Submitted by John Arbeeny.
Lakewood CARES is providing an academic-based response to schools highlighted in the Clover Park School District (CPSD) “#SuperSchoolShoutOut“articles in The Suburban Times. This is data you will not find elsewhere in CPSD community relations pieces, School Board meeting agendas or monthly “Inside Schools”. This week’s CPSD “beaming with pride” article covers Lake Louise Elementary which was featured in a Suburban Times article on 18 November 2024:
I’m coming to the realization that these Clover Park School District (CPSD) Community Relations (CR) puff pieces are more appropriate as personal interest stories for an elementary school student newspaper than they are for parents and taxpayers seeking relevant facts about our schools. Hello Kitty as a 5th grader’s “muse”? Really? These CPSD articles deal with anecdotal superfluities that have little to do with education and absolutely nothing to do with academics. Clearly that is the intent.
This puff piece begins with pushing the CPSD’s academically ineffective Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) based social indoctrination program of Social Emotional Learning (SEL). SEL supports “restorative justice” which essentially seeks to mediate behavioral issues between perpetrators and victims, based upon “cultural” (racial/ethnicity) identity rather than on distinct consequences for behavior. This is part of CPSD’s attempt to affect the “whole child” which is a euphemism for everything other than academics. It is an attempt, often hidden, to create children in the educational establishment’s own progressive woke image. Developing the “whole child” is a task better left to the child’s parents. Perhaps CPSD should stick to affecting the academic education of children, a task at which they are failing.
Lake Louise is currently in 7th place academically out of 16 elementary schools within CPSD. To put that into perspective 5 of the elementary schools that significantly outperform Lake Louise are on JBLM; the other is Oakbrook Elementary School which barely does so. The remaining 9 elementary schools significantly under-perform Lake Louise academically.
Lake Louise is ranked academically at 34.5 percentile among all State elementary schools: 65.5% of State elementary schools outperform Lake Louise academically. The average academic ranking of the 5 JBLM elementary schools that outperform Lake Louise academically is 65.3 percentile; nearly double Lake Louise’s academic ranking of 34.5. This Schooldigger graph displays Lake Louise academic rankings since 2016 to present:
Lake Louise Elementary School Academic Ranking
https://www.schooldigger.com/go/WA/schools/0141000260/school.aspx#google_vignette
The Office of the Superintendent for Public Instruction (OSPI) data shown below on the next two slides of its “Report Card” website go into further detail about Lake Louise academics and related factors:
Lake Louise Elementary School academic performance, student population
NOTE: “Students on Track for College-level Learning Without Needing Remedial Classes Spring 2024” is the equivalent of previous “Students Meeting State Standards”. This is a confusing, unnecessary name change.
The average percentage of Lake Louise students meeting State standards in ELA, math and science is 40.9%: 59.1% of Lake Louise students don’t meet these State standards. In 2017 the percentage of Lake Louise students meeting State standards in ELA was (54.9%), math (48.4%) and science (50.0%) for an average of 51.1%. That gives you some idea of how far academic performance has fallen. What students fail to learn in elementary school follows them into middle school, high school, after graduation and into adult life.
Lake Louise Elementary School attendance, expenditure per pupil, teachers
Lake Louise regular attendance is only 63.1% which nearly matches the CPSD average attendance of 65.7%. This appears to be a common theme across the District: low attendance equals low academic performance. You can’t learn if you don’t attend class.
Class size is about 1 teacher to 13 students (1:13) which is a bit lower than the CPSD average ratio of 1:15. It was not that long ago when teacher-student ratios were between 1:20 -1:30. Despite this ratio reduction we are seeing lower academic achievement. Academically superior JBLM elementary schools have about the same teacher-student ratios but significantly outperform the rest of CPSD elementary schools. Thus teacher-student ratios may not necessarily be an indicator of academic success. At the extreme, the CPSD push for “Culturally Responsive Teaching” (CRT…coincidentally the same acronym as Critical Race Theory) could conceivably lower teacher-student ratios into the realm of single digits. At what point is this a teacher’s union ploy to hire more and more teachers at the expense of academic performance and tax payers?
