Submitted by John Arbeeny.
“There are none so blind as those who will not see,” Jonathan Swift, 1738.
I reviewed the 14 March 2022 Clover Park School District (CPSD) Board regular meeting and came away with observations on the most significant issue: District discipline policy. Agenda Item 22-102, Adoption of Policies, Policy 3241 “Student Discipline” was ultimately passed by a vote of 3 yes (Pearson, Jacob, Veliz) and 2 no (Anderson, Wagemann) vote.
However before passage, Director Anderson amended the motion, seconded by Director Wagemann, requesting that Policy 3241 be remanded to further study until significant issues were addressed, most notably the definition of ambiguous terms and assertions upon which the Policy is built. Director Anderson cited a statement by Mary Fertakis, WSSDA representative at the 7 March 2022 Board retreat:
“The definition of terms should be clear, clear such that we all understand.”
Without these definitions the policy becomes moot as would any alleged favorable disciplinary impact on the District or individual schools. Each school’s administrators and teachers would have to figure it out themselves. Multiply this by 27 District schools and you have a recipe for chaos implementing Board discipline policy down to school and teacher level and ultimately upon discipline District wide.
Director Anderson asked the simple question “Define ‘culturally responsive discipline’”, a central theme of the proposed policy. Directors Pearson, Jacobs and Veliz all deferred to Acting Superintendent Brian Laubach: none of them wanted to handle that “hot potato”! Indeed Director Veliz asked for a definition of “cultural discipline” with examples, from Laubach which confirmed that definitional clarity did not exist (minute 47:22). Some Board members literally looked at Laubach, a staff member, with nervous laughter, for a definition to what was supposed to be the basis of THEIR Board discipline policy.
Laubach strove mightily to define “cultural responsive discipline” as he put it “off the top of my head” but stumbled badly and failed to do so convincingly. It should have been an easy task in plain language and yet not a single Board member ventured to define this term. However, Laubach’s attempt to answer Director Veliz’s question let slip the true intent and meaning behind “culturally responsive discipline” and thus Policy 3241 (minute 47:49):
“So, are you disciplining African-American boys more than you’re discipline disciplining white boys, right?”
So “culturally responsive discipline” is merely a deceptive cover term for “racially/ethnically based discipline” which seeks to “even out” the numbers of disciplinary incidents based upon racial/ethnic populations or some other undefined criteria. It has little to do with group or individual cultural differences (the determination of which is problematic), discipline generally or creating a safe academic environment. I wonder what the public would think if this were explained in plain language: “a discipline policy based upon race/ethnicity”?
Maybe that’s why it’s not!
If indeed “culturally responsive discipline” is nothing more than more favorable treatment of some over others based upon race/ethnicity are we not treading upon the US Constitution 14th Amendment, Section 1?
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
NOTE: notice the words are “equal protection” not equitable protection!
Unfortunately, Director Anderson’s motion to remand Policy 3241 for further study was defeated 3 no (Pearson, Jacobs, Veliz) and 2 yes (Anderson, Wagemann).
You’d expect if Board policies were adequate and implemented efficiently and effectively that the “rising tide” of improved discipline would “float all boats” and with it academic achievement. However that’s not happening. Discipline, especially in middle and high schools is very school dependent. There are discipline “success” stories such as Lakes High School and Harrison Prep which just coincidentally have the highest academic achievement and failing discipline and academic achievement in other schools.
Here are several examples of the disparities in discipline incidents (number of incidents and percent of total District incidents) taken from District statistics (2017-2022) in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and exclusionary discipline measures (suspension/expulsion rate) as a percentage of student population taken from OSPI report card:
https://washingtonstatereportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/ReportCard/ViewSchoolOrDistrict/100047
- Clover Park School District total disciplinary incidents: 36,118 (100%); 4.3% exclusionary discipline
- Clover Park High School total disciplinary incidents: 8,545, (23%); 7.6% exclusionary discipline
- Lakes HS total disciplinary incidents: 5,666, (16%); 3.3% exclusionary discipline
- Harrison Prep total disciplinary incidents: 661, (2%); 6.8% exclusionary discipline
As you might expect based on academic achievement, Clover Park High School (6% academically) has a higher number of disciplinary incidents and exclusionary discipline than Lakes High School (56% academically). You might expect that Harrison Prep (83% academically) would have the lowest level of disciplinary incidents (2%), less that 1/10th that of CPHS. Yet surprisingly Harrison Prep has a very high disciplinary exclusion rate of 6.8% nearly equal to that of CPHS. Could it be that holding students to a very high standard of discipline and consequences also reduces discipline incidents overall and enhances academic achievement? Perhaps.
