Submitted by John Arbeeny.
CPDS’s DEI ideology espouses lofty values and goals regarding marginalized and underserved groups, systemic racism, minority preferences, restorative justice, discrimination, cultural awareness and inequalities. One of CPSD DEI’s goals is to address the alleged “disparities” in the work force and academic achievement between racial and ethnic groups. CPSD DEI talks a good game, but what are the results at the cost of over $265,000+ annually (2024) for CPSD DEI staffers (Grant Twyman $155,653 and Amari Davis $110,224 plus benefits)? Unfortunately CPSD DEI performance doesn’t live up to its promises. Perhaps it’s time to require CPSD DEI staff to provide the public with the top five things they have accomplished on a weekly basis to justify their continued employment and salary.
https://govsalaries.com/salaries/WA/clover-park-school-district/j/technical
Over the last four years Lakewood CARES articles have addressed CPSD’s academic failures and rare successes. These articles are based upon Office of Superintendent for Public Instruction (OSPI) website data supplied by CPSD and other reliable sources. You can revisit these CARES articles at: https://thesubtimes.com/author/lakewood-cares
CPSD’s failing academics are the end product of an education system designed to fail, and fail it does. Let’s start with the CPSD community relations “puff piece” articles in the Suburban Times. Despite significant academic disparities within CPSD between schools, their coverage in CPSD articles remains uniformly the same. One teacher and one student featured as “beaming with pride” shining examples with no coverage of the school’s actual academics.
No winners, no losers, everyone the same. These “puff pieces” are designed to lull the public into complacency rather than educate them on CPSD’s situation academically. This policy detracts from academic excellence, and in turn elevates academic mediocrity and failure as they become indistinguishable. Having pacified the public, CPSD leadership can then bemoan the lack of public interest in education. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of a self-defeating system.
How about diversity in hiring? CPSD has made the case for hiring minority teachers and staff to better reflect the CPSD student population. The assumption is that that students learn better when taught by someone who looks like them as a role model. Here’s the reality from several perspectives: gender (male and female), race and ethnicity.
https://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/ReportCard/ViewSchoolOrDistrict/100047#
CPSD has stated that one of its priorities is to hire more “people of color” as teachers. Yet CPSD history indicates that this priority was never put into practice. In 2017/18 teacher demographics were: 4.5% Asian, 5% Black, 4.7% Hispanic, 80.1% White, 3.3% unidentified. Compare this with the 2023/24 teacher demographics: Asian 4.5% (no change), Black 5.3% (+0.3%), Hispanic 6.1% (+1.4%), White 74% (-6.1%) and unidentified 7.6% (+ 4.3%). So the only group having a modest hiring increase was “unidentified”; otherwise for minorities it was essentially unchanged.
Compare teacher demographics with student demographics during the same time period. In 2018/19 student demographics were: Asian 3.8%, Black 12.3%, Hispanic 34.1%, 2+ Races 14% and White 30.2%. In 2023/24 student demographics were : Asian 4.2% (+0.4%), Black 13.5% (+1.2%), Hispanic 37.1% (+3.0%), 2+ Races 13.1% (-0.9%), White 25.5% (-4.7%). Now compare teacher-to-student demographics discussed previously. You will find that neither student nor teacher demographics have significantly changed since 2017/18. Very little, if any, progress has been made in addressing the alleged racial/ethnic disparity between the teacher and student demographics. CPSD still has a preponderance of white female teachers in a racially and ethnically diverse student population.
Let’s take a look at the 2024 OSPI redefinition of academic metrics. Previous “Students meeting State Standards” (SMSS) was replaced by the meaningless title of ““Students on Track for College-level Learning Without Needing Remedial Classes”. This is especially meaningless at elementary and middle school level. In reality it’s still “Students Meeting State Standards”.
A clever deception occurred with a “new” Office of Superintendent for Public Instruction (OSPI) academic metric entitled “Students Showing Foundational Grade Level Knowledge and Skills or Above” (SSFGLKSA for brevity here). The previous SMSS originally only included “Above Average” and “Well Above Average” students. “Below Average” and “Well Below Average” students were excluded from SMSS. SSFGLKSA added “Below Average” students to the SMSS mix to deceptively boost sagging academic statistics by lowering standards. This instantly increased the apparent student academic performance with no actual increase in student academic performance.