https://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/ReportCard/ViewSchoolOrDistrict/102231
The Office of the Superintendent for Public Instruction (OSPI) data shown below on their “Report Card” website goes into further detail about Lake Louise Student Growth Percentile (SGP):
Lake Louise Elementary School “Student Growth Percentile” (SGP)
However things are not all “doom and gloom” at Lake Louise. Lake Louise Student Growth Percentile (SGP) is an apparent bright spot which seems to indicate that academic improvement is imminent. SGP is based upon a school’s relative academic growth compared to peer-group schools statewide. An average 50% score in SGP is required just to stay even with peer groups academically. The Lake Louise SGP is 56% in ELA and a whopping 69% in math. Clearly Lake Louise is forging ahead of peers when it comes to growth: that is something to be proud of.
Lake Louise SGP growth occurred across all student groups with minority students doing exceptionally well. These minority students have, by their growth, “marginalized” CPSD’s woke DEI agenda. Given these facts, you have to wonder whether all the CPSD emphasis on racial and ethnic “disparities”, “racial injustice” and “marginalized groups” is just a bunch of ideological verbiage. All students can learn in the right learning environment.
Since 2016 Lake Louise has achieved an above average SGP in ELA of 52.5% and math 56%. However, Lake Louise SGP has not been reflected by a corresponding increase in actual academic performance since 2016 to present. CPSD staff briefings often declare that teachers value the SGP over academic performance as a truer evaluation of education effectiveness. Yet despite glowing SGP numbers since 2016, Lake Louise academic ranking declined from 45.8 percentile in 2016 in a choppy manner to 34.5 percentile in 2024 while average academic performance in ELA, math and science declined from 51.1% in 2017 (first year all three subjects were charted) to 40.9% 2024. This brings into question the value of SGP as it relates to academic performance.
https://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/ReportCard/ViewSchoolOrDistrict/102231
CPSD’s lack of transparency on academic performance in these CR puff pieces has systemic impacts, especially on parents. They have been lulled into apathy with respect to the school’s and District’s academic performance. Why fret? Everything is fine; only it isn’t! Then when parents don’t get involved the District blames them for lack of involvement: a self-fulfilling prophecy!
If you have a student who attends Lake Louise, or any other CPSD school, and want a change in academic performance, then you’re going to have to get involved! You deserve more in return for your hard-earned tax dollars. It’s the future of your children! Find out how your school is performing academically and what it is going to take to improve that performance.
School Board members are your elected representatives, not just rubber stamps for hired CPSD employees. Contact them and hold them accountable. Wondering who your CPSD Board representative is? Try contacting the Board’s President, Alyssa Anderson Pearson, via email form at:
https://www.cloverpark.k12.wa.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=236158&pageId=61380455
I’m sure she’ll welcome the opportunity to answer all your questions.
John Arbeeny and “CARES,” full of itself again, reveals drift into political agenda The Suburban Times has sought to fence from informative content. I for one, have sought to notice worthy content of Mr. Arbeeny’s more objective research, but today’s flanking assault on CPSD, defaming responsible DEI objectives, marches populist CARES over lines of community interest for which The Suburban Times attempts respect.
If “walks like a duck, quacks, etc.” is Arbeeny’s complaint of CPSD, certainly no less may be said of CARES neoliberal politics. It’s past time CARES ditched politics, and found something positive to offer Lakewood community and educations it purports to so-highly value.
Revealing the true state of education in CPSD is indeed a positive service to the community; a service which CPSD is itself reticent in providing to the community.
Silencing dissenting voices is part of the DEI/CRE “modus operandi”. 1st Amendment rights to be heard trump any ideological based attempt to the contrary.
In case you haven’t noticed during the last election DEI has DIE’d and is being abandoned by education and industry across the Country with good reason. It causes more harm than good. Take a look at this article to get some idea of how damaging it really is.
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/why-was-this-groundbreaking-study?fbclid=IwY2xjawGyBTZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHbzZnUzc55ycacNhMPqygADz6YlG12CF9BRygKddznThU3nYLz24WtX-eA_aem_PAXBXjYgfaxz0gAi65SmEw
Instead of blaming the author and CARES, how about debating the issues. There are plenty of them to go around.