Causative or coincidental? Maybe here, within the District, is a connection between discipline and academic achievement that should be explored and could serve as a model for the District. However an investigation into that connection would have required a Board more interested in determining what works than passing a policy that hasn’t.
Is the CPSD discipline policy flawed or is the implementation flawed or is it a combination of both? As passed, Policy 3241 appears to be another editorial change at best which does not significantly change policy. It has remained essentially unchanged since HB 1541 was passed in 2016. It will not change the District’s discipline status in any significant manner or its academic achievement as a result thereof. Continue with the same old “edited” policy, a lack of Board understanding of even its most basic terms, its unintended consequences and lack of accountability and you can be assured the Board will have to deal with failing discipline and academic achievement in another 5 years.
So “culturally responsive discipline” is merely a deceptive cover term for “racially/ethnically based discipline” which seeks to “even out” the numbers of disciplinary incidents based upon racial/ethnic populations or some other undefined criteria. It has little to do with group or individual cultural differences (the determination of which is problematic), discipline generally or creating a safe academic environment. I wonder what the public would think if this were explained in plain language: “a discipline policy based upon race/ethnicity”?
According to HB 1541 Sec 107….
25Sec. 107. RCW 28A.600.022 and 2013 2nd sp.s. c 18 s 308 are each26amended to read as follows:27(1) School districts should make efforts to have suspended or28expelled students return to an educational setting as soon as29possible. School districts ((should)) must convene a meeting with the30student and the student’s parents or guardians within twenty days of31the student’s long-term suspension or expulsion, but no later than32five days before the student’s enrollment, to discuss a plan to33reengage the student in a school program. Families must have access34to, provide meaningful input on, and have the opportunity to
35participate in a culturally sensitive and culturally responsive 36reengagement plan.37(2) In developing a reengagement plan, school districts should 38consider shortening the length of time that the student is suspended
p. 8 4SHB 1541.SL
1 or expelled, other forms of corrective action, and supportive
2 interventions that aid in the student’s academic success and keep the
3 student engaged and on track to graduate. School districts must
4 create a reengagement plan tailored to the student’s individual
5 circumstances, including consideration of the incident that led to
6 the student’s long-term suspension or expulsion. The plan should aid
7 the student in taking the necessary steps to remedy the situation
that led to the student’s suspension or expulsion. 8(3) Any reengagement meetings conducted by the school district9involving the suspended or expelled student and his or her parents or10guardians are not intended to replace a petition for readmission.
The Culturally Responsive disciple….or as the Washington State law puts it…Culturally Responsive Re-engagement plan is for students that have unique situations that may have caused the student to become disruptive in the classroom or on school grounds that led to being suspended or expulsion. The circumstances leading up to the incident shall be taken in consideration (discretion) and have a meeting between district staff, parents or guardians and the student to develop a plan to get the student back on track to academic achievement.
The Culturally Responsive discipline is not a policy to implement and evening out of statistical numbers between races of students, as you imply here.
Straight from the horse’s mouth: “So, are you disciplining African-American boys more than you’re discipline (sic) disciplining white boys, right?”
You can philosophize all you want about the convoluted circular definitions in State law but where the rubber meets the road it’s all about race based discipline built on the dubious premise of “cultural competence”.
A flawed premise which even with perfect logic results in a flawed conclusion. Please tell me how a teacher who sees over 100 students in her classes has the time, expertise, training, experience and close and continual contact with each student’s “culture” (family back how many generations?) can possibly tailor their teaching and discipline to fit each student?
It is an impossible premise which if it serves as the basis for teaching and discipline can only result in a flawed conclusion: chaos.
