please don’t claim that their “minority status” on the board exonerates them. Any Board members are free to speak out on issues that they really care about. Mr. Bennett often went solo on things he cared about. There is no record of an Eastman/Pai concern about this that I can locate. If you can find one, please post.

Second, Mr. Eastman proposed language in March (this is from BOE minutes, available for
anyone to access). This language remained unchanged until September, after Dr. Ramos came on board. The initial draft that Mr. Eastman wrote was this:

Access, Choice, and Accountability (What Mr. Eastman drafted)
To the maximum extent feasible, all elementary, middle school, and high school parents and children in the South Orange-Maplewood School District shall have access to, and the ability to choose between, different educational programs in all academic subjects, which may be differentiated according to educational philosophy and, for secondary school students, according to academic level. For at least one program that parents and students may choose, there shall be an emphasis on global perspectives.
For secondary school students who elect to be in an academic level, or in an Advanced Placement class, that involves more advanced academic work than is reflected in a departmental recommendation for student
placement, the student, parents, and the district shall enter into a contract for choice that will couple access with accountability. The Superintendent is directed to establish regulations to make this policy effective by [date TBD by agreement between board and administration].

Note that the word “equity” does not appear. In August and September, several BOE members and the new superintendent seem to have objected to his language. They argued for a much broader statement, that included equity and a more systematic approach. In the end, the language the BOE adopted was as follows:

Access and Equity: (What the board passed)

All elementary, middle school, and high school parents/guardians and children in the South Orange-Maplewood School District shall have access to, and the ability to choose between current and future educational programs in all academic subjects, and at all academic levels. In furtherance of this Policy, all students shall be provided with age-appropriate academic supports for access to advanced-level courses, which may include, by way of example only, readiness programs and courses, in-school and after-school tutoring, sessions, and summer institutes. The District shall also engage in a Kindergarten through 12th grade curricular alignment, ensuring that all students develop the knowledge and skills fundamental to successful performance in Advanced Placement and advanced level courses by providing the highest levels of academic rigor in Kindergarten, Elementary, Middle and High School courses. While this Policy does not guarantee success for student achievement, it nevertheless greatly empowers students, as it is informed by
mutual accountability for educational success amongst students, parents and guardians, and the South Orange and Maplewood School District. The Superintendent is directed to establish regulations and to set budgetary guidelines to make this policy effective.

I don't know what others think, but to me this is a long way from Mr. Eastman’s original language. I think that Mr. Eastman and Ms. Pai are being disingenuous: they really are no more responsible for this policy than any other sitting BOE members, and, no sitting BOE member is more responsible for it than the new superintendent.

I don't see any other slate engaging in misleading campaign rhetoric. I see a lot of vague language all around, but not this kind of disregard for facts. It's about integrity.

To tell you the truth, the first version sounds a lot more attainable.

At least Eastman uses less buzzwords in his, thank God, so there's that. I'm not sure where the Ramos version specifically mentions "equity" either (so given we need to rely on some hazy definition either could address the term similarly, nor how a policy can be "more systematic" when at the very least it's still purely theoretical, but maybe it's all semantics.

YJohngillam189 said:

Worse still, they say they ran on this “choice” policy in 2012. If they did, then why did it take until 2015
to say a word about it? Why was it that the many problems with our student placement policies never moved them to do or say anything before

Actually I pretty clearly remember at a board meeting even back in 2011,Eastman proposing that we give kids choice and access in the middle and high school.

The response from Board members Wren Hardin and other board members was:

We can't trust families and kids to make the right choice.

"Johngillam" is not interested in facts or due diligence. He is interested in a petty smear campaign on the eve of the election in which he spouts a lot of nonsense. I attended the BOE meetings back in 2012 and I clearly remember Mr. Eastman talking about levels with choice. Here is one quote from a Mary Mann article which appeared in the Patch on Feb. 23, 2012: "Board member Wayne Eastman said that he has `advocated support towards academic placement that emphasizes choice.' " There were different Board members at the time who were not supportive of this idea. I remember Andrea Wren-Hardin (a Maini-Sabin endorser) saying she could not parent other people's children, i.e. she did not trust parents to make good choices for their own children.

I hope our community is better than to give much credence to some poster who brings up a speech that Wayne gave at a school his kids don't attend which he claims was boring to them or who claims that Dr. Ramos made revisions to a draft policy which Wayne wrote. Don't see much integrity coming from "Johngillam."

Johngillam189 said:

However the Eastman campaign makes it seem like the new Access and Equity Policy was just a grand idea that they devised.
Worse still, they say they ran on this “choice” policy in 2012. If they did, then why did it take until 2015
to say a word about it?