Are the CPSD public relation pieces informative of its academic progress or not? Has the CSPD DEI experiment since 2018 has a positive impact on the District’s academic performance or not? Has the DEI experiment at the cost of near a million dollars and counting been worth the price academically or not? Is the emphasis on SGP an appropriate substitute for actual academic performance or not? Should an elementary school education cost more (as much as twice) than a college education or not? Why are there CPSD schools in the 90 percentile and others at 0.4 percentile… a 89.6 percentile difference. Why have several CPSD schools been at the very bottom of all State schools since 2016 with nary an indication of improvement? Why does CPSD routinely bring out all kinds of excuses for its academic failure rather than tanking an introspective look at their own responsibility ala Social Emotional Learning (SEL) which they require of their students?
This is just a partial list. Pick one. I’d be happy to have a public debate (on Suburban Times or elsewhere) with you on any topic you choose.
Touché Mr. Warfield. Very well stated.
I reviewed the article Mr.Arbeeny provided regarding DEI.
I agree the article provided from Substack was interesting, but the article concerning DEI was from one study and not peer reviewed. Perhaps it was held from print because of peer reviewed studies providing more robust information of DEI outcomes? One study can certainly provide alternate outcomes, but until peer reviewed it is not a “stand alone” outcome despite the prestigious research institution from whence it was studied. I am not arguing the outcome, but noting research is laborious and must be reviewed to gain scientific acceptance. P
I noted that Dr Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist who is no longer in academia, has refuted what he calls “woke” views on sexuality, DEI and religion. He is a well known for his conservative views and has been a voice for those on the far right to include Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan and so on.
Substack is a conservative publication which has printed numerous pro Nazi and white nationalist articles. I do not believe I could reliably trust articles from this sort of publication. On the flip side I would not trust articles/resources that were unbalanced left or conspiracy based.
In regard to Lake Louise scores. One thing I noted was your mention of race. I’d like to point out is the type of social structure of a neighborhood also plays a part. How many children are in two parent homes, live in single homes, apartments, have opportunities for sports, music lessons and etc.? Each neighborhood is not the same across the spectrum. How many volunteers is the school
fortunate to have? How many special IEP students are registered? Are there para educators available and are they assigned to single students or a group? How is inclusivity and being valued a negative for children.
I noted you included the School Board contact for Alyssa Pearson. Nice touch for the benefit of the parents and readers, but somehow it appears there is possibly secondary gain in needling her. Remember, you do have a long documented history of personal attacks toward Mrs.Pearson, the School Board and Superintendent. You have had the benefit of explanation of scores and their meanings during school board meetings yet you persist in attacks to promote your political agenda. Please remember that our personal views do not make facts. Yes, you have the “scores,” but they are not the only facts. Perhaps you need to research deeper?
Thank you Valerie for your reasoned response to the article. This is how discussion should be conducted. Let me address the points you have raised.
The article I cited is critical of DEI and was chosen because it laid out the objections in a clear understandable manner. I too am concerned about “peer review” when it comes to DEI research since the extremes seem to rule on either side. Indeed CPSD’s DEI program was instituted without a “peer review”, that is to say public input and response. Instead it was approved by “stakeholders”; a select cadre of 83 people, the vast majority of whom were CPSD employees and DEI supporters in academia or with DEI business interests. The number of parents who participated in this process: 7 out of 83.
The tide has turned on DEI with business, colleges, universities, state and local governments ditching their DEI programs. DEI was adopted due to political correctness pressure but ultimately added nothing to their bottom lines. Since DEI’s institution in 2018 at CPSD it doesn’t appear that it has had a positive impact on declining academic performance.
I don’t consider the conservative pundits mentioned as being “far right” or their commentary as “pro-Nazi and white nationalist”. Indeed I think the closest “pro-Nazi” movements today are the anti-Semitic protests occurring in at our universities and liberally run cities. In the final analysis the far left and far right are pretty much the same. They both want a totalitarian state: only the specifics are different.
The inclusion of race is merely a reflection of the oft cited alleged impact that race, ethnicity, low income, culture, etc. mentioned by CPSD as excuses for academic failure. Certainly neighborhoods may vary one from another. However the inclusion of individuals into various groups is exactly what “inclusion” is all about in DEI. Unfortunately opposing views to DEI are often “excluded” from the conversation in an attempt to throttle 1st Amendment free speech rights.
