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”. The CPSD “beaming with pride” article covering Oakbrook Elementary School was featured in a Suburban Times article on 22 February 2025:
The CPSD Oakbrook article is devoid of any actual academic-related information. Can you tell by reading it how things are academically at Oakbrook? How about any of the other CPSD schools in previous CPSD “community relations” puff pieces? This is what is so unfair about these CPSD puff pieces. CPSD treats academically successful and failing schools exactly alike when it comes to community relations rather than praising success and examining failure. That’s what “equity” is all about: no winners, no losers; everyone is the same.
I commend teacher Silvija Holmquist and fifth grader Anaiah Ward for their effort and interests. However, they are but specific anecdotal examples of Oakbrook’s success which should have been addressed in a far broader context as well.
This Schooldigger.com graph displays Oakbrook’s academic rankings since 2016 to present:
Oakbrook Elementary School Academic Ranking
https://www.schooldigger.com/go/WA/schools/0141000265/school.aspx
What makes Oakbrook’s academic ranking so striking are the series of significant “yo-yo” ups-and- downs over the last nine years (2020 not reported). Here are the academic rankings by year:
2016: 40.6 percentile
2017: 50.9 percentile
2018: 28.8 percentile
2019: 42.7 percentile
2021: 57.1 percentile
2022: 29.3 percentile
2023: 33.3 percentile
2024: 37.7 percentile
This phenomenon is somewhat unusual in CPSD where academic trends (typically downward) tend to be more gradual over time. Oakbrook’s “yo-yo” academic ranking is mirrored by the OSPI “Students Meeting State Standards” metric over the same period. I have researched Oakbrook’s student and teacher demographics (overwhelmingly white female teachers) and education, class size, and teacher/student ratios and found little variation over the same period that would explain this phenomenon.
Coincidentally, there was an abnormally high rate of disciplinary issues with the percentage of students excluded in response to a behavioral violation between 2019 and 2024 as shown below:
2019: 3.4%
2020: 6.9%
2021: 0.96% (COVID?)
2022: 10.6%
2023: 3.6%
2024: 1.6%
Oakbrook’s highest discipline numbers are far higher than discipline numbers for other CPSD elementary schools regardless of their academic performance. Typical CPSD elementary school discipline rates are below 2% or often less than 1%. The lead up to COVID and post-COVID “bump” in Oakbrook’s discipline rate are unique to Oakbrook and not found in other CPSD elementary schools. Perhaps the only conclusion that can be drawn from this academic ranking and disciplinary data is that Oakbrook went through a difficult, unstable period administratively which affected teacher effectiveness and student learning in an unsettled school environment. Did the CPSD School Board give an explanation given to parents of Oakbrook Elementary students? I doubt it. Was the CPSD School Board even aware of the situation at Oakbrook Elementary? I doubt it.
https://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/ReportCard/ViewSchoolOrDistrict/102241
In 2024 Oakbrook was academically ranked at 37.7 percentile and has shown minor improvement since 2022, but it is still below average academically when compared statewide. Oakbrook is at the bottom of the top eight CPSD elementary schools which have an average academic ranking of 53.3 percentile. The bottom eight elementary schools have an average academic ranking of 12.6 percentile. The average academic ranking for all CPSD elementary schools is 32.9 percentile.
The Office of the Superintendent for Public Instruction (OSPI) data shown below on the next two slides come from its “Report Card” website and go into further detail about Oakbrook’s academics and related factors:
Oakbrook Elementary School academic performance, student population
“Students on Track for College-level Learning Without Needing Remedial Classes” is an OSPI confusing nonsense term, especially at elementary and middle school level, which replaced the previous easily understood and relevant “Students Meeting State Standards”.
In 2018/19 the percentage of Oakbrook students meeting State standards in ELA was (55.1%), math (51.1%) and science (48.4%) for an average of 51.5%. In 2024 the average percentage of Oakbrook students meeting State standards was 45%: ELA (43.4%), math (37.3%) and science (54.2%).That gives you some idea of Oakbrook’s overall academic performance, choppy as it was, over the last five years through the midst of COVID and to the present.
