BOE Debate 10-21-2015 Video

The BOE Debate last night - the closing comments were not recorded due to a camera malfunction. tried to grab it on my cell, but after 9:35 of video, my cell phone overheated and shut down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzK_8oupS94

Thanks Joy!

I haven't watched yet and couldn't make it last night. Any fireworks? Surprises? Anything in the closing statements worth recapping

I just watched for the first few minutes and heard one candidate say she sends her kid to boarding school instead of our District.That seems odd to me for a BOE candidate.

michaelgoldberg said:
I just watched for the first few minutes and heard one candidate say she sends her kid to boarding school instead of our District.That seems odd to me for a BOE candidate.

I guess it depends on the reasoning. More than a few kids benefit from a smaller, more personalized environment that public schools can really offer. And other kids have special needs that the district cannot effectively accommodate.

I only watched the opening statements... and a few hours have passed, but I think Shannel Roberts indicated that she lives in the SB zoned district, and her children attended school there (but are now older)? Are any of the other sitting BOE members, or those running, living in the SB zone?

As the future of the school will be a big issue for the new BOE, and impact families in the SB zone much more than those who opt in, I do think it's important that the BOE have representation from the SB zone for these discussions.

It's interesting that her slate-mate, Marian Raab, who has children in the very overcrowded Tuscan, seemed flat-out against redistricting. (I personally think redistricting should be considered after coming up with how to provide attractive options/choices... but I wouldn't rule it out completely).

Both of WayneEastman's children attended Seth Boyden. Ms. Roberts child is at Columbia currently. The board represents the school district. Not individual schools, not wards like in some city councils. I think making sure we engage the SB community properly as decisions are being made is more important than some tokenism.

I believe it is important to give SB zoned families a choice as other families get a choice. I have heard this point made by Mr. Eastman , Ms. Pai and Mr. Bennett in the past

mod said:
Both of WayneEastman's children attended Seth Boyden. Ms. Roberts child is at Columbia currently. The board represents the school district. Not individual schools, not wards like in some city councils. I think making sure we engage the SB community properly as decisions are being made is more important than some tokenism.
I believe it is important to give SB zoned families a choice as other families get a choice. I have heard this point made by Mr. Eastman , Ms. Pai and Mr. Bennett in the past

As I have written before, I absolutely think that SB families should have a choice, as other district families do.

Yes, I heard Wayne Eastman and Madhu Pai state in their opening statements that choice should be available to everyone. But it has been this way for the entirety of Wayne Eastman's time on the board. Was it the lack of representation of an SB parent on the board the reason this wasn't recognized as an inequity sooner, or when this was implemented many years ago?

The Seth Boyden zoned families will be impacted significantly by decisions by this board. If there is no one already representing that perspective on the Board, someone who is a strong candidate who also lives in that zone (especially if they have a child at SB), will get one of my votes. Opt-in families do not have the same perspective, and I think it's important to have someone who can remind the BOE of the concerns of these families when the BOE has their working-group meetings, as well as at the time of voting... not just in a write-up that happened weeks before.

What would it mean to give SB families a choice? To send their children to any other ES of their choice? Only to South Mountain (the school that's at the other end of the racial/economic spectrum)? I'm not sure of such a move (which in theory I support) wouldn't require a shakeup of the whole existing ES configuration. This is probably one reason why Eastman has not followed through on this during his tenure.

Hopefully we'll get some creative thinking about it at the Education Summit.

ETA: And hopefully the importance to SB families of attending this summit will be communicated loud and clear. It seems like the summit will be much more than just 'another meeting to attend to hear information'... but I wouldn't necessarily realize this if I wasn't following the education scene closely.

I just watched the debate through the link in a Village Green article. In terms of surprises Mod, I was surprised that Malespina, speaking on behalf of her slate, expressed support for complete deleveling. Malespina referenced deleveling twice that I noticed, first in response to a question about the new Equity and Excellence Policy at the beginning of the debate. The Village Geen quotes her as saying the district needs to get to a point where there are "no more levels." During her closing statement Malespina said, "Our ultimate goal is to get rid of all the levels."

xavier67 said:
What would it mean to give SB families a choice? To send their children to any other ES of their choice? Only to South Mountain (the school that's at the other end of the racial/economic spectrum)? I'm not sure of such a move (which in theory I support) wouldn't require a shakeup of the whole existing ES configuration. This is probably one reason why Eastman has not followed through on this during his tenure.