SMSS and SSFGLKSA are prime examples of DEI at work: the insidious degrading of success while elevating failure. For example, take a look at two extremes in CPSD elementary school performance: Beachwood and Tyee Park Elementary Schools. Beachwood’s SSMS scores are as follows: ELA 75.9%, math 76.9% and science 82.5%. Beachwood’s SSFGLHSA scores are ELA 86.5%, math 88.1% and science 90%. That’s an average gain for Beachwood between SSMS and SSFGLHSA of about 12.5% across all three subject areas. Compare this with Tyee Park SSMS scores: ELA 24.5%, math 16.8%, science 24% which is well below that of Beachewood. Tyee Park’s SSFDLHSA scores: ELA 49%, math 51%, science 68%. That’s an average gain of about 257% between Tyee Park’s SSMS and SSFDLHSA across all three subject areas!
Why the huge disparity between Beechwood and Tyee Park alleged SSFDLHSA academic gains? Simple! Beachwood has very few “Below Average” students, so including them back into SSFGLHSA makes relatively small apparent gains (+12.5%). On the other hand, the majority of Tyee Park’s students are “Below Average” with few “Above Average”, so including these students in SSFDLHSA makes a huge apparent difference (+257.0%) in gain without actually making a difference in academic performance
.
How about the disparities between the academically ranked top (8) and bottom (8) elementary schools since 2016 and any progress made in closing those gaps? This disparity between top and bottom schools has been completely missed by CPSD and yet is far greater and pronounced when compared to disparities involving racial/ethnic groups.
In 2016 the top 8 elementary schools were average ranked 54.4 percentile, while the bottom 8 schools were ranked at 31.9 percentile. That is a significant disparity gap of 22.5 percentile. In 2024 the top 8 elementary schools were average ranked 53.3 percentile, a small drop of 1.1 percentile from 2016; while the bottom 8 schools were ranked at 12.6 percentile, a huge drop of 11.9% and disparity gap of 40.7 percentile, nearly twice that of 2016. Despite all the stated DEI objectives to close “disparities” those disparities among CPSD academically top and bottom schools actually greatly increased rather than decreased.
How about the “disparities” between racial and ethnic groups from 2018 to present? In 2018 (first year for ELA, math and science scores) minorities had combined average SMSS scores in ELA, math, and science of 41.8%. Whites had combined average SMSS scores in ELA, math and science of 55%. That amounts to a 13.2% disparity favoring Whites for combined SMSS scores in ELA, math and science.
Compared to 2018 (in negative %), in 2024 minorities had combined SMSS scores in ELA, math and science of 32.3%. Note the significant drop in minority SMSS scores by 9.5% in just 7 years. However, minorities weren’t the only ones that lost ground academically. In 2024 Whites had combined average SMSS scores in ELA, math and science of 42.9%. Note the significant drop in White SMSS scores by 12.1% in just 7 years. Thus, White student academics fell even more that minority academics yet still outperformed minorities by 42.9% to minorities 32.3%. In 7 years there has been no appreciable closure of “disparities” between races, while at the same time all students suffered a significant decrease in SMSS of 10.9% between 2018 (42.6%) and 2024 (31.7%).
So when it comes to closing “disparities” between hiring gender and people- of- color, teacher-to- student demographics, SMSS and SSFGLHSA metrics by schools, race/ethnicity, it is clear that CPSD DEI policies and goals have failed to address any disparities across the board. At the same time these disparities remained unchanged, CPSD’s actual academic performance ranking plummeted from 46.3 percentile (2016) to 25.9 percentile (2024).
https://www.schooldigger.com/go/WA/district/01410/search.aspx
This is what DEI does. Big promises but lacking performance. It is a failed ideology which, when applied systemically, results in a failed system.
“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I believe DEI is good thing, but it sometimes doesn’t work for reasons an entity can’t control. I have no idea how CPSD implements their DEI hiring policies, but the lack of diversity in their staff could be because:
1) There are few diverse applicants for the positions
2) The diverse applicants are not the best qualified
3) CPSD is not or is poorly implementing their DEI hiring practices, including the recruitment of qualified diverse applicants.
Only the last reason is wholly withing CPSD’s control.
