Since making the decision to eliminate some Honors-level English classes at Sonoma Valley High School (SVHS), school officials have been on the defensive, trying to explain their reasoning to upset parents who say it eliminates a vital curriculum choice.
Honors classes fall between the basic (CP) and college-level Advanced Placement (AP) courses. According to a protest letter written by the independent SVHS Parent Connection group, eliminating Honors is a disservice to students who want to challenge themselves but whose skills are not yet at the AP college level. “An Honors option allows (them) to build on their strengths,” they wrote.
The school’s English teachers were abruptly told of the decision on January 10, and word quickly spread from students to parents. The decision was made without public input, detractors say, and came when students were facing a deadline to submit fall schedules.
By January 19, in what it felt was an absence of clear and consistent communication from the school, SVHS Parent Connection released their letter, signed by more than 250 supporters, and ran it in The Sun and Index-Tribune.
The letter argues that since the Honors classes include 50 percent underserved students, eliminating them would hurt, not help, equity—SVHS Principal Kathleen Hawing’s primary rationale for the decision. Moreover, no budgetary savings would be realized, since the courses are fully enrolled. It also charged that the decision-making process “was opaque and failed to include teachers or SVHS families. It was never formally announced. And it was imposed at the last minute.”
The school and district took notice, and set a January 23 meeting with Hawing, Superintendent Chuck Young and Associate Superintendent Karen Strong. Hawing began with an apology to the standing-room-only crowd, explaining that she felt the issue had been under discussion for years.
With still no formal announcement as to the status of Honors English 3 and 4, and with schedules due in days, many students and parents grew increasingly frustrated, and on January 26 the parent group published its letter for the first time.
On February 7, Hawing visited English classes, explaining the rationale for eliminating Honors English 3 and 4, and administering a student survey. Many students reportedly questioned the reasoning behind her decision, and an editorial in the student paper opposed it. The school’s English teachers were then tasked with making recommendations and reporting back in three weeks.
Meanwhile the parent group hosted a February 8 public forum to discuss the issue. About 25 parents attended, along with Superintendent Young, and Deputy Superintendents Karen Strong and Bruce Abbott, who were invited by SVHS Parent Connection. All three stressed that they were listening to parents’ concerns, and that no decision had been made.
Parents then asked that Honors English be on the agenda as an Action Item for the February 13 Board Meeting, and it was included, but as an Information Item, meaning no action could be taken. Nonetheless, at the Board meeting, a lively discussion ensued. Karen Strong introduced the item and acknowledged significant flaws in the decision-making process, emphasizing that they were revisiting the issue. She added that checks and balances would be implemented so this did not happen again. Young concurred, and pointed out that good policy can sometimes come on the heels of bad decisions.
Parent Selma Blanusa stressed the need to define the problem they were trying to solve, and to get accurate data. While Hawing had emphasized that other schools were eliminating Honors English, Blanusa pointed out that many of the schools cited had English curricula that are “very robust,” and that some offer “five or six courses in 11th grade alone.”
Parent Jim Carabini said he felt the decision was unjust and “came down from above.” He appreciated that the tone of the night’s remarks from district staff had changed from January 23, and said that the resolve to get input and revisit the decision seemed firmer. He urged the district to survey parents.
Parent Sarah Ford expressed disappointment that she had not heard reasonable rebuttals to the many cogent arguments made by parents for maintaining Honors English 3 and 4.
Vanessa Rognlien thanked the board and staff for the new dialogue, and said that parents were now feeling heard and valued. She asked who bore responsibility for ensuring we do not have a repeat of this process. Associate Superintendent Strong responded that the general policy would be contained in Board Policies, while procedures would be part of Administrative Regulations. Board President Britta Johnson added that the board had work to do on policies and regulations, and that would start at a governance workshop, which the Board had discussed earlier in the meeting. In response, Rognlien encouraged the board to do the governance workshop soon.
At this point in the meeting Superintendent Young interjected that he had just learned that the parent group was not an ad hoc committee formed to protest the Honors English decision. “It is my belief that we should give serious consideration” to making the group what it had originally envisioned, but which was turned down: as being affiliated with the school, and maintaining an ongoing dialogue. The comment was met with enthusiastic applause.
Parent Susie Gallo then expressed appreciation for the staff and board’s candor regarding the faulty process. She stressed the benefits of a middle level English class, and asked what the school and district were going to do to address the fact that more than half of the school’s students were not reading “anywhere near grade level.” More AP is not going to solve it, she said—the problem starts long before high school, in the earliest grades. “You’re not going to fix it at the high school.”
Parent and SVHS alumna Jennifer Saldana said she now felt heard and empowered as a parent, and was relieved that teachers were finally being involved. “If they’re empowered, it empowers our kids,” she said.
Gigi Pfleger expressed surprise that the Honors English decision was still on the table when “100% of parents” opposed it. “We as parents won’t let our kids down,” she said, “and we won’t let our high school down.” She implored them to “end this nonsense.”
Mara Lee Ebert said that Honors English was the perfect fit for her daughter, who was already taking several APs, held student office, and did multiple varsity sports. It was “the only way she got through junior year,” she said. “She’s a busy girl.”
Valley of the Moon Teacher’s Association (VMTA) President and SVHS parent Renea Magnani pointed out that involving teachers at the last minute with a short timeframe placed an undue burden on them.
Parent Mario Castillo said this was an issue that had brought all SVHS parents together, and that removing Honors English 3 and 4 was detrimental to equity, not helpful. He then had Trustee Sal Chavez read a letter in Spanish from the Vice President of DELAC, who opposed the decision.
Parent Celeste Winders also pointed out that eliminating Honors English classes would create a large equity gap, since these classes currently boast a 50-50 distribution of white and underserved students. She stressed that “we need to look at where we are,” not compare SVHS to schools that have far different demographics. “Let’s build students up and meet them at their skill level,” she said.
Former trustee Helen Marsh pointed out that when the History department went to only CP and AP some years ago it was a “bottom up” decision that met with no resistance. She expressed skepticism that any plan would be ready to implement by 2018-19, and stressed that teachers needed to be involved and have “buy-in” to any decision.
In summing up, Superintendent Young reiterated that while parent, student, and teacher input has been encouraged and will be considered, the final decision is the Administration’s.
In a letter to parents, Hawing announced she would make a final decision by February 28. The issue will also be on agenda for the March 13 School Board meeting.
Be First to Comment