Two op eds by Wayne Eastman from the 2012 season to refresh JohnGillam's memory about Eastman's 2012 platform issue of choice.

http://patch.com/new-jersey/maplewood/candidate-profile-wayne-eastman

http://patch.com/new-jersey/maplewood/bp--why-im-running-achievement-creativity-and-responsibility

Johngillam, at least have the guts to admit that had Eastman not proposed the choice idea in the Spring, we do not know if it would have been adopted in it's current form. I, too, find his version easier to comprehend and more attainable. And the OCR complaint predates Jan 2015. I did not see the Daughtery faction propose any district wide reforms to address the issue that they have been talking about since forever - access and equity.

ETA: By the way, JohnGillam, can you explain to me what is the equity piece in the current Access and Equity policy? As far as I can see, the access piece embodies equity. It is through access and choice that there can be equity.

Your mean spirited attacks on Eastman remind me of the mean spirited attacks on Jeff Bennett in the 2012 election by your side of the election.

pol100gk said:
I like Freedson's essay on the access and equity policy but I have some general questions. First, I am shocked that what is proposed for High and Middle Schools (syllabi with learning goals posted online etc) isn't standard practice already. I am most interested in what she has to say about elementary school though.
However, I don't see her making the leap from outlining what she sees as best practice to actually suggesting ways how this could be implemented. What is it that we need in order to do this? So, some teachers already do what should be done and others don't. In other words, some teacher have initiative and some don't. Is there a way to even overcome that?

Is she arguing for more teacher training? For a better selection process on how we pick our teachers so we stop employing those who don't go the extra mile? do we need a better curriculum and from that better teaching will follow? I am not sure where Freedson locates the point of action.
Who actually decides what the curriculum should be and on what basis? Is our curriculum accredited?
How do her recommendations differ from Maini's who is the other education specialist on the slate? Looks pretty similar to me for the untrained eye.

Keep in mind this essay is an opinion piece in a local online news source - not a scholarly article. Within a limited word count Dr. Freedson does lay out quite a few action points- particularly in the part of her essay where she talks about elementary education. She calls for K-5 reading intervention with an explicit phonics piece for those who need it. She examines our current approach to writing instruction and while seeing merit in some of it's practices , she argues that a more content-rich approach would be both better at engaging students and building knowledge , which experts have identified as an element in the achievement gap. As far as teaching I think she is advocating better professional development along with harnessing teacher talents in more collaborative environments that will both retain good teachers and attract good teachers.

I'm no curriculum expert, Dr. Freedson is. What I do know is in our district , curriculum is developed by our Asst.. Superintendent of curriculum and instruction, and our content supervisors. In some districts teachers also collaborate in the development of curriculum. I'm not sure how much collaboration has gone on in our district up til now. I am sure she'd agree that better curriculum will lead to better teaching as long as professional development is adequately rolling out that curriculum. We have a problem in this district with consistancy from teacher to teacher and from grade to grade and quality curriculum will go a long way to addressing that.

You ask how her recommendations differ from Ms. Maini? I have not seen any specific recommendations from Ms. Maini, have you? Ms. Maini's educational experience comes primarily from running a private Montessori Preschool. Dr. Freedson has K-12 curriculum experience, literacy expertise and significant background in Public School Urban and Bilingual education.

If you see Peggy out on the campaign trail ask her these and otherquestions . She loves to discuss curriculum and literacy and teacher training.

Team Mean's oppo research here speaks poorly of them. It's the MOL accidental reveal to the nth degree. You don't intend for readers to get your number, but they always do.

JCSO said:

It is your own preferred political contingent that was running the show until then, peddling $8M pool renovations, denying the district's children G&T opportunities, and insisting that getting rid of levels would eliminate the achievement gap when at best it could only accomplish some temporarily mollifying optics.

AIA for the dumb questions (I'm relatively new to all of this), but which are the candidates that Johngillam189 is supporting? I can only figure out which ones he's opposed to. Also, are there candidates for the current seats who are on the record as having supported the aquatic center? That would be useful information to have.

With respect to Mr. Eastman, he has always always advocated for choice. In his early running days he was a strong proponent of accountability, and second to that was international education and choice. (I've left out the commitment to keeping the taxation rate at 2 percent) Choice was not something that the district even understood years ago, myself included. Mr. Eastman only recently assumed position as Board president and thus was able to bring it to the forefront. That a poster would nitpick on the fact that the Superintendent had to rewrite or finesse the policy is really preposterous. First, how many Board members, in any town, puts forth this kind of long terms vision-policy work? How many towns could boast the kind of talent and intellectual depth that makes this even possible? That the policy then became a collaborative process, where it was refined, is a sign of that we have a creative and functioning Board.