DEI “inclusion” is all about group identity rather than individualism. Individuals lose their individuality when placed in groups which are represented as a homogenous faceless collection of people. You see it with the preoccupation with group labels. Do not these people as individuals have unique innate abilities, capabilities and potential which distinguish them from their alleged “group”? Of course and that is how they should be treated, as individuals rather than as members of amorphous groups. These individuals are not the source of CPSD’s problems. They are a challenge which CPSD should accept. CPSD employees, Superintendent and Board all signed on board for this challenge.
Might I suggest that instead of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion that CPSD adopt Unity, Equality and Individualism which are the cornerstones of our Republic.
My inclusion of President Alyssa Pearson at the bottom of my articles is for the purpose of allowing easy access to her as Board President and through her the other four district representative Board members. It has nothing to do with “needling”. She and the other four Board members are our elected representatives. President Pearson was questioned on the Board’s opaqueness some years ago (4/26/21) and replied “”I’m all about transparency. But everyone has my phone number.” Well the public doesn’t.
Why aren’t the Board President and Board members contact information listed on the bottom of every CPSD article? People have questions and want answers without having to search the internet for Board member contact information. If President Pearson is all for “transparency” why not? This opaqueness is but one of many systemic problems that CPSD has not addressed.
Indeed I have the “scores” which are a product of CPSD, OSPI and other sources. I have opinions but they are based upon those facts. I seldom see such objective facts in responses to these articles. Ultimately whether CPSD fails or succeeds as an educational institution is dependent upon its ability to demonstrate the same level of competency it demands of its students. If the “scores” show CPSD failing in this endeavor then their well intentioned programs, spending, volunteers, DEI, Four Pillars, etc. are for naught. Results, not necessarily effort, is what counts.
To critically evaluate and debunk the claims made in this article about Lake Louise Elementary and the Clover Park School District (CPSD), it’s essential to focus on fact-based assessments of the key issues raised. Here’s a breakdown:
1. Critique of CPSD Articles as “Puff Pieces”
Claim: CPSD articles lack educational substance and serve as PR tools promoting DEI and SEL initiatives instead of academics.
Fact Check: Community relations articles often serve a dual purpose: celebrating achievements and engaging stakeholders. They are not intended as comprehensive academic reports but as highlights to promote school spirit and community involvement. The CPSD’s website and official reports (e.g., OSPI) provide detailed academic performance data, making the claim of intentional opacity misleading.
2. Performance Metrics of Lake Louise Elementary
Claim: Lake Louise’s academic performance is subpar, with only 40.9% of students meeting state standards.
Fact Check:
Academic performance figures, like the 40.9% cited, align with state averages for schools serving diverse, lower-income populations. Comparisons to Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) schools fail to account for the significant differences in socio-economic factors, parental involvement, and resource availability.
SGP (Student Growth Percentile) is a valid metric, highlighting relative progress. Lake Louise’s growth in ELA (56%) and math (69%) demonstrates improvement and suggests interventions are working.
3. Criticism of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Programs
Claim: DEI and SEL initiatives detract from academics and indoctrinate students.
Fact Check:
Peer-reviewed studies support DEI and SEL as beneficial for academic and social outcomes. For instance, SEL improves student engagement, emotional regulation, and classroom behavior, which are prerequisites for academic success.
The claim conflates DEI and SEL with political agendas, ignoring that these frameworks aim to address disparities and create equitable learning environments. DEI is not inherently ideological but rather a response to data showing unequal outcomes among student groups.
4. Expenditure Concerns
Claim: Reduced student-teacher ratios and increased DEI spending do not correlate with academic improvements.
Fact Check:
Academic outcomes are influenced by myriad factors beyond class size and funding. Research shows diminishing returns for smaller class sizes alone; however, targeted spending on teacher training, intervention programs, and community engagement significantly impacts performance.
5. Misrepresentation of Data and Trends
Claim: Academic performance at Lake Louise has declined despite positive SGP trends.
Fact Check:
A school’s percentile ranking (e.g., 34.5%) reflects relative performance among all schools, not absolute quality. If other schools improve faster, a static or even slightly improving school may appear to “decline” in rankings.