Oakbrook Elementary School attendance, teachers, spending
Oakbrooks’s regular attendance is 76.1%, which is better than the CPSD average attendance of 65.7%. However, Oakbrook’s attendance is down significantly from its high pre-COVID average of 89.7% to a post-COVID average of 71.4%. This may also be indicative of conditions that led to lower academic ranking and higher discipline rates
Oakbrook’s teacher/student ratio is about one teacher to 13 students (1:13) which is below the CPSD average ratio of 1:15 and has not significantly changed since 2018/19. In 2019/20 Oakbrook’s expenditure per student was $15,383. By 2022/23 (latest figures) it had ballooned to $21,566 in just four years. That’s an annual increase of about 8.8% and somewhat above CPSD per-student expenditure increases over that time period. Oakbrook teachers, surprisingly, have among the highest average years of teaching experience (14.6) in CPSD. Off-JBLM based elementary school teachers have an average of 12.6 years experience.
The Office of the Superintendent for Public Instruction (OSPI) data shown below on their “Report Card” website goes into further detail about Oakbrook’s Student Growth Percentile (SGP):
Oakbrook’s Elementary School “Student Growth Percentile” (SGP)
Oakbrook’s 2018/19 Student Growth Percentile (SGP) in ELA was 52 percentile and in math 41.0 percentile. In 2023/24, just six years later, ELA was at 51 percentile and math at 41.5 percentile. The State median SGP score is 50 percentile. Thus, Oakbrook’s growth in ELA is average and in math below average over the last six years and has remained unchanged. Unfortunately, the OSPI SGP data for Oakbrook is not as detailed by race/ethnicity as that of other CPSD schools and is missing years 2019-2021.
CPSD has a responsibility to periodically inform parents and tax payers about what’s really happening in schools academically and administratively instead of trying to propagandize with “puff pieces”. That would be “transparency” rather than a “smoke screen”. If you have a student who attends Oakbrook, or any other CPSD school, want to know what’s going on at that school and improve 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 at: apearson@cloverpark.k12.wa.us
I’m sure she’ll welcome the opportunity to answer all your questions.
Whats in you will certainly come out. At this point its rather pathetic.
The article contains subtle but concerning elements of hate, particularly in how it frames discussions around race, equity, and school performance. Here are the specific points where hateful rhetoric or prejudiced undertones appear:
1. Targeting Teachers Based on Race and Gender
The article states:
> “I have researched Oakbrook’s student and teacher demographics (overwhelmingly white female teachers) and education, class size, and teacher/student ratios and found little variation over the same period that would explain this phenomenon.”
Why it’s problematic:
This statement unnecessarily racializes and genderizes the discussion around academic performance.
It implies that the race and gender of teachers may be a factor in school struggles, even though no evidence is provided to support such a claim.
This framing can fuel division and resentment by suggesting that the demographic makeup of teachers is somehow to blame.
2. Misrepresenting “Equity” to Undermine It
The author writes:
> “That’s what ‘equity’ is all about: no winners, no losers; everyone is the same.”
Why it’s hateful:
This intentionally distorts the concept of equity, portraying it as a system that suppresses success rather than one designed to ensure fair access to resources based on need.
The mocking tone suggests opposition to racial and socio-economic equity efforts, which are often implemented to address systemic barriers for marginalized communities.
This rhetoric is commonly used in anti-equity discourse to delegitimize efforts aimed at reducing educational disparities.
3. Implying That CPSD is Engaged in Deception and Indoctrination
The article claims:
> “CPSD has a responsibility to periodically inform parents and tax payers about what’s really happening in schools academically and administratively instead of trying to propagandize with ‘puff pieces’.” “That would be ‘transparency’ rather than a ‘smoke screen’.”
Why it’s hateful:
The use of terms like “propaganda” and “smoke screen” implies intentional deceit and manipulation by school leaders.
This type of language fosters public distrust in educators and school officials, a common tactic in attacks against public schools and diversity initiatives.
It frames CPSD as corrupt or deceptive, which can contribute to hostility, harassment, or aggressive actions against school staff.