LMAO….you tried tying the discipline policy to the newly passed Equity and Diversity law but failed miserably. Nice try bro!
What if cannibalism is part of the cultural experience?
Is there a school policy to “even that out”?
Asking for a friend.
How about a family where physical violence is “normal”? Or drug use is “normal”? Or criminal activity is “normal”. Or “honor killing” is normal? Or “packing heat” is normal? The list goes on and on. This concept of explaining and basing discipline of bad conduct because it is “normal” within that individual’s “culture” has no place in any civilized society. Discipline thus sinks to the lowest common denominator and society along with it. Give an excuse for bad behavior and you’ll get more of it.
LMAO…..here we go with all your so called “Cultural” normal behaviors in today’s society….all of these are merely ‘Hypothetical Situations” you appear to be using to attempt to “Justify” your line of thinking about the Discipline Policy for the Clover Park School District.
You are a very Sad, Sad person….Mr. Arbenny!
Laugh all you want: that is not a logical argument. So families (i.e.cultures) that think criminal activity, domestic violence, drug, alcohol abuse, ignorance, lacking educational values, harassment, threatening behavior, assaults, carrying weapons illegally, failure in responsibilities to one’s family, lack of civic responsibility, disruptive behavior, etc. etc. etc. etc. don’t exist for students in Clover Park School District? Really? They are only “hypothetical”? No, they are everyday occurrences in many student’s lives. Do we treat an assault by someone from this type of “normal” culture less severely than someone who comes from a “culture” where none of this social deviancy occurred? No and you’re not doing such students a favor when in later life the punishment will match the crime regardless of “culture”.
What’s not hypothetical are the facts and statistics that appear to be off the table for consideration.
That is what’s not only sad, but alarming.
Are we one nation or a divided nation?
If we are a divided nation, don’t ask for or demand another single dime from me.
Afterall, I have my own tribe to look after.
LMAO…..here’s another prime example of divisive politics by a person whom does not know the difference be HB 5044 and HB 1541….one addresses Equity and Diversity…while the latter was passed in 2016….over six years ago….and one doesn’t have anything to do with the other. We are clearly a divided nation….because of the last president…whom was the dumbest ever in the history of our nation. Besides discipline is almost entirely an individual practice….not an across the board practice….which the law HB 1541 recognizes.
Question, or “The elephant in the room”: Who edited Policy 3241, which was last developed in 2016 and approved on March 14th, 2022, by a majority vote of School Board Directors Alyssa Anderson Pearson, Carole Jacobs and Anthony Valiz–the Clover Park School Board or the District staff? Which organization is responsible for writing and updating policies? If the Board is responsible, then such confusion should not exist after a policy is reviewed and presented for a vote of approval. Directors David Anderson and Paul Wagemann were exercising due diligence in questioning the procedure previous to calling for a vote and moving to remand the policy for further study. Informed observations and responses like those above are the type of dialogue which should occur among school board directors before voting on their policies.
We hear frustrated teachers complain that teaching is hindered by chaos in the classroom due to behavior problems. Policy 3241, regarding student discipline, is critical to academic performance and character development.
“That’s the way it has always been done.” doesn’t necessarily meet the criteria for thorough, informed discussion before critical policies are approved by the School Board.
The Washington State legislature passed HB 1541 in 2016, I would believe OSPI developed best standards and practices to be implemented by all Washington State school districts. The policy is still fairly new, with the COVID pandemic not being able to provide accurate disciplinary numbers over the last 2.5 years of the pandemic, I would believe the policy hasn’t had the time to be thoroughly evaluated by Directors Paul Wagemann and David Anderson. It still in its infancy to make adjustments. I would recommend an evaluation period of at least 5 full academic school years before jumping the gun like Paul Wagemann and David Anderson seem to be doing by and following the Far-Right Conservative line of thinking of believing the newly passed HB 5044 is squarely in line with the District’s discipline policy that was last edited before HB 5044 was passed and implemented last year. The two are not inter-twined like these two directors, D. Anderson and P. Wagemann, want to believe.