SGP growth is a leading indicator of potential future performance gains. Lake Louise’s above-average SGP growth counters the narrative of stagnation.
6. Social Context of Academic Outcomes
Claim: CPSD’s focus on DEI ignores structural inequalities affecting performance.
Fact Check:
Critics fail to address how poverty, housing instability, and parental education levels impact student outcomes. Schools in affluent areas or military bases often have built-in advantages (e.g., higher parental education levels, access to extracurricular resources).
CPSD’s initiatives, such as SEL, aim to mitigate these disparities by fostering resilience and inclusivity.
7. Validity of Critiques Against CPSD Leadership
Claim: CPSD leadership and Board are unaccountable and dismissive of criticism.
Fact Check:
CPSD conducts public board meetings and publishes detailed performance metrics on platforms like OSPI. Stakeholders have opportunities to provide feedback and engage with leadership, contradicting claims of a lack of transparency.
Conclusion
While concerns about academic performance and resource allocation are legitimate, this critique often misrepresents data, ignores socio-economic contexts, and conflates educational frameworks with political ideologies. CPSD’s efforts, including DEI and SEL, align with national trends to address disparities and promote holistic education. Instead of dismissing these initiatives, constructive dialogue should focus on enhancing their implementation and effectiveness. But you would have ti actually care about children and education and not your political agenda to do so.
Lets critically evaluate and debunk the claims made in this article about Lake Louise Elementary and the Clover Park School District (CPSD), it’s essential to focus on fact-based assessments of the key issues raised.
Here’s a breakdown:
1. Critique of CPSD Articles as “Puff Pieces”
Claim: CPSD articles lack educational substance and serve as PR tools promoting DEI and SEL initiatives instead of academics.
Fact Check: Community relations articles often serve a dual purpose: celebrating achievements and engaging stakeholders. They are not intended as comprehensive academic reports but as highlights to promote school spirit and community involvement. The CPSD’s website and official reports (e.g., OSPI) provide detailed academic performance data, making the claim of intentional opacity misleading.
2. Performance Metrics of Lake Louise Elementary
Claim: Lake Louise’s academic performance is subpar, with only 40.9% of students meeting state standards.
Fact Check:
Academic performance figures, like the 40.9% cited, align with state averages for schools serving diverse, lower-income populations. Comparisons to Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) schools fail to account for the significant differences in socio-economic factors, parental involvement, and resource availability.
SGP (Student Growth Percentile) is a valid metric, highlighting relative progress. Lake Louise’s growth in ELA (56%) and math (69%) demonstrates improvement and suggests interventions are working.
3. Criticism of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Programs
Claim: DEI and SEL initiatives detract from academics and indoctrinate students.
Fact Check:
Peer-reviewed studies support DEI and SEL as beneficial for academic and social outcomes. For instance, SEL improves student engagement, emotional regulation, and classroom behavior, which are prerequisites for academic success.
The claim conflates DEI and SEL with political agendas, ignoring that these frameworks aim to address disparities and create equitable learning environments. DEI is not inherently ideological but rather a response to data showing unequal outcomes among student groups.
4. Expenditure Concerns
Claim: Reduced student-teacher ratios and increased DEI spending do not correlate with academic improvements.
Fact Check:
Academic outcomes are influenced by myriad factors beyond class size and funding. Research shows diminishing returns for smaller class sizes alone; however, targeted spending on teacher training, intervention programs, and community engagement significantly impacts performance.
5. Misrepresentation of Data and Trends
Claim: Academic performance at Lake Louise has declined despite positive SGP trends.
Fact Check:
A school’s percentile ranking (e.g., 34.5%) reflects relative performance among all schools, not absolute quality. If other schools improve faster, a static or even slightly improving school may appear to “decline” in rankings.
SGP growth is a leading indicator of potential future performance gains. Lake Louise’s above-average SGP growth counters the narrative of stagnation.
6. Social Context of Academic Outcomes
Claim: CPSD’s focus on DEI ignores structural inequalities affecting performance.
Fact Check:
Critics fail to address how poverty, housing instability, and parental education levels impact student outcomes. Schools in affluent areas or military bases often have built-in advantages (e.g., higher parental education levels, access to extracurricular resources).
