Sage Consultants' report on SOMSD's racial disparity

A reminder of the context for all this might be helpful.

The SOMSD has been named in several suits with regard to educational equality. One is from the Federal Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) which investigated school districts and colleges all over the country.

Hiring a consultant was step one in the required actions by the consent decree which settled the case:

"• Work with an expert consultant; obtain feedback from students, parents and staff; and conduct a comprehensive self-assessment of its current programs and courses to identify any potential barriers;

• Consider expanding criteria to determine eligibility and selection for enrollment;
• Expand student, parent, and community outreach about the available courses and programs;
• Make improvements to the academic counseling services at the middle and high school levels; and
• Provide training for relevant district and school site administrators and personnel."

(https://www.cabinetreport.com/human-resources/lea-settles-equal-access-issue-to-advanced-learning)

The Village Green reported the story at the time of the consultant's hiring:

http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/maplewood-board-ed-hires-equity-consultant-address-discrimination-suit/

The Cabinet Report (first link above) article also references a NJ state suit regarding students with disabilities which I remember, but can't find the details on right now.

The other major suit was filed by an outside party--the ACLU--with the OCR and has not yet been settled:

http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2014/10/aclu_complaint_claims_maplewood_school_procedures_unfair_to_minority_students.html

So, hiring a consultant to "find out what we already know" was a legal requirement from the settlement of the Federal OCR suit.

(And, absent that, had the district take action based on claims in the ACLU suit without independent review, all heck would have broken loose.)

Finally, this is a preliminary report, in a 3 year contract, and the work of a small consulting firm. We could spend a lot more, for a lot more pages and details--presumably about what we already know--but I am not sure that would be good value for the money.

The real question is how do we move forward--with meaningful change, about what counts (not just what can be counted).

jfburch said:
A reminder of the context for all this might be helpful.
The SOMSD has been named in several suits with regard to educational equality. One is from the Federal Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) which investigated school districts and colleges all over the country.
Hiring a consultant was step one in the required actions by the consent decree which settled the case:
"• Work with an expert consultant; obtain feedback from students, parents and staff; and conduct a comprehensive self-assessment of its current programs and courses to identify any potential barriers;
• Consider expanding criteria to determine eligibility and selection for enrollment;
• Expand student, parent, and community outreach about the available courses and programs;
• Make improvements to the academic counseling services at the middle and high school levels; and
• Provide training for relevant district and school site administrators and personnel."
(https://www.cabinetreport.com/human-resources/lea-settles-equal-access-issue-to-advanced-learning)
The Village Green reported the story at the time of the consultant's hiring:
http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/maplewood-board-ed-hires-equity-consultant-address-discrimination-suit/
The Cabinet Report (first link above) article also references a NJ state suit regarding students with disabilities which I remember, but can't find the details on right now.
The other major suit was filed by an outside party--the ACLU--with the OCR and has not yet been settled:
http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2014/10/aclu_complaint_claims_maplewood_school_procedures_unfair_to_minority_students.html
So, hiring a consultant to "find out what we already know" was a legal requirement from the settlement of the Federal OCR suit.
(And, absent that, had the district take action based on claims in the ACLU suit without independent review, all heck would have broken loose.)
Finally, this is a preliminary report, in a 3 year contract, and the work of a small consulting firm. We could spend a lot more, for a lot more pages and details--presumably about what we already know--but I am not sure that would be good value for the money.
The real question is how do we move forward--with meaningful change, about what counts (not just what can be counted).

I appreciate the "up to speed" post, and you've highlighted the issue- the contract started this year. The OCR decree is substantially, VERY substantially, more detailed than what we appear to have gotten thus far from the consultant.

Of course, as you note, we are in the very very early innings of the of the consultant's contract, the ultimate deliverable of which is a plan for managing to OCR's concerns. In short- "how are you guys gonna fix this?"

Somehow we already have the answer before even getting into the data to that from the consultant. So we have our solution! Let's now work to build data to support them.

This is not in the spirit of free inquiry but instead is in the realm of something else

And guess what? Let's say we move forward with the recommendations of the consultant, unsupported though they are. Let's further assume they have no or limited impact- an outcome that is just as probable as success, if not more so. WE WILL BE SUED AGAIN.

As you noted, your first quote doesn't belong to Einstein. The second one may! And I thank you for it, as it is apt- it is proving very difficult for people to accept that their opinions on what need be done may or may not be rooted in reality. Any true and open inquiry should welcome being taken wherever the data lead. Otherwise, we're not talking about reason and facts but instead about faith and belief.

The recommendations from the consultant seem to mirror the consent decree.

The additional bullets in the consent decree are also required by the agreement.

The big question is the HOW, not the WHAT.

And that seems to me to come under making a "comprehensive self-assessment of its current programs and courses to identify any potential barriers".

Which is a big part of what we, as a community, have been debating for the dozen years I have lived here, and more. I am not expecting the right data to somehow provide definitive answers.

But, Finding #4 does point to an internal problem with availability of data required for that comprehensive self-assessment:

"The limited use of data and the accessibility of the data makes it difficult to make programmatic or instructional decisions. This includes academic and discipline data."

and: "All data was provided by Central Office. It was very difficult to get data at the school level. The school administration routinely gets their data or information from Central Office Staff.

This causes a delay in being able to make instructional and programmatic decisions because Central Office staff provides data for all schools."

and: "The district has data systems that appear to be underutilized at this time:

- Powerschool- reports can be run at the school level; i.e. failure reports by teacher, race, gender, special ed/regular ed

-Naviance- usage reports can be gathered by building administrators to ensure that students are logging on and completing certain tasks; also can be used at the middle school level

-Teachscape-In addition to the Danielson evaluation tool, there is a walkthrough tool that can be used to establish instructional trends which will help determine what professional development is needed in each builidng."