With respect to Ms. Freedson's op-ed on curriculum, and whether we need someone on the Board with this background (as opposed to a financial one) this too, is the oddest post. We have always had people on the board with general administrative and financial oversight capabilities. But when you have someone with that expertise, it does, at the very least, mean that administrators knows there's someone with a watchful eye who knows what's what. If, for instance, the administrators put forth a writing program that is sub-standard, or not appropriate, we at least have someone on the Board who can press on this, offer insight and push back.

dg64 said:
johngillam189 is supporting Maini and Sabin.

And I would imagine that those attacking his comments are support other candidates, so I don't know that this means anything.

tjohn said:

dg64 said:
johngillam189 is supporting Maini and Sabin.

And I would imagine that those attacking his comments are support other candidates, so I don't know that this means anything.

I was answering a question asked in the comment below. I am not sure what meaning you are trying to extract from my comment. If you look at the thread, my comment is right below the one by imonlysleeping.

imonlysleeping said:

JCSO said:

It is your own preferred political contingent that was running the show until then, peddling $8M pool renovations, denying the district's children G&T opportunities, and insisting that getting rid of levels would eliminate the achievement gap when at best it could only accomplish some temporarily mollifying optics.

AIA for the dumb questions (I'm relatively new to all of this), but which are the candidates that Johngillam189 is supporting? I can only figure out which ones he's opposed to. Also, are there candidates for the current seats who are on the record as having supported the aquatic center? That would be useful information to have.

I am in no way defending the board's inaction with regard to formulating a policy that addressed the inequity of our placement process. Of course something should have been done about this a long time ago. The point I was making was about the exaggerations and overreach of the Eastman et al campaign. I think their campaign is characterized by taking credit for anything good that happened during their tenure on the board, even if they have to stretch the truth to do so. Case in point: I have a Pai-Eastman-Freedson leaflet that was handed to me the other day in town. It ranks among the incumbents' accomplishments:

"Helped bring a stellar principal to Columbia High School and reinvigorated the school culture."

Look: everyone loves Ms. Aaron. She's a gift to the community. But how can Mr. Eastman and Ms. Pai take credit for bringing her to the school? Everyone knows this was Dr. Osborne's work. And most people know that Mr. Eastman and his supporters did not exactly love Dr. Osborne. This claim in particular is laughable.

dg64: To my mind, equity is central to the final Access and Equity Policy. The revised policy seeks to meet the needs of students who want to achieve but need encouragement and support to do so (through tutoring; summer programs, and other "readiness" interventions). Mr. Eastman, who seems to bring up "choice" only when he is campaigning for office (2012; 2015) never brings up the issue of equity in any of his prior statements. Take a look. The revised policy also calls for "curricular alignment" which to me means giving every student a full and fair opportunity to learn and to succeed. Mr. Eastman's initial draft seems to be more about preserving the status quo, and letting a few students move up, to sink or swim.

mtam: do you know that the state mandates that every district in NJ limits tax increases to 2%? This the law. Why is this something that the incumbents are running on?

Johngillam189 said:

mtam: do you know that the state mandates that every district in NJ limits tax increases to 2%? This the law.

This is not technically correct. There are countless exceptions to the 2% "CAP", making it very easy to exceed an actually 2% tax increase.

michaelgoldberg said:

Johngillam189 said:

mtam: do you know that the state mandates that every district in NJ limits tax increases to 2%? This the law.

This is not technically correct. There are countless exceptions to the 2% "CAP", making it very easy to exceed an actually 2% tax increase.

Exactly. Exceptions are made. A guiding principle of holding to the cap has characterized this slate's position. Allowing for no wiggle room, sending a firm signal to the superintendent about their budgetary process--that's pretty crucial.

And sorry--on the equity and access policy, this is not over-reach. As I stated above, choice has been a fundamental part of Mr. Eastman's philosophy from the get go, long before the community even understood what that might mean for us. It is the most gracious and thoughtful way to find a path for what was before a divisive issue. It is a way to address deleveling and the clunkiness of an over-rigid system, while still maintaining a notion of higher and more complex levels. That is no small thing.

And I do not think it is over-reach on their claim about Ms. Aaron. A board sends value messages and priorities to Superintendent, both publicly and behind the scenes, and this then informs specific administrative and hiring choices. If a good choice occurred on their watch, it seems highly appropriate for incumbents to cite this. That's what incumbents do, just as they are often blamed for the bad stuff. Isn't that what a campaign is? Whether Mr. Eastman did or did not like Osborne is not the point.