CPSD’s initiatives, such as SEL, aim to mitigate these disparities by fostering resilience and inclusivity.
7. Validity of Critiques Against CPSD Leadership
Claim: CPSD leadership and Board are unaccountable and dismissive of criticism.
Fact Check:
CPSD conducts public board meetings and publishes detailed performance metrics on platforms like OSPI. Stakeholders have opportunities to provide feedback and engage with leadership, contradicting claims of a lack of transparency.
Conclusion
While concerns about academic performance and resource allocation are legitimate, this critique often misrepresents data, ignores socio-economic contexts, and conflates educational frameworks with political ideologies. CPSD’s efforts, including DEI and SEL, align with national trends to address disparities and promote holistic education. Instead of dismissing these initiatives, constructive dialogue should focus on enhancing their implementation and effectiveness. But you would have to actually care about children and education and not your political agenda to do so.
Thank you Taniesha for your reasoned critique of the article. This how discussion should occur. We may disagree on various issues but there is no reason to be disagreeable. Let me briefly address the points you have raised.
1. Critique of CPSD Articles as “Puff Pieces”
I understand the purpose of community relations articles. What I criticize is the lack of any academically based articles addressing the academic success or lack thereof. “Stakeholders” (primarily parents and tax payers as opposed to CPSD employees and community DEI proponents) need more than just “school spirit and community involvement”. The same factual bases for academic performance are accessible on the internet for anyone to search and research but the reality is that most people don’t know where to go or what to make of those statistics. When you make something difficult it tends not to get done. Go to the CPSD website and search “assessment” and you’ll find nothing about academic assessment but rather scant information about the assessment department with further contacts to call. This is not transparency; it is an opaqueness that CARES articles shine a light on.
2. Performance Metrics of Lake Louise Elementary
Being satisfied with “average” is a systemic flaw which leads to average performance. The objective should be for above average or superior performance. When you aim low, low is where you’ll hit. The advantages cited for JBLM superior performance should be CPSD’s objective for all schools. Yet there is an outlier on JBLM: Hillside Elementary which scores well below average at 27.2 percentile. Has anyone looked at that disparity? How about instituting parent teacher associations? How about neighborhood associations? How about better community economic development? This requires a partnership with Lakewood. Resting on the excuse of diverse low income population isn’t going to cut it.
Lake Louise SGP scores are high but give no objective measure of actual academic progress as the 34.5 percentile and actual ELA, math and science scores indicate. Given the choice between relative metrics and objective metrics I’d choose the latter. Ultimately it is accomplishment that matters most rather than just effort alone.
3. Criticism of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Programs
There is a difference between “intent” and “achievement”. DEI is coming under increasing scrutiny across the Nation. It is a politically driven ideology which has yet to show a benefit for increasing output be it profit, performance or people. Go woke, go broke. You may think that DEI is a “response to data showing unequal outcomes among student groups” but those very groups are not homogenous collections of people and dealing with them as such is the definition of “prejudicial”. DEI is all about group identity and that dehumanizes members of that group. One size does not fit all. Deal with people as individuals not just group members and you’ll make individual progress. As we have seen with JBLM schools, addressing the education of all students tends to shrink any disparities between students. All students do the best in the best schools.
4. Expenditure Concerns
I agree that “…targeted spending on teacher training, intervention programs, and community engagement significantly impacts performance.” Increase spending on DEI has yet to be proven to have significantly impact performance. I’d also add that spending on a proliferation of programs sprinkled across CPSD is not cost effective and loses any economy of scale to affect the education of all students.
5. Misrepresentation of Data and Trends
Percentiles are a relative academic ranking as is the SGP. I include both statistics in these articles. That’s also the reason I include the actual achievement scores in ELA, math and science. Together they provide a broader picture of academic achievement and trends than reliance on just one metric
.
6. Social Context of Academic Outcomes
I don’t think that I’ve said “DEI ignores structural inequalities affecting performance.” Rather I think that the group identity approach is flawed since regardless of race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, parental education, etc. each and every member of that group is an individual. To conform them to some kind of homogenous entity is a disservice to them and the community. There are very intelligent hard working children in poor families as there are not so intelligent less motivate children in wealthy families. The assignment of “privilege” in one group or another belies the fact that privilege is largely individually based and most often innate ability and effort related.