And following this line of thinking from a FOX radio host spewing misinformation…
https://mynorthwest.com/3399911/rantz-wa-schools-adopt-race-based-discipline-white-students-get-harsher-punishment/
Apparently you read a different HB 1541, 2015-2016, than I did……or didn’t read it at all. It has everything to do with student discipline and educator cultural competence at the heart of the District’s discipline policy and goes into great detail.
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1541-S4.PL.pdf?q=20220325134517
Excerpt from HB1541 as passed 2015-2016 Legislative Session
New Section. Sec.1
(2)In its 2015 report to the legislature, the educational opportunity gap oversight and accountability committee made the following recommendations in keeping with its statutory purpose, which is to recommend specific policies and strategies to close the educational opportunity gap:
(a) Reduce the length of time students of color are excluded from school due to suspension and expulsion and provide students support for reengagement plans;
(b) Enhance the cultural competence of current and future educators and classified staff
This New Section is followed by PART I: Disproportionality in Student Discipline and by PARTII: Educator Cultural Competence.
These are the foundation upon which for the State and local discipline policy is built with few editorial changes over the years. This discipline policy has been around since 2016, already 6 years to date, and has not “fixed” the problems either in academic achievement or discipline.
Indeed it is getting worse not better. It is not in its “infancy” and giving it another 5 years to see if it works is the definition of insanity. Our children aren’t guinea pigs to be experimented upon and losing another 5 graduation classes to this insanity in unconscionable.
“Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the results to change.”
LMAO….I am getting under your skin…that’s OK…most intelligent people won’t be offended by someone questioning your ability to analyze and confer your assumptions on a law passed about 6 years ago. The whole premise to change the law and school policy was to reduce the institutional racist policies in our educational institutions that are bound to follow The US Constitution and the Civil Rights laws that support equitable implementation of discipline policy. Before HB 1541 passed, the school districts were racist…showed biases against students of color in classrooms across the nation. I know..I was a student of color in a public school that was racist towards me and my people from an Indian reservation. Do, instead of supporting a equitable change, you appear to want the continuation of racism in our public school systems. WOW!
Orwell observed long ago,”There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them”.
Wagemann and Anderson must be inept. They are dependent on Arbeeny to write this kind of propaganda on a regular basis and expect our community to buy it. Let’s pull back the curtain.
John Arbeeny represents Lakewood Cares, a far right political group that will say and do anything to advance their political agenda. Paul Wagemann and David Anderson simply mimic whatever Arbeeny says…mere puppets. David Anderson is a governor of this group along with Arbeeny and Jim Cooper. This Lakewood Cares group is made up of political extremists and a growing number of our local republican party seem to be joining. They are intent on pushing out those in their party who share true consevative values or who stand for a more moderate collaborative approach; I believe moderates are now labeled RINOs and mocked by these extremists. The louder and more obnoxious you can be, the better.
I am thankful school board meetings are now available to watch on you tube. Arbeeny usually speaks and then Wagemann and Anderson mimic what he says. They use the exact same words. They seem to read off of the same talking points. It is all planned ahead by Lakewood Cares. This is something they never wanted the public to know. “Smoke and Mirrors” was their latest collaboration; Arbeeny writes it in the Suburban Times and Wagemann speaks it at the board meeting. The intent is to plant fear and conspiracies. The puppeteer is Arbeeny behind the screen and his puppets are sitting at the board table; all orchestrated.
The level of ugly politics these people enjoy is sick. Based on what Wagemann said at the March 14th meeting, he now has a collection of screenshots on his phone sent to him by his friends that will be a part of a records request. He seemed extremely worried. These pictures are of our superintendent with ugly remarks attached. Wagemann lamely implied he was a victim because he never asked for them to be sent by his friends….yet they felt he would somehow enjoy them? Give me a break! Do you send offensive screenshots to people who make it clear they don’t want to receive that type of garbage? Wagemann has a poor defense. He went on to say that those who sent them will be pretty upset once they become public. I hope they are! Let’s see if the same people on Wagemann’s racist emails match up with the screenshots. Wagemann inquired about getting legal help paid for by us taxpayers. No thanks! Take some personal responsibility for your lack of ethics and actions, Wagemann.