Just FYI-the BOE is s 9 person board. Up until this January Beth Daugherty was President and the board was controlled by those who fought against the election of Eastman, Pai and Bennett in 2012.

DianaH said:
I just watched the debate through the link in a Village Green article. In terms of surprises Mod, I was surprised that Malespina, speaking on behalf of her slate, expressed support for complete deleveling. Malespina referenced deleveling twice that I noticed, first in response to a question about the new Equity and Excellence Policy at the beginning of the debate. The Village Geen quotes her as saying the district needs to get to a point where there are "no more levels." During her closing statement Malespina said, "Our ultimate goal is to get rid of all the levels."

Wow, for HS too. That is surprising . I need to watch the whole thing

mod said:

xavier67 said:
What would it mean to give SB families a choice? To send their children to any other ES of their choice? Only to South Mountain (the school that's at the other end of the racial/economic spectrum)? I'm not sure of such a move (which in theory I support) wouldn't require a shakeup of the whole existing ES configuration. This is probably one reason why Eastman has not followed through on this during his tenure.

Just FYI-the BOE is s 9 person board. Up until this January Beth Daugherty was President and the board was controlled by those who fought against the election of Eastman, Pai and Bennett in 2012.

I don't really see strong 'factions' of the board. In how they vote, they generally seem more similar than different (other than Johanna Wright). I don't think the other board members would have objected to a review of options for SB zoned families.

sprout said:

mod said:

xavier67 said:
What would it mean to give SB families a choice? To send their children to any other ES of their choice? Only to South Mountain (the school that's at the other end of the racial/economic spectrum)? I'm not sure of such a move (which in theory I support) wouldn't require a shakeup of the whole existing ES configuration. This is probably one reason why Eastman has not followed through on this during his tenure.

Just FYI-the BOE is s 9 person board. Up until this January Beth Daugherty was President and the board was controlled by those who fought against the election of Eastman, Pai and Bennett in 2012.

I don't really see strong 'factions' of the board. In how they vote, they generally seem more similar than different (other than Johanna Wright). I don't think the other board members would have objected to a review of options for SB zoned families.

That is a more recent occurrence . Go back a few years , Eastman , Pai and Bennett were the minority on many, many votes and committees were Chaired by their opponents

And if you don't think it matters who chairs a committee think back to the E and E committee chaired by Bill Gaudelli as it was tasked with putting together a gifted and talented policy. Several times he stated he didn't believe in gifted and talented programs and that policy languished for years

sprout said:

mod said:

xavier67 said:
What would it mean to give SB families a choice? To send their children to any other ES of their choice? Only to South Mountain (the school that's at the other end of the racial/economic spectrum)? I'm not sure of such a move (which in theory I support) wouldn't require a shakeup of the whole existing ES configuration. This is probably one reason why Eastman has not followed through on this during his tenure.

Just FYI-the BOE is s 9 person board. Up until this January Beth Daugherty was President and the board was controlled by those who fought against the election of Eastman, Pai and Bennett in 2012.

I don't really see strong 'factions' of the board. In how they vote, they generally seem more similar than different (other than Johanna Wright). I don't think the other board members would have objected to a review of options for SB zoned families.

I've been waiting for the topic of 'factions' to come up.

Although Wayne, Madhu, Donna, and myself have all been political supporters and running mates of each other, we have not voted together on non-unanimous votes as often as one might think. All of the divided votes in 2015 (BOE president, the tax levy, hiring the Director of Special Services, dropping IB, and the PARCC opt-out resolution) have had different majorities.

Mr. Bennett is correct. For example, I believe Mr. Eastman and Ms. Pai voted against allocating $110,000 to fund a reading specialist, among other academic interventions in the early grades at Seth Boyden, while Mr. Bennett voted in favor of this funding. The vote was 5 to 4, in the end, with Mr. Bennett providing the "swing" vote in favor of allocation. Have Mr. Eastman and Ms. Pai ever voted differently, and if so, on what? Anyone know?

xavier67 said:
What would it mean to give SB families a choice? To send their children to any other ES of their choice? Only to South Mountain (the school that's at the other end of the racial/economic spectrum)? I'm not sure of such a move (which in theory I support) wouldn't require a shakeup of the whole existing ES configuration. This is probably one reason why Eastman has not followed through on this during his tenure.