7. Validity of Critiques Against CPSD Leadership
As stated before, make things difficult and they tend not to get done. CPSD Board meetings are largely administrative in nature not substantive when it comes to academics. Read the meeting minutes and especially the Board member comments. Very little substance. How much more transparent if the Board published “….detailed performance metrics on platforms like OSPI…” and the Suburban Times? No searching required! Indeed how much more transparent if Board members put their contact information on the bottom of every CPSD article?
You don’t have to question my caring for children to make your points. You don’t know me well enough to make any such claims. Political agendas aside (you have one too) you and I are probably going to disagree on many things related to CPSD but that’s OK. As long as we lay out our facts and opinions in a reasonable manner, there is always the possibility of understanding and perhaps even agreement on issues that could benefit CPSD.
Regarding SGP indicative potential and socio-economic impact on academic achievement specifically for Lake Louise Elementary.
In 2015/16 academic rank percentile: 45.8. In 2023/24 percentile 34.5. DOWN 11.3 percentile
In 2015/16 assessment ELA 55.5%. Math 55.9%. In 2023/24 ELA 42.3%. Math 39.8%. DOWN (avg.) 14.6%
In 2015/16 SGP ELA 40%. Math 47%. In 2023/24 ELA 56%. Math 69%. UP (avg.) 19%
Low income in 2015/16 87.6%. In 2023/24 72.4%. DOWN 15.2%
These statistics are trends over the last decade. Academic ranking and assessments in ELA and math declined significantly since 2015/16 while SGP increased significantly. Do you not see the paradox in these statistics?
At the same time low income students significantly declined over the same period. Should not this reduction in “poverty” result in higher rather than lower academic ranking and assessment scores? These are questions that need to be asked and answered.
What was the systemic event(s) that changed CPSD’s academic trajectory during this period? Answer that and you’ll find the source(s) of CPSD’s slide academically.
@Arbeeny: Thank you for your response and willingness to engage in dialogue. However, there are several critical points that warrant addressing, especially regarding the misrepresentation of data and the framing of DEI initiatives.
1. Misrepresentation of Facts and Data
Your use of data to construct a narrative often lacks necessary context. For instance:
Lake Louise Elementary: You cite a decline in percentile rankings and assessment scores while highlighting an increase in Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs). These trends are not paradoxical but complementary. SGPs measure individual student progress over time, not static proficiency. While overall proficiency rates may lag due to systemic challenges, increased SGPs reflect that students are improving relative to their peers. This demonstrates that efforts to address disparities, particularly for marginalized populations, are yielding results.
Socioeconomic Context: You claim that reduced poverty rates should correspond to improved academic outcomes. However, this oversimplifies the impact of poverty. A 15.2% reduction in low-income students doesn’t erase decades of systemic inequities, resource disparities, or challenges faced by students and families.
Your analysis misses these nuances, favoring a narrative that assigns blame without considering the complexities of education systems.
2. Equity and DEI: Misunderstood and Mischaracterized
Your assertion that DEI programs are “politically driven” and lack tangible benefits ignores a wealth of evidence demonstrating their importance:
Educational Research: Studies repeatedly show that inclusive practices improve outcomes for all students. DEI initiatives aim to dismantle structural barriers, not to “dehumanize” individuals as you suggest. Addressing group disparities does not negate individual needs but acknowledges systemic inequities affecting entire populations.
Community Impact: Your argument that DEI “dehumanizes” by focusing on group identity is a misrepresentation. Equity work seeks to provide every student, regardless of background, with the resources they need to succeed. The JBLM schools’ success, which you praise, is partly due to their tailored approaches—precisely what DEI promotes.
3. Criticism of Leadership
You allege that CPSD lacks transparency and rigor in addressing academic outcomes. While there is always room for improvement, dismissing the leadership’s efforts is both reductive and counterproductive:
The superintendent and equity officer were hired to implement strategic changes. Attacking their character and intentions undermines the collaborative spirit needed for meaningful progress. Public discourse should focus on constructive criticism, not ad hominem attacks.