It became public that Superintendent Ron Banner recently filed a harrassment claim against Wagemann. Based on Wagemann’s sudden confession of racist and/or inappropriate screenshots, I applaud Banner for standing up to vicious political bullies. How many of the same type of incidents need to happen before you believe a person is probably guilty?
Wagemann, Arbeeny and Anderson talk a lot obout behavior and discipline. They want accountability. They should look in the mirror and start with who they see. What is bullying? Is the bystander as guilty? If you support bullies are you equally guilty? These guys are hypocrites. Arbeeny lecturing anyone on discipline is a joke!
Every time Anderson, Wagemann and Arbeeny mention “transparency” remember that they are anything but transparent. “Smoke and Mirrors” is their bread and butter. Arbeeny said it all last summer in an email…it’s a political game where you play roles to deceive the public. “Good cop”, “Bad cop”
Thank you Michael for the clarity you are providing. I have looked into the background of Mr.Arbenny and found a history of racism, misogyny and ageism in his documented remarks. I imagine he feels he exempt from ageism remarks made about 15 years ago as he is a white male and not the black female they were directed toward.
He was very focused on our previous mayor and took pains to promote nepotism when this mayors daughter was elected to the school board. Elected and appointed are different, but he wrote this more than once.
If you look at the campaign donations to Mr. Anderson you will see Mr. Arbenny was a major donor. Mr. Anderson never responds when questioned online following his reprints of news or written letters. He thanks supporters, but does not engage with others. He has initiated conversations online, but quickly bows out as it implodes. I find his inability to discuss or defend his views as weak and ineffectual. His actions speak loudly though. His greatly manipulated announcement of a “closed school board meeting” displaying jail bars was effective in ratcheting up anger. He led others to believe they were locked out and being victimized as taxpayers. It is worthy to note that he stated he could not make contact with the school board (even Mr. Wageman?) before he made this public announcement. Because of COVID and previous meeting disruptions there were limitations on attendance for EVERYONE on the board for the swearing in ceremony. Mr. Anderson arranged an alternate person to swear him in at the parking lot so his supporters could bask in his victory. It was quite a spectacle of the unmasked. He had a right to celebrate, but used this as added fuel to further alienate his supporters from the truth. Following the first ceremony he entered the board meeting where he was sworn in a second time.
It is notable that Mr. Anderson has posted an online photo of himself in a Times Magazine mock up as if he was “Man of the Year.” So was this election about the children he claims he wishes to support or a vehicle to elevate his own ego?
Bottom line here: I’ve paid million$ in taxes over a long working life – much of it in property taxes – and I can’t even send my kid to the public school I’m forced to fund, because of the disasterous record of failure it’s known for.
Those who defend that record have failed me, my family, and the comunity.
I can’t begin to imagine what you hope to achieve by doubling down on such failure.
Also, if you take off your blinders and step out of your own echo chamber, you would realize that you are doing and saying the very things you accuse “conservatives” of.
If this is what public learning has led to and is an indication of where it’s going, we’re screwed.
Brian, it is quite clear you base your view of success of our school district on 10th grade test scores and not on actual academic success. I encourage you to take the time to do a deeper analysis. Our district has given exceptional presentations on all of the test scores…were you listening?
Would you feel lied to if someone used 10th grade scores to claim our students are failing; that our entire district is failing? This is what Anderson, Wagemann and Arbeeny claim and publish. They purposely fail to tell people that these 10th grade test scores are used to help provide academic support over the next 2 years so these students can meet graduation requirements.
Do you believe that a student who struggles in 10th grade is incapable of improvement over the next 2 years? Anderson, Arbeeny and Wagemann believe students should be labeled failures in 10th grade.
Do you know that Clover Park District requires more of their students to meet graduation requirements than surrounding districts; and, their graduates received more academic scholorships than ever before? You call that a failing district? Anderson, Wagemann and Arbeeny call them failures.
Did you bother to compare the academic performance of students who are enrolled from 9th grade on in our district to those who enroll later? Yet you call our district a failure?
You choose to believe what you want to believe without any concern for the truth.
Did you make the mistake of listening to political friends rather than doing your own homework? Did you check their claims? I highly suggest you start asking these political hacks why they lied to our community and to you.
