- Home
- News
- Forum
- Sports
- Features
- Arts
- Business
- Obituaries
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Contact Us
4,059
1,045
Fear and learning in Davis schools
By Alonzo Campos
Growing up in a city that prides itself on cultural competency — having schools named after civil rights leaders like Fred Korematsu, César Chávez and Frances Harper, and being home to a world-class public university — I was disappointed after reading the recent front-page article, “South Davis parents sound off on schools,” because it reminded me of my academic experiences.
It is a clear reminder that many Davis parents fear for their student to learn with the other. I survived being Latino in Davis classrooms that had hostile environments. For example, my eighth-grade U.S. history teacher at Holmes Junior High once told me that I was “fear of failure” and my Latina classmate was “fear of success”; this still has an impact 13 years later.
Despite holding a bachelor’s degree from UCLA, and currently being a master’s degree candidate at San José State University, I was a low-performing student in the classroom. I was one of many students in the shadows of academic achievement.
I am college-educated by choice, and use my privilege to go against people like the 65 percent of Davis parents who would consider leaving a school that has been “stable” for more than 50 years. Advocacy needs be present when discussing possible solutions of the so-called achievement gap.
Are Davis families worried about learning with the other? The answer appears to be yes. Do low-income, working-class Latina/o students have an impact on high-achieving student performance? The answer is no.
What the school board members have done is to allow public deficit discourse to take place against low-achieving Latina/o students. This will impact all students in the classroom and is problematic. I am disappointed and that is why I am advocating against the deficit discourse that has taken place in my hometown.
Last week, many news outlets shared a recent report from the Department of Education that stated black and Latino students were punished more harshly than white students when it came to discipline in school. The findings came from a national collection of civil rights data in 2009-10 at more than 72,000 schools serving 85 percent of the nation.
I speak not only from the experiences I had in Davis, but also from education research. The link I make with this recent study and discourse that has taken place in Davis is simple: If parents fear for their student to learn with the other, then there is no progress for equality in the classroom. This creates more barriers between all students, teachers and community members.
Linking low performance to student discipline also suggests that administration and community members point fingers at low-performing students instead of at the system.
Davis parents who do not want their student to learn with low-performing, low-income students suggests that Latina/o students cannot achieve high academic performance, and will continue only to perpetuate the negative views of low-income, low-performing students. The school board needs to explore and acknowledge the implications of this.
Also, for any kind of poll to be accurate, it must include the perspective of everyone, not just an affluent population. Presenting a poll with one perspective suggests that other perspectives are not important. Go back and ask everyone.
Maybe the school board should have an educational workshop and use the documentary “From the Community to the Classroom” (2010) to critically understand what students say about their experiences in the classroom.
Moving forward, one solution to end such negative discourse is for community members to support outreach after-school programs like those of the Davis Bridge Educational Foundation. By doing so, one will critically understand the positive impacts outreach programs can have on low-performing students.
I worry about my friends’ children, my young cousins and my nieces, all of whom attend Davis public schools. Will they all be looked down at because they may be low-performing or because they are Latina/o?
As a public intellectual, it is my responsibility to speak out against such injustices. Starting with my own hometown is bittersweet, but appropriate.
¡Adelante!
— Alonzo Campos attended Spanish Immersion programs at North Davis and West Davis Elementary schools, and later transferred to Pioneer Elementary. He continued on to Holmes Junior High and graduated from Davis High School in 2004. A master’s degree candidate in the Mexican American studies department at San Jose State University, he is passionate about exploring the impacts that college-going cultural environments have on low-income students of color.
Discussion | 11 comments
The Davis Enterprise does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
Recent Posts
schoolsMarch 16, 2012 - 5:19 pm
I don't think Davis parents "fear for their student to learn with their other." I don't think kids in Davis look down on lower economic and/or Latino children. There is a huge Spanish immersion program in our public schools, so it's difficult to see how Davis fails to embrace the Latino cultures and language. I love that my kids in our local Davis public school mix it up with kids from other countries, or with kids who aren't "white," or are wealthier or poorer. It's great that our schools are so diverse since it's a global economy. Get used to working with and for people who don't look like you. Do I want my kids to be with mainly kids who are below grade level, when my kids are above grade level? No, I don't. Not because we "look down" on kids who fair poorly in the schools but because it drags down the kids who have already mastered that material. We don't go to Montgomery School, but I think parents are understandably nervous about pairing their school or kids with a school that, for a variety of reasons, has alot of kids below grade level. That doesn't mean that those parents are racists.
Reply |educatorMarch 18, 2012 - 11:28 am
"Do I want my kids to be with mainly kids who are below grade level, when my kids are above grade level? No...because it drags down the kids who have already mastered that material." Actually, educational research shows that student achievement improves for ALL students, not just low-performing children, when students are placed in heterogeneous classrooms rather than separated into ability groups either within a classroom or within a school.
Reply |schoolsMarch 18, 2012 - 4:24 pm
Not really- it helps lower performing kids to work with higher performing kids, but the reverse frequently leads to the higher performing child getting bored, tuning out from school, learning poor study habits (no need to work hard or challenge yourself since you are just repeating material you already know), etc.