The push to discredit these leaders seems to serve a political agenda rather than fostering educational improvement.
4. Statistical and Systemic Oversights
Your analysis of trends, such as declines in proficiency rates and rankings, fails to account for external factors:
The impact of the pandemic on learning outcomes, especially in low-income and diverse communities, cannot be understated. Nationally, schools have faced significant challenges in recovering lost instructional time.
Your focus on metrics like percentile rankings without addressing root causes (e.g., funding disparities, teacher retention, access to technology) limits the utility of your critiques.
5. Political Agendas
You accuse others of pushing political agendas while promoting candidates and initiatives that align with your own biases. For example:
The endorsement of a young, inexperienced JAG candidate for the school board, in violation of legal eligibility, raises questions about your motivations. Such actions appear to prioritize politics over the best interests of students and families.
Weekly opinion pieces framing your views as fact perpetuate misinformation and polarize the community rather than fostering dialogue.
In Conclusion
John, your critiques often reflect a half-truth, as you tend to present data selectively, omit critical context, and mischaracterize well-intentioned efforts to improve educational equity. Constructive dialogue requires both parties to operate in good faith, with a commitment to truth and a willingness to acknowledge complexities. I urge you to reconsider your approach and focus on collaboration rather than division.
Educational success is not achieved through attacks or politicization but through collective effort, informed by comprehensive and honest analyses of the challenges at hand.
Again let me discuss the points you have raised.
Misrepresentation of Facts and Data
I use actual facts in these articles rather than just talk about alleged “facts”. That’s an important difference between us. You state that proficiency lags behind SGP but don’t give any specific facts to back that up. In the case of Lake Louise there is no such trend over the last decade. The same can be said for other schools.
As far as poverty goes the facts are that it has declined while academic proficiency also declined. You claim “…decades of systemic inequities, resource disparities, or challenges faced by students and families” but give no statistics. If true, has not CPSD been in part responsible for those inequities? You can be powerful or pitiful but not both. Claiming victimhood is the best way to remain a victim.
Equity and DEI: Misunderstood and Mischaracterized
I understand DEI quite well. You portray it as a “kinder gentler” form perhaps but that doesn’t reflect the reality of DEI. If you want to detach what you think DEI is from the hard facts about DEI then I’d suggest you use different language so as not to confuse the two. The DEI industry supports itself with glowing studies yet the move nationwide is for eliminating DEI which has failed the real test of effectiveness and efficiency in business, government and education. I suspect that the “tailored approaches” found on JBLM are more about meritocracy than victimhood based upon the facts of their academic performance.
Criticism of Leadership
Bottom line is whether those “strategic changes” have resulted in positive academic strategic results. They clearly have not as demonstrated by the facts. I suggest you take a look at articles I’ve done on Tyee Park Elementary, Lochburn Middle School, CPHS and the District itself. They and many other schools are headed in the wrong strategic direction.
Statistical and Systemic Oversights
The pandemic affected all schools and many, to include some on JBLM, came out stronger academically than when they went in. How many years have to pass until COVID is no longer a “valid” excuse? What evidence do you have that the lowest academic performing schools have received any priorities regarding “… funding disparities, teacher retention, access to technology…”? I’ve reviewed SAP/SIIPS back nearly a decade and seen precious little in the way of budget priorities either requested by schools or granted by the District.
Political agenda
We all have political agendas. “Constructive dialogue” is what we are having here as the first step in problem solving is to admit you have a problem. Can you come up with even one problem at CPSD that needs a specific face based solution? CPSD problems are systemic and that is the reason it is failing academically. Until that reality is acknowledged, further attempts at “cultural change” and programmatic “Bandaides” scattered throughout the District which will not be effective.
Facts are facts: I don’t need a “lens” through which to distort them to fit an agenda. The data I present looks at academic performance from different perspectives to include subjective, relative and objective. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. It’s achievement that is rewarded. I think we both are having this discussion “…in good faith, with a commitment to truth and a willingness to acknowledge complexities”. We just happen to disagree. Collaboration without introspection of what the problems actually are is an attempt to do something, anything to solve problems that have yet to be defined. Start at the beginning and effective collaboration will follow.