That's the only way I can read a choice, given the only alternative I can see would be a forced move to either bordering Clinton or Tuscan (based on a split zoning), which won't help crowding at those two, at least be partially alleviated by allowing a move anywhere. And if that happens, I wonder what challenges await the district when those unhappy with their zoned school and SB decide to make a ruckus, or worse, of it.

ctrzaska said:

xavier67 said:
What would it mean to give SB families a choice? To send their children to any other ES of their choice? Only to South Mountain (the school that's at the other end of the racial/economic spectrum)? I'm not sure of such a move (which in theory I support) wouldn't require a shakeup of the whole existing ES configuration. This is probably one reason why Eastman has not followed through on this during his tenure.

That's the only way I can read a choice, given the only alternative I can see would be a forced move to either bordering Clinton or Tuscan (based on a split zoning), which won't help crowding at those two, at least be partially alleviated by allowing a move anywhere. And if that happens, I wonder what challenges await the district when those unhappy with their zoned school and SB decide to make a ruckus, or worse, of it.

Why a forced move? Maybe we have morethan one Magnet School and allow all students choice for either their zoned school or a magnet? Some ideas for magnet schools have been Arts, STEM,Spanish Immersion, and Core Knowledge.

joanauer said:
So who are people thinking of voting for? I liked Malespina because she seemed to understand the serious problems with our special education department and our athletics director. Otherwise, I'm not sure. I've spoken with Freedson spearately and she seems to understand what we need to do to improve special education, but it didn't come out at the debate.

I don't know Joan, Malespina is certainly good at outrage but I don't think she would effectively work towards solutions with the Board and Dr. Ramos. Her criticisms of the district are often disdainful and disrespectful. I haven't watched the whole debate yet but DianeH up thread mentioned Malespina said (speaking for her slate) our ultimate goal is to get rid of levels. We have been wrapped in the levels debate for decades and we are finally about to embark on an open access and choice policy that could be liberating in how our district addresses individual learning and achievement. I don't believe we want to go back to a fight over further deleveling

Johngillam189 said:
Mr. Bennett is correct. For example, I believe Mr. Eastman and Ms. Pai voted against allocating $110,000 to fund a reading specialist, among other academic interventions in the early grades at Seth Boyden, while Mr. Bennett voted in favor of this funding. The vote was 5 to 4, in the end, with Mr. Bennett providing the "swing" vote in favor of allocation. Have Mr. Eastman and Ms. Pai ever voted differently, and if so, on what? Anyone know?

I am not adept at posting links to the Village Green stories, but at the March 2015 BOE meeting, Ms. Pai and Mr. Eastman voted not to exceed the 2% tax levy and use the $330K banked cap. After the vote, Ms. Pai said, "It pains me that we board members spent so much time talking about needing to find `creative solutions' to our budget. We can't tax our way out of a $20MM budget deficit." Since the majority of the Board had voted in favor of the 2.10% tax increase in March, Ms. Pai and Mr. Eastman then voted in favor of the budget at the April 2015 meeting - which would include the reading specialist funds, right?

As far as the "factions" on the BOE, Beth Daugherty and Elizabeth Baker have endorsed Chris Sabin and Annemarie Maini and Donna Smith has endorsed Pai, Eastman and Freedson. Although not always, Daugherty and Baker often vote with Maureen Jones and Stephanie Lawson-Muhammad. I don't believe any BOE members have endorsed Malespina/Raab/Roberts.

sprout said:
mod said:
xavier67 said:What would it mean to give SB families a choice? To send their children to any other ES of their choice? Only to South Mountain (the school that's at the other end of the racial/economic spectrum)? I'm not sure of such a move (which in theory I support) wouldn't require a shakeup of the whole existing ES configuration. This is probably one reason why Eastman has not followed through on this during his tenure.Until the last year or so issues with Boyden's kids not having an alternative and Boyden's demographic skew were not as prominent as they are now.

Until the elementary schools became so packed, Boyden kids could attend other elementary schools just by making a request. The district didn't provide transportation, so this was not an easy opportunity to take advantage of and many of us were always dissatisfied with the configuration, but an opt-out did exist.

