I don't necessarily disagree that we need to spend money on summer school, etc.

But, who will teach them? We ALSO need the coaches to help the teachers learn the best practices and to help them use those practices every day.

I don't think there is a question that we have good teachers in MVWSD, but we cannot expect them to be experts in closing an achievement gap.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it. Throwing more money at them won't help either. Children learn at the pace they can and are willing to. You can't make them learn faster or more. They will get out of education what they put into it. How about dividing the money equally between the children? Why should the middle class children get overlooked. A child should be rewarded on their effort. Rich, middle class, and poor alike.

I wonder what percentage of these families are legal residents? If not, to what extent are the California taxpayers expected to "educate" them? The schools will essentially become day care centers which feed the kids all meals as well as school them + tutor them. Are these kids entitled to more than the rest of the kids in the district?

The problems start at home. We cannot expect teachers to solve basic cultural problems anymore than we can expect police to solve society's problems.

I share the frustration of some of the previous posters, however, I'm practical so I understand the need to do something about the achievement gap. My biggest concern is that the district wants to throw more money to implement a process that may not work. It was mentioned that over a million dollar have been spent on community engagement coordinators as well as instructional coaches last year. How successful has that been?

If one was to look at the Alum Rock Union school district in San Jose:

Web Link

and review their API scores, one can see at the schools in this East San Jose district compose of low income, English learners of Asians and Hispanic ethnicity. Why is it that the Asian kids in every one of those schools perform at least 100 points above the Hispanic kids? That tells me that the teachers' instructions and the length of school hours are not the problem.

The district should look into WHY those Asian kids perform better than their Hispanic counterparts and address that differentiation, rather than simply throwing more of our precious educational dollar into processes that should work, but haven't in the past.

The children don't have a say. They don't have a say as to whether or not they're legal residents, or if their parents have time to help them with homework artwork working two jobs to house and feed their families in this crazy SV economy, or whether or not they're able to learn at the same pace as other students. The kids don't have a say. So, it's not their job to figure it out. It's our job. We're the adults. We're the people who benefit from raising and educating a community of children who will grow and create and contribute to our communities. Sure, we can't give all of them everything. But we can put a system in place that provides every child the means to succeed. We can give them the tools to create a future of which they can be proud. We can do it effectively, efficiently, and intelligently....but not until we stop complaining about the existence of the problem. Everyone knows what the problem is. Let's sit down, figure how the best, most cost effective way to start solving it and get to it.

I agree with Steve Nelson, after school programs, summer programs and weekend programs are the way to go and they have the added effect of saving these families some of their childcare costs.

I agree with both @frustrated and @Cfrink.

While it's not politically correct, it's an inconvenient truth that education appears to be valued more in some cultures and less in others. Although, if we had poor, rural, lower SES Asians and affluent upper-class, upper SES Latinos immigrating to California, it might be another story. But in any case, we have find a way to drive home the message that education is the key to a better life and that educational opportunities for children and adults are available in Mountain View.

Little children don't control the fact that the only time they speak English is in the classroom. That's maybe 6 hours out of their entire day. They speak Spanish at home, on the playground, and in their community. Surely a longer school day, longer school year, after-school and summer programs, and more face-to-face interaction with English speakers would help?

I'd like to see the research on both these issues. We don't need a new curriculum, better testing, pricey consultants and so on. Just hire more teachers and classroom aides and find a way for English learners to spend more time at school. More teachers, more hours, more learning and using English.

Are these millions going to be spent to somehow make these kids parents more attentive and involved in their kids lives?

The cultural stereotyping going on here is pretty frustrating. There are many Latinos who care greatly about their children's education. I think a major contributing factor is the recent waves of immigration are so different from each region. People recently coming to the US from Asia (especially in this area) are wealthy, educated and coming for high-tech jobs. They have the funds to support their children with tutors outside of school hours when they need extra help in English or anything else.