The specific recommendations in the report address this at several points, along with several of the other OCR requirements.

Again for those who are interested, the full report presentation is available here:

https://www.emaze.com/@ALWCIZIF/sage-educational-consultantskun=ReeorwomoezntqvetpiuvqvkmzmqquAotrnizprioqTpxqlrnI

It's clear that the collection, analysis, and reporting of data is a huge problem for the District.

The link you posted is just the slide presentation, not the report (got excited for a sec).

Look, I don't want to get into a thing here- but cmon, picking one side- 17, titled "key takeaways".... "It is clear that there is a distinct tracking of students being in the 6th grade". What?

"The findings show that it makes it very difficult for a black student to move to honors level courses". What is "it"?

Mr. Pedant? Hardly. This is serious business, and this presentation in places is incomprehensible- and that's not even getting into the lack of foundation. The "takeaways"- which, being "takeaways" should be the important part people should walk away remembering- are incoherent. Can we guess at what they meant to say? I suppose that would be appropriate, since up to this point it seems that all we're doing is guessing on everything else.

But again, I am willing, very willing, to be persuaded, as I said at the outset- but as we go along on this, I am becoming less and less confident that there is anything there to persuade.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You seem to be making a lot of conclusions from what you correctly point out is a slide show presentation. A presentation of a preliminary report, of an ongoing project by a consultant hired by the district.

Wait a while. I don't know where it says that community members get access to full documentation and complete findings at this, or any stage of the game.

And fwiw, I didn't find any of the takeaways or other slides "incomprehensible".

jfburch said:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You seem to be making a lot of conclusions from what you correctly point out is a slide show presentation. A presentation of a preliminary report, of an ongoing project by a consultant hired by the district.
Wait a while. I don't know where it says that community members get access to full documentation and complete findings at this, or any stage of the game.

And fwiw, I didn't find any of the takeaways or other slides "incomprehensible".

What is the "it" then?

Hopefully we've reached peak bromides!

I'm drawing no conclusion except to say that sloppiness in laying out conclusions to a study does not bode well for the rigor applied to support those conclusions.

It's remarkable that some, yourself included, seem more interested in defending the conclusions to the exclusion of any supporting data. Putting aside the absurdity of delivering fully-formed solutions without sharing the data (which certainly must be ready and complete and cannot possibly be preliminary, as the conclusions are complete), I will ask you the same thing I asked DS & Xavier:

What information do you have that gives you such confidence in the conclusions offered in the presentation?

Sorry. Argument clinic is two doors down.

I've been living and working on these issues in this community for a dozen years. That's my source of information. It doesn't reduce to bullet or debate points.

I just came here to put some context to a discussion, that in typical MOL fashion was flailing in mid air.

Carry on.

jfburch said:
Sorry. Argument clinic is two doors down.
I've been living and working on these issues in this community for a dozen years. That's my source of information. It doesn't reduce to bullet or debate points.
I just came here to put some context to a discussion, that in typical MOL fashion was flailing in mid air.
Carry on.

So, in other words you just know what you know and those that don't should just take your word for it and stop asking pertinent questions. Not necessary to know what "It" refers to. That is just flailing about in your estimation

Like you I've been in the community for some time, and like you I have no information to support the conclusions in the presentation. I can only hope information is forthcoming.

Has anyone had the opportunity to see the data supporting the conclusions offered by the consultant? Still don't see it anywhere on BOE site

mod said:

jfburch said:
Sorry. Argument clinic is two doors down.
I've been living and working on these issues in this community for a dozen years. That's my source of information. It doesn't reduce to bullet or debate points.
I just came here to put some context to a discussion, that in typical MOL fashion was flailing in mid air.
Carry on.

So, in other words you just know what you know and those that don't should just take your word for it and stop asking pertinent questions. Not necessary to know what "It" refers to. That is just flailing about in your estimation

+1

It was a preliminary report, not the final report.

Jackson_Fusion said:
Has anyone had the opportunity to see the data supporting the conclusions offered by the consultant? Still don't see it anywhere on BOE site

yahooyahoo said:
It was a preliminary report, not the final report.

Jackson_Fusion said:
Has anyone had the opportunity to see the data supporting the conclusions offered by the consultant? Still don't see it anywhere on BOE site

How can a preliminary report have concrete conclusions, publicly presented to elected officials and the public?

The conclusions are present in the presentation, which means the data must be fully formed, vetted and available as well.

Otherwise the conclusions are worse than worthless, since they would be unmoored from any sort of factual basis while attempting to apply a sheen of analytical rigor to what amount to opinions or preferred outcomes.

I continue to believe, partly because it's just too bizarre to contemplate otherwise, that a full range of meaningful data that goes beyond simply counting people exists and provides a well supported case for the suggestions offered.

Why hasn't it been released yet is the question.

I am inclined to think that beyond what we already know from data released in the past that the data we would like to see analyzed truly does not exist. Rather than hiring a consultant to analyze limited historical data what the BOE does need to hire is one that can help them begin to collect data that will facilitate more rigorous analysis.

Perhaps a firm with a background in data analysis, sociology, and economics, as well as with some interest in education.

Jackson_Fusion, these are valid questions. I encourage you to attend a BOE meeting and ask them in a public forum.

higher income households generally produce better students.

There. And that was for free.