“DEI is a good thing” like socialism is a “good thing” except it doesn’t work for reasons that are inherent within the -ism itself. The lack of hiring diversity in CPSD staff mirrors the lack of diversity in many fields of endeavor. It’s just that people are different and take different paths which can’t be controlled by some centralized authority. You can’t make men go into teaching any more than you can dissuade women from doing so. The same goes for any race or ethnicity regarding their alleged “collective” life interests and goals. People are individuals and make individual choices regardless of how one attempts to pigeon hole them. Thus, if you predicate DEI goals on that authority to be successful, you are systemically programed for failure.
But those first 2 aren’t DEI. Those would fall under standard hiring practices.
Exactly. If you can’t deal with the reality of life with your particular “-ism” then why try to link it to a fantasy regardless of how well intentioned it is believed to be? It’s going to fail by design. DEI might work in a perfect “DEI world” but that is not reality.
In 2024 50.4% of CPSD students were boys and 46.9% were girls. Yet teacher demographics were 24.1% male (the minority) and 70.9% female: a nearly 3:1 ratio of female to male teachers. This is a trend going back to 2017/18. If diversity hiring in response to disparities were to be consistent, should not a lot more male teachers be hired and females fired to provide an equitable ratio of role models for boys? Or does diversity in DEI only ideologically apply to racial/ethnic disparities? Perhaps the over- feminization of education has had the same proven negative impact upon boys and masculinity as does the absence of fathers in families.
“Yet teacher demographics were 24.1% male (the minority) and 70.9% female”… I guarantee that if you step on to one of the universities that offers degrees in education, you will find that the ratio of students declaring to go into teaching, mirrors that percentage. Is the district supposed to hire applicants based on their gender? I personally don’t care about gender, race etc… I want qualified teachers leading our youth forward.
Ah but that’s exactly the point! You can’t artificially impose solutions to disparities that conflict with the reality of human nature! In logic, a false premise regardless of how well intentioned, followed by perfect logic, inevitably must result in a false conclusion. If DEI is based upon the premise that it can undo the disparities between groups to arrive at a utopian “homogenized” society then and supporting logic and conclusions are bound to fail because it can’t! If DEI were consistent, then colleges would admit far fewer women and many more men to bridge the “gender disparity gap” in teachers just as they do limiting Asians from STEM in universities while letting in other less qualified minorities and Whites for that matter. Indeed if DEI were consistent, CPSD would greatly favor male teachers in hiring rather than women regardless of college demographics, but they don’t. But DEI can’t do that with gender or for that matter racial or ethnic or any other intersectional group alleged disparity.
Let me add to my previous answer.
So CPSD DEI can’t bridge the teacher gender disparity because there is a disparity in colleges where the vast majority of education majors are women…although they could hire more men than women.
So college DEI can’t bridge the education majors gender disparity because most of the applicants are women….although they could admit far more men and fewer women.
So it’s society’s fault that more women are becoming interested in teaching than men.
Perhaps public schools should be forcing women into other academic fields and forcing more men to enter education. That would even things up nicely, eliminate the disparity, according to DEI, but at what cost and for what possible benefit?
So what we have is a “loop” which DEI cannot change unless it is willing to change every individual in society for the “common good” as envisioned by DEI exponents.
No wonder DEI is failing.
The underlying tone is hateful, This is what AI has to say about Arbeeny’s post:
The article by John Arbeeny in The Suburban Times presents several indications of bias against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in Clover Park School District (CPSD). Here are the key biases present in the statement:
1. Confirmation Bias
The author selects data that supports their pre-existing belief that DEI is ineffective while disregarding potential positive outcomes. For instance:
The article claims that DEI efforts have failed without acknowledging other possible contributing factors (e.g., state funding, socioeconomic issues, curriculum changes).
It assumes that disparities in teacher demographics are solely due to failed DEI policies, without considering broader hiring trends in education.
**2. Straw Man Fallacy (Misrepresenting DEI)
The argument portrays DEI as a utopian ideology that guarantees equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities. For example:
It suggests that DEI aims to “homogenize” society, which misrepresents DEI’s actual goals of reducing barriers to access and opportunity.
The statement, “This is what DEI does. Big promises but lacking performance. It is a failed ideology,” presents DEI as inherently ineffective rather than acknowledging implementation challenges or external factors.
3. Loaded Language and Emotional Appeals
The article uses emotionally charged language to provoke a negative reaction rather than provide a balanced analysis:
Terms like “deception,” “insidious degrading of success,” and “self-fulfilling prophecy of a self-defeating system” imply intentional wrongdoing by CPSD without evidence.