I respectfully request you go up to the district and check on Wagemann and Anderson’s “failure” claims. That is what I did when I received Anderson’s campaign literature. Many people have bothered to check on the claims of Anderson, Arbeeny and Wagemann and we are flat out calling them liars. They destort those scores to advance their political agenda. It is ALL political. My guess is that you already know this.
In fairness, I’ll defer to others who are more familiar with the data you speak of.
John, is this true that district perfomance is based on 10th grade scores only and that grades 11 and 12 are not taken into account?
What about the low graduation rates that have been presented earlier?
The conversation here started with differing standards for discipline, based on being from different cultures. That hardly seems appropriate for any reason I can think of.
This isn’t that complicated.
Show up; be respectful; perform; graduate; get to work; earn your living – go to university if you choose.
Simply go to the OSPI report card site and look up the statistics for a host of stats to include discipline, demographics, by race/ethnicity etc. A wealth of information.
https://washingtonstatereportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/ReportCard/ViewSchoolOrDistrict/102218
What do you call CPHS when it is under 6 percentile academically when compared to all other Washington High School? What do you call CPHS when it has nearly 1/4 of all the District’s disciplinary incidents (out of 27 schools) and 7.6% of the student body are suspended/expelled? How about CPHS attendance rate of 50.7%? How about meeting standards in ELA 20.3% or math 5.4% (can you get any lower?) or science 21.4%. Yet they claim to graduate 87% of their students in 4 years. These are real numbers that the District doesn’t want you to know about. You’ve never seen them in a District briefing and neither have the Directors! Indeed Director Veliz didn’t believe them when Director Wagemann brought them up.
As far as testing goes, OSPI did not specify grade”
“In the Fall of 2021, students in specific grades were assessed in Math, English Language Arts, and Science. Students took the previous grade’s assessment (what they would have been administered in Spring 2021). “
Brian, You just got an intionally foggy answer from Arbeeny…he pretends to not know and then throws everything possible at you to evade the truth. Classic Arbeeny red herrings to distract from the disgusting fact that he, Wagemann and Anderson created their own story to deceive our community. The numbers guy and master game player, who supplies the data to Wagemann and Anderson, failed to note that 10th graders had 2 more instructional years until graduation? No one is buying that he didn’t know. Together they manipulated the data to the public during the campaign and then have continued. They passed out flyers giving our entire school district a huge “F” and they put those undergraduate test scores on those flyers to fit their campaign strategy which was to trash our entire school district and to create fear. Our administration has given explicit information at board meetings about testing and Wagemann and Anderson continue to ignore it. Wagemann and Anderson continue to make false claims about academic competency when they can’t even comprehend how testing data is used to inform instruction.
I believe you just helped to expose the ” big lie” they have been selling.
I sincerely thank you for the direct question you asked Arbeeny. Some underestimate the decency and integrity that still exists in this political climate. I also respect what you said about discipline at the end of your comments. That is what we all want, but life isn’t the same for all kids. I believe we have over 500+ students who are homeless. I know from experience that getting these children through a successful pathway to graduation and to become contributing members of society requires a lot of attention, intervention, innovative instruction and compassion. This is what the Clover Park School District is focused on doing; finding a way for every student to be successful. We are one of the most diverse school districts in the State with one of the highest poverty levels. This is Lakewood’s reality. Anderson, Wagemann and Arbeeny live in their 1950’s/ 1960’s childhood fantasy world. They have no solutions; only punishments and making everything political. It comes easy to them to twist data and call our teachers, superintendent, school board members and students “failures”. They only know to go backwards.
500+ homeless kids?
What is that as a percentage of the student body?
Brian, I checked the latest data on demographics. My 500+ number was incorrect. Here are the current %. I am including those for Steilacoom (S) and University Place (UP) because Anderson’s campaign (Lakewood Cares) used surrounding districts to claim Clover Park was a “failing” district without providing the bigger picture. Their omission was very intentional.