Reply |ScottMarch 18, 2012 - 7:18 pm
"Educator" and "schools" seem to state conflicting opinions. Can both of you please provide references for your opinions. Both of you seem sure of your positions.
Reply |MBMarch 19, 2012 - 12:18 am
This is long, but the issue is complex. Alonzo, I would urge you and others to be cautious in attributing cause for the survey results. I will only speak for myself: I'm an educational policy doctoral student, studying issues related to social justice in education. Your concerns are not unwarranted, given the reality of deficit-model thinking that is often applied to minorities and socio-economically disadvantaged students. I am one of the 65% of Pioneer parents, however, that checked the box about *considering* other placements for my daughter next year. There are many reasons I am concerned about the potential K-3/4-6 split between the two schools (one of the two options discussed in the survey; the second being school closure). None of them have to do with fear of the "other." My reasons are logistical and organizational. I've taught in schools undergoing major transitions, and learned the hard way that significant changes must be done with careful planning. At the time of the survey, the results of the SDEC report had not been released to the public, and my fear was -- and remains -- that DJUSD would enact any reorganization with too little planning for all factors (e.g., transportation options, faculty assignments, etc.). I may change my mind, but I remain wary. I will add that I don't buy into API or care one lick about program improvement status. Although, even if one did put stock into the API, Montgomery is no slouch with a score hovering around 850...Sheesh, sometimes we get a little panicky over things in Davis that would be celebrated in other towns. Yes, MM is in PI status, but many good schools are in similar situations because of the inherent flaws of NCLB. Deanne Quinn once said, in a meeting filled with anxious Davis parents, that we have an embarrassment of educational riches in this town. It really only matters what school your child attends if there's a special program that interests you (e.g., Spanish immersion, Montessori, religious education, etc.). Our children are, by in large, given good educational opportunities in Davis...ones that other districts look upon with a degree of envy: Art, gardening, elementary science specialists, credentialed librarians, and more. Unfortunately, Montgomery students are siphoned off to other schools because Spanish Immersion is only K-3 and GATE is located at Pioneer for 4-6, and this is the source of some of the challenges the school faces. I would welcome greater demographic balance between the two schools. I am *not* concerned that other students might somehow decrease the quality of instruction at Pioneer (no deficit model here). The teachers will meet my daughter's needs because they're trained to differentiate. I am very skeptical, however, of changes that are slapped together in response to long-term structural problems. Having lived through school transition and the accompanying upheaval, I'm hesitant to trust that any district would implement the change well if it started next fall. You might decide, after reading this, that my reasons are outweighed by other priorities. Fair enough; I write only of my own perspective, and my reasoning is accounts for the way I completed the survey. The issue is complex, and I don't think we should be quick to label it racism or classism. I would be opposed to *any* plan that called for my daughter move to a different school for a single year and then move back for the remaining 3 years (as would happen with the option discussed on the survey). This is especially true for the FIRST year of implementation. I would feel the same way even if the other school were the top-scoring school in the district (again, not my priority, but people are using test scores in the debate) or offered some cool program. Maybe in the bigger picture, the change would be positive for DJUSD students, but for our family, it is reason enough to warrant reservations. And that, after all, is what we were asked in the survey. I'm grateful you care about issues of equity, and I understand where you're concerns are coming from. As a public intellectual, however, you must be very careful before you attribute survey results to a particular cause. Lumping 65% of respondents into one world-view may not be the most responsible use of your privilege.
Reply |MBMarch 19, 2012 - 12:21 am
*your
Reply |thinking biggerMarch 19, 2012 - 1:27 pm
I disagree with all above who felt the title "Fear and Learning" was inappropriate to the situation. The fear is for our own child's success -- as MB pointed out, is what's best "for our family" rather than what's best for "our community". The campaign waged against the SDEC recommended strategies was filled with fear tactics regarding school closure and a potential split that would "decrease home values". Please. The k/3-4/6 split is the only scenario that is actually a proven success in DJUSD history. It deserves to be given serious consideration by our district and community for its strengths and weaknesses. But fear took it off the table. As Alonzo points out, integration is not only required of school districts by law but it also supports higher achievement of low income students -- and does not inhibit the achievement of higher-income, higher achieving students. Research documents that segregated schools create educational inequality. Is this what we want? Please read up on a recent school closing in the Santa Rosa school district regarding this same issue. Want research? Please visit UCLA's Civil Rights Project and their manual for integrating suburban schools. Or just google "integration in schools". The research is easy to find and apparently easy to ignore. Want ideas for correcting this issue? Look into Berkeley Unified School District's racial integration plan. I fear for us the most, when we are making choices that think only of ourselves and not the bigger picture. Let's be a leader on this one. Think bigger, Davis. We can do better.