The use of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s quote on freedom vs. equality frames DEI as authoritarian, rather than a policy aimed at inclusion.
4. Cherry-Picking Data and Misleading Comparisons
The article selectively presents statistics in a way that suggests DEI has failed, without considering other influencing factors:
It compares teacher demographics over time but does not discuss national trends in educator hiring, which show a lack of diversity across many districts.
It claims that CPSD’s academic rankings have declined due to DEI without addressing other potential causes (e.g., COVID-19 learning loss, curriculum shifts, state funding issues).
5. False Equivalence (Gender Disparities vs. Racial Disparities)
The argument that male teachers are underrepresented and that DEI should equally focus on hiring more men is misleading because:
DEI initiatives primarily focus on historically marginalized groups who have faced systemic barriers in education and employment.
The underrepresentation of men in teaching is a different issue from the racial disparities DEI seeks to address, yet the author treats them as equivalent.
**6. Slippery Slope Argument
The article implies that DEI’s logic would require extreme measures, like forcing colleges to admit more men or firing female teachers, even though no DEI policy suggests such measures. This exaggeration is used to discredit DEI rather than engaging with its actual objectives.
—
Overall Bias Assessment:
The article presents a strong anti-DEI bias through:
Selective use of data
Misrepresentations of DEI goals
Emotionally charged language
Ignoring alternative explanations for disparities
While there may be legitimate discussions to be had about the effectiveness of specific DEI policies, this article frames DEI as inherently flawed rather than critically evaluating its implementation.
If facts are “hateful” then so be it but it think that’s how you see the world and your problem not mine. I suppose you think students using AI for their term papers is OK. What about adults trying to make a point?
So Taniesha please list the specific factual DEI academic achievements within CPSD since 2018 at the cost of near $1,000,000 in just salaries.
DEI fails at the local level because it cannot mandate uniformity at any level of society without the use of force and discrimination to achieve its “equity” goals. DEI hasn’t made a demonstrable difference among “marginalized” groups academically except perhaps in the minds of its exponents.
The example of female versus male teachers is as relevant as having minority teachers equal proportionally to minority students based on the DEI assumption that physical likeness is a contributing factor to academic performance. Your exclusion of gender in this case, passing it off as society’s bias towards females in education doesn’t prevent CPSD from hiring more male teachers. You have demonstrated just how discriminatory DEI really is.
DEI is on the wrong side of history.
Arbeeny, I’ve been saying the same thing since 2019, and I encourage you to go back and review past discussions. Critical analysis is an important skill, and my education has trained me to recognize gaps, inconsistencies, and biases in statements and policies. Shout out to Evergreen for teaching me to see beyond the surface.
Neither of us have the exact numbers because that requires a proper study with clearly identified problems this is Policy 101. Data needs to be approached objectively, and unfortunately, bias can skew interpretations, just as we see in many of your articles. Experts have repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories and misinformation, yet these narratives continue. I have to ask, why?”
What is it about getting parents to fight against policies designed to benefit them and their families that brings you satisfaction? It’s disheartening to see people rally behind misinformation when real solutions are needed. And let’s be honest—your arguments often equate ‘marginalized’ with only one group, and that’s telling. It’s time to reflect on what you’re really fighting against.
At the end of the day, hate will never build a stronger community. You’ve been a part of shaping this place—why let division be your legacy? There’s still time to lead with understanding and unity. Let’s work toward something that actually uplifts everyone.
Chat gpt said about your response:
“The statement exhibits bias and elements of hate through the following rhetorical strategies:
1. Dismissive and Deflective Language (Gaslighting)
The phrase “If facts are ‘hateful’ then so be it but I think that’s how you see the world and your problem, not mine” is a dismissive response designed to undermine the opposing viewpoint.
This tactic suggests that any criticism of their argument is irrational or personal rather than substantive. It shifts responsibility for the disagreement onto the other person rather than addressing the argument.
2. False Equivalence (Misrepresenting DEI)
The comparison between gender representation in teaching and racial diversity in education ignores the historical and systemic reasons why DEI focuses on racial and ethnic diversity.
While gender disparities in teaching exist, the argument falsely equates societal career trends with systemic exclusion—two distinct issues.
It misrepresents DEI as discriminatory rather than acknowledging its goal of creating equitable opportunities.