Immigrants coming from Latin America mostly, but not all, do not have an education themselves and don't have extra money to pay for the extra services their children need. It's really not fair to compare the wealthy from one country with the poor of another and make some general statement about how one culture values education more than another.

There certainly are some cultural differences, but that's not mostly what we are observing in our schools. The differences we are observing is socio-economic, not cultural.

Also, just to note, I've been told the majority of the recent teen suicides at the Palo Alto high schools have been Asian-American. Is it fair to say that children from Asian backgrounds care "too much" about their education and have lost perspective to such an extreme they are willing to do the unthinkable? Of course not. Let's not glorify or vilify one culture at the expense of another. We all have our positive and negative attributes.

I'm happy the district is trying to do something to help these schools. There are many families of all races in my neighborhood who do not feel Theuerkauf is a great option for their children. It would be great to improve that school and finally give all the kids in this neighborhood the chance to attend a great school like the other schools in Mountain View.

The Asians living in the Alum Rock Union school district in San Jose are not wealthy, nor are they fluent in English at the start. It's East San Jose, not Cupertino.

@frustrated

Charter schools in East San Jose like Rocketship and Summit do a good job with low-income, primarily ESL Hispanic students. My guess would be because they offer longer school days and encourage parent participation and parent education. This is exactly what our district is proposing to do in their turn around plan for our schools. You stated above that these methods have not been successful, but they have been successful. MVWSD is trying to repeat that success in Mountain View with a similar demographic here and it's hard for me to understand why you don't think that's an idea worth trying here.

And I really hope you're not implying that one culture is better than another because some kids score 100 points more on a test. There are far more important things in life than 100 points on a test. I think we all can learn a lot from each other if we are truly open-minded and willing to do so.

@Canela- "Charter schools in East San Jose like Rocketship and Summit do a good job with low-income, primarily ESL Hispanic students. My guess would be because they offer longer school days and encourage parent participation and parent education."

The fact that these kids are in Charter schools suggests that the parents are already more involved- certainly involved enough to choose the charter school for their child and that in itself will make a difference in outcomes.

Achievement gaps are a fact of life- the wealthy will always (on average) achieve more than the poor in school. We're comparing kids of uneducated, low income parents to kids from very highly educated, high income parents. The achievement gap is never going to close nor will it come anywhere near closing. The high income kids are being read to every night, spoken to in grammatically correct English (in addition to other languages), taken to museums, given music lessons, traveled with, the list goes on. They're receiving 24/7 educations from their families as well as their peers whom are also living in similar conditions. The fact that the lower scoring kids happen to have moved to the middle of Silicon Valley doesn't change who they are so comparing them to wealthy SV kids doesn't make sense.

Sending kids to school for more hours and more days isn't going to close or even narrow the gap- lots of money will be spent but the gap will still be there. Does the pubic really have a responsibility for providing child care for these families?

@Gaps are a fact

You're basically agreeing with what I'm saying. I'm saying the gaps are due to socio-economic factors, not do to race or culture alone as others have suggested.

I disagree with you that sending these kids for more schooling won't make a difference. There is a lot of research that suggests it does, especially over the summer when low-income kids of all races tend to lose gains they had made during the school year. I never mentioned anything about providing child care for families, so not sure where that's coming from.

We are all a district and a community, and I believe it benefits everyone to try to bring up lower performers in our district. Hopefully then the gap won't be as large when they are all in school together through high school. I'm not suggesting we can completely close the gap, but I think it would benefit all of us if it were smaller. I guess you're ok just sitting by and doing nothing? You got yours so no need to care about your neighbor?

@Canela - can you cite the research showing that more schooling makes a difference in outcomes? And it should be final outcomes, not just for one year or so. If the kids only progress for a year or two and then regress, it's not a worthwhile project.

I mentioned childcare because if we spend more money to keep the kids in school longer and it doesn't help then the program is basically providing childcare, nothing more.