4. Using Discipline Data to Suggest a Problem with Students
The article emphasizes that Oakbrook had a higher-than-average discipline rate:
> “Oakbrook’s highest discipline numbers are far higher than discipline numbers for other CPSD elementary schools regardless of their academic performance.”
Why it’s concerning:
There is no attempt to contextualize why discipline numbers were higher (e.g., changes in policies, external community issues, or reporting differences).
The focus on discipline rates without explanation can reinforce negative stereotypes about certain student populations.
Historically, discussions about high discipline rates have been weaponized against schools with higher Black, Indigenous, or Latino student populations, reinforcing harmful narratives about student behavior.
Conclusion:
While the article may present itself as a data-driven critique, its language and framing subtly attack equity efforts, racialize teacher effectiveness, and fuel distrust in public schools. It leans on dog whistles (coded language) that echo broader anti-equity, anti-public school, and exclusionary rhetoric.
Ascribing “hate” to someone you don’t even know with whom you disagree is in fact “hateful”. In psychology it’s called “projection”. Demonizing your opponent is not an effective way of presenting your position. I am only interested in what the facts indicate about CPSD’s academic performance. I am a taxpayer and expect value for my taxes. When you have the facts you don’t need a “dog whistle”.
I will address each of the 4 points you have raised.
#1. Research into Oakbrook Elementary School teacher and student demographics had nothing to do with “targeting” them. The purpose was to establish a demographic baseline for both teachers and students over years to determine if there were any significant shifts which might be the cause of the “yo-yo” academic performance. There was no such shift and thus probably did not contribute to this academic phenomenon. CPSD demographics across the board have not appreciably changed since 2016 yet academics have plummeted. Yet the common CPSD theme is that demographics are somehow responsible for the District’s academic failure.
#2. Equity is about equal outcomes not equality of opportunity. Indeed the CPSD “puff pieces” conceal both academic mediocrity and exceptionalism: no winners, no losers; everyone is the same.” The same could be said of inflated graduation rates which conceal the true nature of academic mediocrity and exceptionalism among students and their schools. This is unfair to both student groups. One will be unprepared for life after graduation and the other overlooked in favor of superior students from superior schools.
#3. CPSD has not been straight with the taxpaying public for some time now. Take a look at the monthly newspaper it puts out or the “puff pieces” it publishes with nary a word about academic achievement. CPSD’s failure to objectively cover academic performance while glowing anecdotal stories are promoted is a form of deception by omission and commission. The public is lulled into complacency while their participation in solving real academic problems is missed.
#4. Indeed there was no attempt to contextualize why discipline numbers were higher because CPSD never admitted there was a problem nor did they ever provide these statistics to the public! Nor was there any attempt to ascribe the high discipline to any racial/ethnic group. If you have problems with this then go to the CPSD School Board and ask for an explanation! I eliminated what did not appear to be contributing factors to yo-yo academics and was left with the conclusion that there was a combination of administrative turmoil and an unstable disciplinary environment for students. CPSD never addressed these issues; transparency would have.
To be clear I didn’t write my response chat gpt did even though it’s what I have been saying about you and your articles since 2019. But no one listens to Black women even when we are right. So I let chat gpt say it for me. You are arguing with AI *smile. Expert after expert has debunked your claims and now AI…And this is what it has to say of your last response:
There are a few logical fallacies and potential rhetorical issues in this argument:
Logical Fallacies:
1. Straw Man Fallacy:
The claim that “ascribing ‘hate’ to someone you don’t even know with whom you disagree is in fact ‘hateful’” misrepresents the argument it is countering. Just because someone identifies a statement or stance as hateful does not mean they are being hateful themselves. This oversimplifies the opposition’s argument and refutes a weaker version rather than the actual position.
2. Projection (Misuse of Psychological Concept):
While “projection” is a recognized psychological defense mechanism where people attribute their own thoughts or feelings to others, its use here is more rhetorical than scientific. Just because someone calls out a statement as hateful does not necessarily mean they themselves are hateful or projecting.
3. False Dichotomy (Black-and-White Thinking):
The argument presents equity as being about “equal outcomes” rather than “equality of opportunity,” ignoring the possibility that equity policies can focus on removing systemic barriers while still valuing individual merit. This oversimplification excludes any middle ground or nuanced discussion.