Reply |another voiceMarch 19, 2012 - 8:41 pm
In response to 'thinking bigger', I have to assume from the detailed response that this individual is speaking from personal experience with both the MME educational environment as well as the work of the SDEC. As an outsider to both of these groups, I have to wonder what choices this individual has made with regard to the education of their own children. Are you practicing what you so strongly advocate by enrolling your children in the general education population at MME, or have you made the "selfish" choice to enroll in another program in Davis schools? If the perspective given is coming from someone that has opted to leave the many benefits of being "integrated" with students of differing backgrounds, I would like to know if the reasons were "fear" based or if you are simply "thinking of yourself and not the bigger picture"? With regard to the SDEC work, I have only the perspective that comes from attending the meeting where the results were presented. It seems that the Board asked many thoughtful questions and was presented with several options to consider. The option that seemed to have the most traction was "Dual Immersion", which is also a strategy with considerable research behind it. It was also the strategy that seemed to have the greatest support from members of the community of lower income and ESL families in attendance. I applaud the Board for proceeding thoughtfully on this subject and not making a hasty decision that could be disruptive to an entire community. Let the Board do their jobs and stop seeing racism behind every comment. We CAN do better than that.
Reply |MBMarch 20, 2012 - 1:12 am
I thank Alonzo, a respected friend, for reaching out to me personally today to discuss this further. His perspective of former DJUSD student and young scholar is an important one...and his goal was to foster a discussion. One point that was glossed over in some of the media coverage: While the survey addressed the K-3/4-6 split and school closure, there are other options on the table. That portion of the report wasn't distributed until the day of the town hall on March 5. "Consider" is an important word in the way the question was structured. When I got the survey, I looked at that specific item for some time because there's a range of how it could be interpreted. I marked that I'd consider it; I really need to see more evidence that this would be implemented carefully. I am skeptical people will pull it together for the 2012-2013 year, and I still prefer other options. I like the idea of creating another magnet program. "Another voice" mentioned Dual Immersion. From what I understand, the current MME immersion program is only K-3. Many South Davis families opt into Chavez, and it would be nice to have a program that was closer and went all the way K-6. I'd also support the idea of a STEM or even arts program...something new to draw families in. There are examples of magnet programs working in other schools in the district. Although some Pioneer families might not agree with me, I'd personally be open to moving GATE to MME so that students move to Montgomery for grades 4-6 (it seems feasible, but maybe there are logistical details I don't comprehend). Even though I find some options more appealing than others, as "another voice" points out, moving forward requires really thoughtful analysis and planning. "Thinking Bigger" makes important points about planning for the good of all of our children. For me, it all comes down to planning. Hurriedly putting together a plan in a couple of months is not in the best interest of any of our students. I'm not convinced that the primary/intermediate split is the best option. If it is, however, I'd advocate waiting a year so that the two schools have time to strategically work toward implementation. People are currently focused on this instructional year, and the summer will zip by before we know it.
Reply |Davis parentMarch 20, 2012 - 7:03 am
"I’d also support the idea of a STEM or even arts program…something new to draw families in." I cringe when this suggestion is made. Measure C was passed, in part, to make music and science curricula available at all elementary schools; it makes all elementary campuses desirable to the widest range of students. To make a music/arts or STEM magnet creates an environment in which we start thinking that we can pull back from making this available to all students.
Reply |thinking biggerMarch 26, 2012 - 11:23 am
"As an outsider to both of these groups, I have to wonder what choices this individual has made with regard to the education of their own children. Are you practicing what you so strongly advocate by enrolling your children in the general education population at MME, or have you made the “selfish” choice to enroll in another program in Davis schools?" Funny question for me because some might think my decision to keep my kids at MME was a selfish choice. While other families left MME, I've often wondered if I was doing the right thing for my kids. Have my beliefs in public education and that ALL kids deserve an equitable and excellent education, kept my own kids from a superior experience elsewhere? None the less, I stayed and worked hard to make it a better place. Having gone thru MME k-6 and having a successful and happy junior high student in the DJUSD general ed program, I can tell you that yes, I did the right thing. The big secret is that MME is a wonderful school with strong performance. I believe that's because the staff works harder than other school's have to -- striving to close a challenging achievement gap. More importantly to me, is that my jr. high student is friends with a diverse group of kids -- and states if we had had a k/3-4/6 elem school then it would be great because we would "ALL BE FRIENDS". With regard to dual immersion -- I am undecided. If there is a strong desire from both native-spanish AND english speaking families, then perhaps it is a good idea. Yet, how will creating another magnet school in Davis effect Patwin? Birch? N Davis? What kind of students will be attracted to the program and detracted from the mix of students at our remaining neighborhood schools? With low enrollment, schools are competing for kids -- actually recruiting to their programs. How can we strengthen our neighborhood programs? do we want to? I would love to not have "racism" be a part of this discussion. Really, to me, it is more about "class-ism". Poverty exists in Davis. At least this discussion has opened people's eyes to that. Forget EL for a moment....48% of MME kids are qualified as low-SES. That number increases when you pull out students from the spanish-immersion program. These kids have significant needs for food, clothing, academic support, social services and more. There is a very real impact in the classroom, on the playground, in the breakfast/lunchroom, and the parent support for the school. Does that make it different for anyone? Is it okay for one school to look so different from the rest in our teeny little town?
Reply |