CP S UP
Non English
Speaking 14.5 3.9 5.6
Low income 66.3 27.1 40.2
Mobile 7.9 4.5 2.9
Homeless. 1.9 0.8 1.0
Migrant. 0.1 0.1 0.0
Military. 33.3 34.1 5.4
Sec. 504 2.3 3.4 4.5
Disabilities(IEP) 16.4 14.0 10.8
Kindergarten
Readiness 39.7 65.6 45.4
Total
Enrollment 12,696 3,195 5,644
Clover Park serves a large special needs student population due to Madigan services. Military families are stationed here for access to the medical needs of these children. We also have the students from Child Study and Treatment Center. Did Anderson, Arbeeny and Wagemann ever explain that to you or other voters? No, they just used old test scores that fit their narrative and called it good enough to fool people.
All of these demographics impact a school district, they impact every classroom. No excuses, just facts. When you have two board members who are so dense and clueless about the needs of the students they oversee, you have a disaster in the making. Wagemann and Anderson demonstrate a complete lack of interest in setting aside their politics to actually listen and learn. They are not up to the task of putting students before self and politics. If you can’t do that, you need to get called out and booted.
Thank you again for asking Arbeeny and me for clarification of our claims. Keep questioning.
Ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy and a sign of a weak argument. This is an issue regarding CPSD, not personalities or alleged conspiracies. Stick to the topic,
Nice try at pivoting to demographics when the issue at hand is discipline. Are you now blaming our students and their families for the failure of CPSD for both discipline and academics? Who runs the district? The students? No, it’s supposed to be the Board who represents these people who you infer are responsible for this failure and the administration which is supposed to be running the District. “It is a poor workman that blames his tools.”
Please give the citation for your statistics as I have. This way they can be put into perspective. For instance the poverty rate in Lakewood (2022) is 16.7% not 66.3% (https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/lakewood-wa-population). You claim the latest testing was only for 10th graders: provide the citation. If demographics are to blame for low performance then how do you explain the relative success of Lakes (58% ranked) and Harrison Prep (83% ranked) versus CPHS (5.9% ranked)? They took the same test. Stop making excuses for low performance based upon demographics.
Lochburn MS is a “feeder” school for CPHS so let’s take a look at how that effects academic achievement and discipline. It’s not good. Any suggestion that a 10th grader (if in fact that was the grade level tested) is going to make up in the last 2 years of high school ground they lost in the previous 4 to 10 is being unrealistic.
https://washingtonstatereportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/ReportCard/ViewSchoolOrDistrict/102239
https://www.schooldigger.com/go/WA/schoolrank.aspx?level=3
Lochburn MS: CPHS:
ELA: 21.0% 20.3%
Math: 8.8% 5.4%
Science. 28.3% 21.4%
Attendance: 54.9% 50.7%
Discipline rate: 22.7% 7.6%
Ranking state wide: 4.5% 5.9% (dropped 76 places in rankings since 2019)
So what we have is a middle school that is failing feeding a high school that is failing even worse. And 10th graders are supposed to make up that difference in 2 years? Get real! Makes you wonder why the District waited until 10th grade to accelerate the learning curve in the last 2 years of school that hadn’t occurred in the first 10! What we have here is not a demographic problem; it is a systemic problem that must be addressed. The first step in the 6 step problem solving process is to define the problem…..not to make up excuses for it.
It’s important to have your numbers in order if you want to claim the moral high ground.
With a military background and as an employer for most of my life, I know how important it is to keep disciplinary problems away from the greater element, so as to maintain unit effectiveness.
So what to do with those who can’t/won’t contribute positively to the greater effort?
In the military and the private sector, disrupters are always removed from positions of influence before any other considerations are had.
Some are redeemable and can be brought back into the fold.
Some can never be redeemed for whatever reasons there are.
The question becomes: how much disruption is going to be tolerated before hard right decisions are made?
If you wait too long, there is lasting damage to those who would otherwise excell.
Life is not fair. Never has been. Never will be.
However, this is America.
All of these kids have a right to show up and try.
If they choose destruction over opportunity, then they must live with that choice.
If mentors can put them back on a positive track, through special programs and efforts, great!
A rising tide does not lift all boats when some are intent on drilling holes in them.
Hey Brian! Love your comments and words of wisdom. As I always say, God rocks! 🐾😍