"I guess you're ok just sitting by and doing nothing? You got yours so no need to care about your neighbor?"
Please tell me, Canela, what do I have? Where did I get it? And do you have any basis for accusing me of not caring about my neighbors?? Because I don't believe that extra hours in school will close an achievement gap doesn't mean that I don't care about others.

MVWSD stats: students on free and reduced lunch: 43%, per pupil revenue: $9,954 (starting teacher pay: $50,198, 10 year veteran: $78,623)
MVLA stats: students on free and reduced lunch: 19%, per pupil revenue: $16,122 (starting teacher pay $68,882, 10 year veteran: $113,467)

Few MV residents realize that the high school district gets $6,168 more per student, yet have half as many disadvantaged students to serve. Few people, especially local companies realize that 43% of MVWSD is free and reduced lunch.

I just returned from visiting elementary and middle schools in Newark, NJ
serving nearly all at risk students, with some grade levels scoring 100% proficient on their state exams and writing essays and reading books many grade levels above average. Web Link

UnCommon Schools North Star Academy, where I visited, receives a per pupil average of $18,413 (that's slightly less than NJ's state average). It's not just resources, but it is a match of vision and resources.

There are so many schools out there that prove that it can be done. Strong on-going teacher training, assessments that inform on-going instruction, a curriculum and school wide culture based on high expectations, an attitude and support system that truly treats teachers as rock stars, and above all, a no excuses mentality. When has -not- giving up on someone -not- been a winning strategy?

It's a penny wise and pound foolish to not invest in the city's children who will be our nation's future adults, regardless of one's politics, most aren't going anywhere. Public schools secure our collective future.

Christopher Chiang
Mountain View Whisman School Board Member
The views expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Mountain View Whisman School District or the school board.

@Christopher - you're comparing a charter school, where parents intentionally opt in to the program, to a an all inclusive public school. They're not comparable. The charter school you cite has a parental involvement requirement which brings us back to the issue of why high scoring kids score higher. Socio-economics is a huge part but parents are also a huge part. Adding hours to the school day and school year doesn't change the parents. Charter schools will always have better outcomes. Please show me a public school (non charter) where adding hours + money has improved outcomes.

@ Gaps are a fact

It's such a common phenomenon it even has it's own name and wikipedia page! Now that's got to count for something, right? ;) Seriously though, Google brings up tons of information if you have time to read through it.

Summer Learning Lose
Web Link

You are correct, I should not have jumped to conclusions. I'm glad to hear you do care about your neighbors, you maybe just have different ideas about what would be most helpful in this situation. That's fair.

A common critique of charters is that they pull from the "better" low-income, ESL kids and therefor can produce better results. I believe that is true to a small degree, but not enough to account for the gains that these schools are able to make with these kids. Also, other countries that routinely offer more schooling to children, either through universal preschool, after-school programs, summer programs or some combination of these also have a smaller gap in achievement. You are right, the gap is still there, but much less pronounced than in the US. I realize we don't have money for all of this, but I think even adding a summer program could be a great way to help the lowest performing schools in our district.

A false dichotomy has been made between turnaround funds and after school and/or summer school. Each school will determine how it's turnaround will look.

Regarding charters vs. traditional schools, having spent over 11+ years visiting both, having taught at risk students in both systems, the notion that it's all about how kids are selected and "weeded out" or the quality of parenting is simply not supported by any in-person classroom visit of any ethical and highly successful charter schools like UnCommon. Yes, these successes are rare, far more charters are no better than traditional, and many are far worse. Yet those who succeed are ripped apart in political battles. Take Success Academy in NYC (highest performing school on the new Common Core testing), most parents of any income would be proud to send their child there if they visited. Please watch this video and ask, why would anyone not want more schools like this for children, especially our nation's most at risk:
Web Link

You visit, and you pause in amazement that this is real.