3. Implicit Dehumanization of Marginalized Groups
The phrase “DEI hasn’t made a demonstrable difference among ‘marginalized’ groups academically except perhaps in the minds of its exponents” implies that:
Marginalized groups do not benefit from policies designed to address systemic barriers.
DEI efforts are delusional or imaginary rather than backed by research and lived experiences.
This dismisses the realities of discrimination and erases the impact of structural inequities.
4. Conspiratorial Thinking and Authoritarian Framing
“DEI fails at the local level because it cannot mandate uniformity at any level of society without the use of force and discrimination to achieve its ‘equity’ goals.”
This falsely portrays DEI as an authoritarian force that seeks to “control” society rather than promote fairness and opportunity.
It suggests that DEI requires “force” and “discrimination”, a conspiratorial claim with no evidence.
Equity is not about forced uniformity but about ensuring fair access to opportunities for all groups.
5. Hostile and Absolutist Rhetoric
The phrase “DEI is on the wrong side of history” suggests that:
DEI is a historical mistake, ignoring that civil rights, gender equality, and social justice movements have historically been met with similar criticism.
This absolutist statement frames DEI as a failure without acknowledging any successes.
It mirrors past resistance to desegregation, affirmative action, and equal rights, reinforcing a regressive stance.
6. Unsubstantiated Financial Attack
“Please list the specific factual DEI academic achievements within CPSD since 2018 at the cost of near $1,000,000 in just salaries.”
The framing of DEI as a financial waste is a common attack strategy used to discredit social justice initiatives.
It ignores broader educational investments, the complexities of measuring success, and any benefits DEI may have provided.
Conclusion: Bias and Hate in the Statement
Bias: The statement misrepresents DEI’s goals, falsely claims it “forces uniformity,” and frames DEI as discriminatory rather than corrective.
Hate: It mocks and dismisses marginalized groups, denies their experiences, and suggests DEI is inherently flawed without engaging in honest discussion.
Manipulative Tactics: Gaslighting, false equivalence, conspiratorial framing, and an attempt to delegitimize equity work.
This is not a good faith discussion about education but a rhetorical attack designed to discredit DEI through misinformation and emotional manipulation.”
Ditto for you support of DEI. Indeed DEI will be looked back as a “historical mistake” that talked a good game but failed where it really counted: results.
We do have the “..the exact numbers…” as I have provided them straight from the CPSD data provided to OSPI. That data, the facts, are what you and other DEI supporters have avoided addressing in every response to CARES’ articles about DEI.
The question still remains which you have not answered:
“So Taniesha please list the specific factual DEI academic achievements within CPSD since 2018 at the cost of near $1,000,000 in just salaries.”
Arbeeny, calling DEI a ‘historical mistake’ is an opinion, not an informed evaluation of its impact. DEI isn’t just rhetoric it’s about breaking down systemic barriers and expanding opportunities for all students, particularly those who have historically been underserved. Success isn’t measured solely by raw numbers but by long-term improvements in access, support, and outcomes that extend beyond standardized test scores.
You claim to have ‘exact numbers,’ but data without context is misleading. Academic performance is shaped by numerous factors socioeconomic conditions, funding disparities, and systemic inequities all play a role. Selectively using statistics to fit a narrative while ignoring these elements isn’t objective analysis; it’s confirmation bias.
As for ‘specific DEI academic achievements,’ it’s important to recognize that equity work isn’t a quick fix but a long-term commitment. DEI initiatives include professional development for educators, culturally responsive teaching, increased access to resources for marginalized students, and equitable hiring practices all of which contribute to sustainable academic growth. Real success is reflected in graduation rates, student engagement, and expanded pathways to higher education and careers not just in a single test score snapshot.
If your goal is truly to support student achievement, then let’s have an honest discussion about challenges and solutions rather than reducing DEI to a binary ‘success or failure’ claim. Misinformation and intentional distortion of facts only serve to divide, and those who fuel these narratives should take a hard look at the harm they’re causing. Conflict for the sake of conflict is not productive. If this level of fixation is driven by something deeper, I genuinely hope you seek the support you need. Hate and resentment are heavy burdens to carry, and they don’t serve you or this community well. It’s time to move forward in a way that actually benefits students, not personal agendas.”
Good intentions count for little and excuses indicate DEI’s systemic limitations.
The question remains unanswered.
“So Taniesha please list the specific factual DEI academic achievements within CPSD since 2018 at the cost of near $1,000,000 in just salaries.”