Boyden's demographics were not as skewed until last year too. In 2014-15 Boyden was 43% FRL-eligible, but in 2011-12, Seth Boyden was only 33% FRL-eligible, which would have been the highest in the district, but not a total outlier like it is now. Until very recently, the Boyden opt-in model seemed to be working reasonably well to sustain something close to demographic balance.

I agree that Boyden-zoned families should have at least one elementary school alternative, but the complicated thing about this is that if we let Boyden-zoned kids choose any elementary school they wanted and provide transportation to them, the costs would be very high since we would have so many different bus routes. If you wanted to do this the only feasible way would be to have some kind of staggered schedule so that busses could carry kids on the to-Boyden route and from-Boyden route, but this would require changing elementary school start times and it would not be so simple, especially with some elementary schools already having different start times.

If we designated one elementary school as the Boyden alternative we would have to reserve spaces at the alternative elementary school for Boyden by either shrinking that elementary school's sending zone or bumping late-registering kids.Shrinking an elementary school's sending zone would be tricky since it's not so easy to predict how many kids will live on a particular street. Even if we could predict this accurately we would then have to make room at the other elementary school we are sending more kids too. There would be a cascade of rezoning that would be very controversial. Now with all the elementary schools so full creating a Boyden-alternative is very difficult.

IMO, creating a Boyden-alternative would probably be better done as part of a comprehensive rezoning rather than an overall Boyden strategy. I know that many people here will disagree with me, even passionately, but I think that the Marshall-Jefferson pairing has to be reevaluated budgetarily, academically, and demographically. There are many legitimate criticisms you can make of the Board. I hope this doesn't come off as an excuse, but the Board as a whole has a limited bandwidth, even though there are nine board members. The Admin and Board can really only handle a few big issues at a time. 2013-14 was a year of big change for the district. We invested a lot of time talking about PARCC preparation, IB, the achievement gap, communications etc. All the while our superintendent was contemplating going to another district.

I learned about the sharply increasing FRL-percentage at Boyden in the summer of 2014 when I was on the FFT committee. I wanted this to become a public board agenda item and asked for it to be put on the agenda (even for FFT) but unfortunately this did not happen. Boyden also did not become an issue in the 2014 BOE election, even though Donna Smith talked about it 1-2 times at debates.

Although Boyden's demographics are now very skewed I think the larger issue for the Boyden PTA and community is funding. When the BOE had the Boyden forum I got the impression that Boyden parents would rather have more kids opt-into Boyden, but since each subgroup in Boyden actually does well compared to its subgroup statewide that making a big change to Boyden's model to possibly attract more opt-ins isn't as important as getting Boyden adequate funding.

One issue that Boyden parents were very dissatisfied about was the size of the 4th grade last year.
Unfortunately what had happened is that there were more August registrations than usual and the Admin could not respond in time to hire or transfer an additional 4th grade teacher.

(as usual, I speak only for myself.)

chalmers said:

Johngillam189 said:
Mr. Bennett is correct. For example, I believe Mr. Eastman and Ms. Pai voted against allocating $110,000 to fund a reading specialist, among other academic interventions in the early grades at Seth Boyden, while Mr. Bennett voted in favor of this funding. The vote was 5 to 4, in the end, with Mr. Bennett providing the "swing" vote in favor of allocation. Have Mr. Eastman and Ms. Pai ever voted differently, and if so, on what? Anyone know?

I am not adept at posting links to the Village Green stories, but at the March 2015 BOE meeting, Ms. Pai and Mr. Eastman voted not to exceed the 2% tax levy and use the $330K banked cap. After the vote, Ms. Pai said, "It pains me that we board members spent so much time talking about needing to find `creative solutions' to our budget. We can't tax our way out of a $20MM budget deficit." Since the majority of the Board had voted in favor of the 2.10% tax increase in March, Ms. Pai and Mr. Eastman then voted in favor of the budget at the April 2015 meeting - which would include the reading specialist funds, right?
As far as the "factions" on the BOE, Beth Daugherty and Elizabeth Baker have endorsed Chris Sabin and Annemarie Maini and Donna Smith has endorsed Pai, Eastman and Freedson. Although not always, Daugherty and Baker often vote with Maureen Jones and Stephanie Lawson-Muhammad. I don't believe any BOE members have endorsed Malespina/Raab/Roberts.