I have been to too many dirty broken traditional schools in poor neighborhoods in America to not be moved to tears by the success, pride, and beauty these rare places represent. I would not be doing my job if I was not also trying to bring these elements of reform to my own community.

@Christopher- Again, you're using as an example a charter school (Success Academy) that REQUIRES parental involvement (they're required to read to their kids every night, make sure their kids homework is done, get their kids to school on time in clean uniforms, attend parent meetings, school events, etc. Contrast that to a local mom that doesn't speak or read English herself, works all day and into the evening cleaning homes, has no father in the picture, has perhaps four more kids/babies needing care and shares her home with two other families. Her child will not be getting the support of the Success Academy student and will not have the same outcomes. The discussion is circular- we're back to the original premise that success requires parental support.

Since you've been to many schools I would rather see an example of success in a public school that was infused with taxpayer money but didn't require any parental involvement and was not self selecting (as in a charter).

Interesting that the number of low income students has declined consistently over the last 6 years. For a long time it was higher at the middle schools than at the elementary schools. That means just grade level progressions will tend to lower the fraction over time.

This was the first year when the number of low income students brought in more supplemental eligibility so the district lost Basic Aid status. I wonder if it will keep on being funded under the LCFF method or will the rapidly rising property values again bring it out of eligibility for extra funding based on disadvantaged status.

I suspect that the number of low income students is down because rents are up, and their families have been forced out of town.

Which means we are here, talking about property values and potential for basic aid status, while our housecleaners' kids are in alum rock in much worse schools.

I know most of us call ourselves Democrats. If that is meant to show a concern for those who have less, we stink at it.

Thank you for the reminders about charter schools. If they were just a school that were allocated students randomly from around the district (no parental choice), then I'm sure the results will be similar to standard schools (at least in this geographic area).

It's all about self-selection. As was stated before, the more parental involvement, the better the student performance. We have to assume that is the case, since we can't remove this self-selection issue. So what we have is essentially a private school option that is being funded through public money. Even worse, there are duplicated administrative functions within these schools, so even more tax money is pulled out of the system.

This isn't universally true. There are some areas in the country that have atrocious public schools AND high risk / learning challenged communities. That's where charter schools need to be to save some portion of our younger generations.

Where did I say that one culture was better than the other? The Alum Rock schools that I talked about are mostly public schools, not charters.

Of course there are more important things in life than the 100 point test score different, but if we're talking about the achievement gap, we're talking about those 100 points.

Should we blindly throw money at a situation because it makes us feel better to pretend we're doing something; or will we have the courage to ask the tough questions, even at the risk of being criticized, so that we can actually help those who need help? We can't solve a problem if we don't know the root cause. My point in the Alum Rock district differences is to say that it's not the length of the school day or the number of school days. If both groups are poor, English learners, what is it? I think we're all born with the same capacity, so is it parental education? Parental expectations? Teachers' expectations? Peer influence? I don't know. I'd rather spend money to find out what we need to fix before throwing millions at a problem of which we don't know the root cause.

Simply asking the question does not mean that I'm a bigot, as you have implied. How is it bigotry if I want to find out the "why" to help a group that needs help?

I'd meant to put "@Canela" in the body of the comment. Not in the name of the poster.

INTERNET learning like the khan academy.


You can throw as much money as you want on a so called solution, but just like the war on poverty, or the war on drug, it's going to be the same outcome, a waste of taxpayers money.

But the real key in good learning is parental involvement. Making sure that junior is actually doing his homework and doing it correctly.

@frustrated. "I think we're all born with the same capacity". Not sure where you got that idea. How would you explain the differences in abilities (intellectual, athletic, artistic, musical, etc) between siblings raised in the same household? Kids are born with unique abilities, likely genetic. Here's an interesting article about the role of genetics in not only IQ but academic achievement. They did twins studies and feel the info is useful in understanding how to best serve different groups of kids.
Web Link

To write something so hitleresque, I'm guessing that your parents were siblings.

Hitleresque? Did you read the study?