4. Appeal to Emotion / Loaded Language:
The use of terms like “puff pieces,” “deception by omission and commission,” and “lulled into complacency” suggests bias and attempts to elicit emotional responses rather than focusing solely on factual analysis.
5. Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning):
The argument assumes that “inflated graduation rates” conceal true academic mediocrity without first proving that graduation rates are inflated. If the premise is unproven, the conclusion that follows from it is also suspect.
Potential Issues of Hate:
“Demonizing your opponent is not an effective way of presenting your position.”
While this statement is generally true, the argument itself subtly demonizes CPSD by accusing it of deception, manipulation, and suppression of facts without direct evidence. If accusing someone of hate without knowing them is problematic, then assuming CPSD’s intent without clear evidence could also be problematic.
“Dog Whistle” Reference:
The phrase “dog whistle” implies that someone is using coded language to signal a controversial or discriminatory stance without openly stating it. The claim that “when you have the facts, you don’t need a dog whistle” is ironic because it subtly accuses the other party of using coded messaging, which can be perceived as a form of indirect attack.
Ms Taniesha Lyons,
QUOTE:
“To be clear I didn’t write my response chat gpt did even though it’s what I have been saying about you and your articles since 2019.”
Your sentence, quoted above, is made up of 26 words, a number block, and 1 unintelligible letter grouping of gpt all of which, for me, fail your stated objective, “to be clear”.
What does this sentence mean in plain English, especially gpt?
Joseph Boyle
The question remains unanswered.
“So Taniesha please list the specific, objective, factual DEI academic achievements within CPSD and specifically Oakbrook Elementary School, since 2018 at the cost of near $1,000,000 in just salaries.”
Thank you John for all your hard work and research to disclose facts about a failed school system!
I appreciate the candid information provided by CARES. Instead of criticizing the article’s text, focus on the data. The data that has been provided over the past year or so clearly reveals that CPSD is a school district that is failing. It seems to me that your reply would make a greater contribution if you directed your concerns to the school district, rather than criticizing the CARES review. I find myself wondering whether you are interested in improving the school district or whether you have some other objective.
There are concerns about the accuracy and framing of Arbeeny’s data. While there is always room for improvement within the district, I even ran for the school board with that perspective, my issue is not with acknowledging challenges but with how the information is presented. Arbeeny attributes the district’s issues solely to the Superintendent and falsely connects them to DEI initiatives. In reality, DEI efforts ensure that all students have equitable access to the resources necessary for success.
While student performance nationwide is an area for growth, it is misleading to suggest that the district lacks transparency or that DEI is responsible for lower scores. In fact, I personally advocated for school board meetings to be accessible online via YouTube, and they are. Additionally, school administrators have provided public reports outlining both their achievements and areas for improvement.
In response to concerns stemming from misleading claims about DEI, the district has engaged multiple experts, requiring significant time and resources. Public records have also revealed email exchanges between Arbeeny and former school board members, in which they discussed shaping narratives in a way that could mislead the community. These emails are publicly available on my Facebook advocacy page.
Ultimately, while criticism and discussion are valuable, productive solutions must be forward-thinking and responsive to the realities of today’s students. Up to this point, Arbeeny has not presented viable modern solutions that align with the current needs of our schools and students.
Mr. John Arbeeny,
I thank you and Lakewood Cares for your consistent follow through and spot lighting of the fact that Clover Park’s educational system is failing.
Unlike what has been suggested, I do not believe it is your obligation or responsibility to develop or provide solutions to the problem.
What needs to happen is the Clover Park School board, the Superintendent, teaching staff, and the public need to first realize and honestly admit there is a problem as the school system graduates students, many of whom will be ill-prepared for life.
Once the above players are aware and focussed, they are the ones who need to provide successful solutions.
You, Mr. Arbeeny, are like Jack Webb, of Dragnet TV fame, who is famous for pointing out the concept, “Just the facts, Ma’am, just the facts,
You are doing an excellent job with the facts.
Joseph Boyle
Thanks Joe!