I believe Johanna Wright has endorsed them. You are right about more bipartisanship (for lack of a better word) recently. This was not the case just a few years ago , though the factions as you have laidthem out are still visible.

mod said:

ctrzaska said:

xavier67 said:
What would it mean to give SB families a choice? To send their children to any other ES of their choice? Only to South Mountain (the school that's at the other end of the racial/economic spectrum)? I'm not sure of such a move (which in theory I support) wouldn't require a shakeup of the whole existing ES configuration. This is probably one reason why Eastman has not followed through on this during his tenure.

That's the only way I can read a choice, given the only alternative I can see would be a forced move to either bordering Clinton or Tuscan (based on a split zoning), which won't help crowding at those two, at least be partially alleviated by allowing a move anywhere. And if that happens, I wonder what challenges await the district when those unhappy with their zoned school and SB decide to make a ruckus, or worse, of it.

Why a forced move? Maybe we have morethan one Magnet School and allow all students choice for either their zoned school or a magnet? Some ideas for magnet schools have been Arts, STEM,Spanish Immersion, and Core Knowledge.

And when one is quite under- or over-enrolled? I'm completely unconvinced this district is at all capable of handling the logistics/fallout, nor taking on these magnet approaches into middle school (where, presumably, we don't simply want them dropped and forgotten). And when I say incapable, this isn't to mean they themselves are to blame, but often the drivers outside of their control are what makes it near-impossible (budget, rezoning, new open access policy, etc).

ctrzaska said:

mod said:

ctrzaska said:

xavier67 said:
What would it mean to give SB families a choice? To send their children to any other ES of their choice? Only to South Mountain (the school that's at the other end of the racial/economic spectrum)? I'm not sure of such a move (which in theory I support) wouldn't require a shakeup of the whole existing ES configuration. This is probably one reason why Eastman has not followed through on this during his tenure.

That's the only way I can read a choice, given the only alternative I can see would be a forced move to either bordering Clinton or Tuscan (based on a split zoning), which won't help crowding at those two, at least be partially alleviated by allowing a move anywhere. And if that happens, I wonder what challenges await the district when those unhappy with their zoned school and SB decide to make a ruckus, or worse, of it.

Why a forced move? Maybe we have morethan one Magnet School and allow all students choice for either their zoned school or a magnet? Some ideas for magnet schools have been Arts, STEM,Spanish Immersion, and Core Knowledge.

And when one is quite under- or over-enrolled? I'm completely unconvinced this district is at all capable of handling the logistics/fallout, nor taking on these magnet approaches into middle school (where, presumably, we don't simply want them dropped and forgotten). And when I say incapable, this isn't to mean they themselves are to blame, but often the drivers outside of their control are what makes it near-impossible (budget, rezoning, new open access policy, etc).

The problems are complex , no doubt but the start remains with engaging the SB community. I believe last year while SB was lobbying for more funding they did not think the demonstration concept needed wholesale changing. What we don't want is another top-down initiative that does not have significant buy-in

"Since the majority of the Board had voted in favor of the 2.10% tax increase in March, Ms. Pai and Mr. Eastman then voted in favor of the budget at the April 2015 meeting - which would include the reading specialist funds, right?"

You may be correct. But I think the prior vote and the split with Bennett is the more important one in terms of making a difficult decision about whom to vote for in this crowded field. There are only two incumbents, and this makes evaluating their candidacy a bit easier than the others, since they have a voting record. Slates help, but I don't like to vote mindlessly for slates.

Joanauer: I was undecided until I attended the last debate. One can only read so many campaign pamphlets and platforms before going bleary-eyed. They are all milquetoast, aren't they? But the moment came for me when Ms. Maini responded to the achievement gap question with the heart and soul of both an educator and a parent. I think everyone in the room, and there were not many of us, were moved by what she had to say in response to the rather clinical, analytical answer given by Mr. Eastman, statistically correct though it may have been. It's worth a listen. She has my vote.

As for the Malespina slate: anger and criticism only gets you so far. I do recall Ms. Malespina at a public speaks, was it last spring?, attacking Dr. Ramos' appointment a rather earsplitting way, after only a quick google search of his qualifications. It was embarrassing. I wonder if she regrets this outburst now? I don't think she would work very well with others on the board. I have to assume her skepticism of Dr. Ramos will color her ability to work productively with him. There's much to be critical of in this district, but anger, cynicism and hot-headedness are not qualities that appeal to me in a candidate.

This is a tough choice this time. Reminds me of the choices the GOP has. At least there's one on the ballot I can vote for enthusiastically. Don't think I could say the same about the GOP! (Sorry to wander off topic. Just been reading the newspaper.)

Johngillam189 said:
"Since the majority of the Board had voted in favor of the 2.10% tax increase in March, Ms. Pai and Mr. Eastman then voted in favor of the budget at the April 2015 meeting - which would include the reading specialist funds, right?"
You may be correct. But I think the prior vote and the split with Bennett is the more important one in terms of making a difficult decision about whom to vote for in this crowded field. There are only two incumbents, and this makes evaluating their candidacy a bit easier than the others, since they have a voting record. Slates help, but I don't like to vote mindlessly for slates.
Joanauer: I was undecided until I attended the last debate. One can only read so many campaign pamphlets and platforms before going bleary-eyed. They are all milquetoast, aren't they? But the moment came for me when Ms. Maini responded to the achievement gap question with the heart and soul of both an educator and a parent. I think everyone in the room, and there were not many of us, were moved by what she had to say in response to the rather clinical, analytical answer given by Mr. Eastman, statistically correct though it may have been. It's worth a listen. She has my vote.
As for the Malespina slate: anger and criticism only gets you so far. I do recall Ms. Malespina at a public speaks, was it last spring?, attacking Dr. Ramos' appointment a rather earsplitting way, after only a quick google search of his qualifications. It was embarrassing. I wonder if she regrets this outburst now? I don't think she would work very well with others on the board. I have to assume her skepticism of Dr. Ramos will color her ability to work productively with him. There's much to be critical of in this district, but anger, cynicism and hot-headedness are not qualities that appeal to me in a candidate.
This is a tough choice this time. Reminds me of the choices the GOP has. At least there's one on the ballot I can vote for enthusiastically. Don't think I could say the same about the GOP! (Sorry to wander off topic. Just been reading the newspaper.)

I am searching for a combination of heart and analytical problem-solving. Generic talk of putting children first only gets you so far. Specifically regarding Special Ed I found the SEPAC questionnaire enlightening. I saw both heart and head in the answers by Freedson , Pai and Eastman and a glaring error in Ms. Maini's response.

michaelgoldberg said:
I just watched for the first few minutes and heard one candidate say she sends her kid to boarding school instead of our District.That seems odd to me for a BOE candidate.

Would that candidate be Dorcas Lind?

Johngillam189 said:
As for the Malespina slate: anger and criticism only gets you so far. I do recall Ms. Malespina at a public speaks, was it last spring?, attacking Dr. Ramos' appointment a rather earsplitting way, after only a quick google search of his qualifications. It was embarrassing. I wonder if she regrets this outburst now? I don't think she would work very well with others on the board. I have to assume her skepticism of Dr. Ramos will color her ability to work productively with him. There's much to be critical of in this district, but anger, cynicism and hot-headedness are not qualities that appeal to me in a candidate.

I have had a similar sense of Ms. Malespina. In addition, I am wary of someone who leaves their position in SOMSD because things are 'bad', and then who tries to come back at a management level. I would have more support for her if things were 'bad', and she worked to organize and unify all those who were also impacted by the 'bad' things, and use the resulting strength in numbers to influence positive change.

Yes, I suppose I am a soft-headed liberal. I see nothing in the record that demonstrates any competence at all from the incumbents. 1:30 am votes on critical issues, like eliminating IB? (A program, by the way, Mr. Eastman supported until, it seems, he lost interest). Taking credit during election season for Access and Equity, a policy change that was forced on the district by a court action? Doing nothing about Seth Boyden for the 9 years he was on the board, and then voting with his running mate against providing critical funding for addressing the achievement gap there (if that's not what the vote against the $110k for a reading specialist and early grade interventions at Seth Boyden indicates, I don't know what does)? I don't think that's problem-solving. But alas, this is futile. At the end of the day, we vote with our hearts and our gut, and mine are with Ms. Maini.