In the past CARES has offered numerous potential solutions to address CPSD’s systemic problems with no acknowledgement by either Board or Superintendent. It’s hard to open up a dialogue with entities that refuse to respond or admit there are any problems. Those in the best position to know the inner workings of CPSD are also in the best position to solve its problems but first they have to admit there are problems.
On March 13, 2025 at 7:50 am, Taniesha Lyons writes, “Arbeeny attributes the district’s issues solely to the Superintendent and falsely connects them to DEI initiatives;” characteristic of CARES skillful “puff pieces.” Ms. Lyons is spot on.
“DEI,” in fact DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility), variously written into law and practice, both honored and excoriated, represent a native tide of social justice this nation has sought to redress since the contemporary boundary of American history was first crossed. And when was that? Arguably, and with good evidence, it was in 1619, with apologies to Leif Erikson.
How we bring our history, religion, politics, outlook and attitude toward an increasingly common acknowledgement of fact and implication in service of social justice and resilient democratic institutions is in question. As arguments get suited up in ideological armor, flagged and given a lance, they should be seen for what they are. Ones timeless and global, it turns out, are not so distant from our schools, their revenue and public mission. “A republic if you can keep it,” resonates. And what would Franklin say – or you, in different skin, gender or circumstance?
Grades and attendance may be problems. DEI is not.
Bob:
DEI is not mentioned once in this CARES article! Rather it is an obsession by a responder who senses a “hidden agenda” behind every questioning of CPSD academic performance.
Indeed the Board and Superintendent are responsible for success or failure of CPSD academically. Voters have the ultimately responsibility for the Board, who they vote for and the Superintendent it hires. However, that responsibility comes with the understanding that the Board and Superintendent are transparent and the voters informed. That is not the case and the reason behind CARES (“E” stands for education) articles.
DEI becomes a problem when it has no objectively defined effect on academic achievement despite considerable effort to indoctrinate staff, students and parents at considerable cost. Certainly there are other issues such as attendance and grades but these are symptomatic of problems unresolved and the emphasis on DEI versus academics is one of them.
Speaking of ineffective education and AI, we must provide students with the tools required to think for themselves, not to rely on AI to do it for them.
It’s good to see engagement from the Lakewood “CARES” group in the conversation. Many of you have been included in the public disclosure emails and continue to support Arbeeny’s statements.
AI is a powerful tool when used appropriately welcome to 2025. However, selectively presenting data and misrepresenting facts to fit a specific narrative is not responsible. Arbeeny, can you clarify how you delineated the data and the methods used to reach the conclusions you share on a weekly basis?
I research the publicly available facts, analyze them from a systemic perspective and draw logical conclusions from them. I even provide source graphics and citations. It’s a logical, versus emotional process. I don’t need AI to do that for me.
DEI is not a “sacred cow” although to many it has becomes something of a religion. It is not immune from critique or challenge.
I have yet to see you provide any objective statistical data/facts to back up your assertions about the efficacy of DEI when it comes to academics, specifically at CPSD.
This isn’t about CARES or its members: it’s about the academic failure of public education in Lakewood.
John, you are a valiant warrior for sanity, but to hold the ground you may capture in crazy town, may not be worth the effort.
Perhaps a better strategy is to lend your efforts to where they are understood and appreciated within this great Republic.
Useless diplomas will no longer suffice for application to an unnecessary job that no longer exists.
This place will follow the course of natural selection.
It’s well on track to do so as questionable funding dries up.
I take no pleasure in this realization.
Thanks Brian:
LOL! My wife suggested I work for DOGE!
I had a friend living in Lakewood who gave it all up to move to Texas. He just couldn’t take the Washington State liberal nonsense. I have too much holding me here to realistically consider moving.
Besides I enjoy the mental/intellectual challenge of research and analysis (I worked for RAND Corp. as a systems analyst) as it currently pertains to CPSD and Washington education. Someone has to do it. I have the skills and time.
If I went to a store and they shortchanged (or over charged) me I’d put up a fuss for just a few dollars. How much more for mllions paid to a failing education system that impacts our children and community? It’s people like you and the realization that there are many more out there that keep me going.