Commentary: DJUSD Cut of Climate Position Threatens To Set Back Efforts by Two Decades

Within the course of cutting $4 to $4.5 million from the school district's budget, you know that the cuts are going to - for the most part -be deep and painful. In fact, that is one reason I have mostly avoided hitting this topic head-on. I have a full understanding that there are going to be painful cuts for all.

That being said, with proposals now on the table, I think we also have to think about the bigger picture and along those lines I have some concerns about some of the cuts.

However, I will start with perhaps some good news, without being too flippant or speaking too far out of school. On the other hand, this is the Vanguard and people have perhaps come to expect a bit of irreverence and even honesty that you will not find elsewhere.

Personnel matters are tricky, in fact, as I would suggest, I think state law goes too far to protect the privacy of top level employees. It is one thing to protect the private records of assistants and custodians and other classified employees. It is another thing not to disclose that a top level public official such as a Superintendent or City Manager has been fired and not explain why that occurred. When you have huge amount of responsibility and large salary, I do not think you have the same privacy rights as those making $30,000 per year.

Yesterday's Davis Enterprise reveals that Ginni Davis, the associate superintendent for educational services is leaving the school district.

In a somewhat contradictory release at first it says

"she decided last month not to renew her contract when it expires in June. Her decision is becoming public now, as part of the district's plans to reduce staffing in many areas to correct a growing budget deficit."

She's quoted as saying:

"I'm part of that proposed $200,000 in reductions among district office administrators."

As is often the case there is something happening between those lines.

While I cannot say for certain what happened, I do know some board members have had deep concerns about her for a good deal of time. At the end of the day however the Superintendent was going to be allowed to make his own personnel decisions. I have no direct knowledge of what happened here, but I suspect that this was not merely a budget move.

I first became aware of Ms. Davis during the case of the junior high school student who was bullied on the Harper Junior High campus largely, because he has two gay fathers. It was Ms. Davis, who became so intransigent during talks with the family that it turned from simply a complaint to a lawsuit. This was in late 2006 and early 2007.

More recently word has it that the truancy issue became a far bigger problem with the school district last fall due to decisions made from her office not to fully disclose to the school board what was occurring. Indeed, Pam Mari who was newly appointed as Director of Student Services, was hung out to dry in that meeting, believing that the board knew of this policy and she was merely providing an update for them. The board had no idea what was going on and Ms. Mari was left in a very bad position.

Finally, it was Ginni Davis who authored the resolution that opposed the Valley Oak Charter School. This resolution in December was very antagonistic and set the stage for what would happen in January. At that time, the Superintendent had to step in and put forth a large amount of work to reconcile the district's position with those of the Charter Petitioners. Prior to that point the district was very reluctant to meet or help out with the charter petition and it seems that Ms. Davis played a large role in that as well.

At the end of the day, Board President Sheila Allen issued a statement:

"We want to thank Ginni for her leadership during these difficult times, and we wish her luck in [her] next endeavors. I think she knows a lot about the educational process; that's a strength she brought to the position."

I am hopeful that when this budget emergency passes, the school district will find a new associate superintendent of educational services that will work well with the new superintendent to serve all of Davis' students.

I am less hopeful about the cut of the School Climate Coordinator position.

This position arose out of very serious concerns in this community about the "climate" on campus especially with regards to race relations and bullying. Indeed in 2004, several hundred parents and students came forward at a Davis Human Relations Commission meeting held at the Veteran's Memorial Center to press for changes to district policy on bullying and racism.

One of the outcomes of the changes was the creation of the then part-time School Climate Coordinator position which is now held by Mel Lewis.

In the fall of 2006, in the wake of events that centered on the anti-gay harassment of a junior high school student, one of the proposals put forth was to expand the climate coordinator position to full-time.

The Vanguard wrote on November 21, 2006:

"During the meeting last week, the school board asked Mel Lewis, now the district's School Climate Coordinator, to draw up an action plan designed to reduce or eliminate harassment not just at Harper but at all Davis schools.

Lewis at the meeting pointed out he was doing a 1.5 time job on a half-time salary. The school board seemed to agree that the Mr. Lewis needs to be better sourced as did the father of the student, Guy Fischer. Fischer said "this is a full-time problem. There are a lot of things that could be done."

What followed in 2007 was a series of events on the Davis High School Campus and in the community that underscore the need for a continuation of that program.

Instead what we see is that as soon as the budget gets tight, this will be one of the first things that go. Nevermind the recommendations that have come from a whole variety of studies that the district has invested time and money into. Nevermind the continuing complaints about disparate treatment for students of different races with regards to discipline policy. Nevermind the stark findings of the Achievement Gap Task Force or the DHS Catalysts for Social Justice Student report. Nevermind that last year Tansey Thomas stood up and told the school board that in 1990 they had done a "Racial Climate Assessment Report" and at that time the district struggled with the same problems that they are currently struggling with. Those recommendations were put on a shelf and never acted upon. Let us shelve promising new programs such as the school ambassador program, because we simply are out of money.

I understand that we need to cut money. I also understand that we cannot cut money from core programs if possible, and that these cuts will be painful to all. But if we set ourselves back we are literally setting ourselves back another 18 years, because these programs will not come back until the next incident occurs. And, we will once again wonder why it is that we never acted upon the recommendations of the 2007 Achievement Gap Task Force just as we never acted upon the recommendations of the "Racial Climate Assessment Report."

When we cut programs for the most vulnerable students, the students who we have long since determined are at-risk, we risk truly damaging the students.

For all of the people who have said that this school district is irresponsible and we should not approve a parcel tax until they demonstrate they have their house in order, I disagreed. I disagreed because these are students, they are kids, and I do not believe we can play politics with the education of students.

At the same time, we cannot merely cut programs for at-risk kids, because we have a budget crunch and it is "easy" (and I know it is not easy) money to cut. Too much work went into establishing this program and this position in the first place to merely throw it out the door.

We need to have the same commitment to school climate and helping at-risk kids as we have for core curriculum because for some kids, without this work and these programs, there is no core curriculum. The achievement gap will grow. Students who are at-risk will not graduate, they will not go to college, they will not succeed in life. That sounds harsh, perhaps too harsh, but in my mind that is what we are facing here.

I'm sorry, but I think we have to find a better way than to balance our budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in our schools just as at the state and federal level we cannot merely balance our budget on the backs of the poor and the working class.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

School Climate Report

Last night at the city of Davis' Human Relations Commission, Mel Lewis, the Davis School District's Climate Coordinator with assistance from Pam Mari, Director of Student Services presented a brief overview of the results from the Yale School Climate Survey.

For those of you who are long time Vanguard readers, you will recall back in May, we were critical of the use of this survey for the purposes ascertaining school climate. There were four versions of this survey: Elementary and Middle School, High School, Parent, and Staff. Last May we were able to obtain the Parent version and post it on the Vanguard. Mr. Lewis informed us that the results of this survey are proprietary, and therefore they cannot post the results of the survey. This is basically a $30,000 survey purchased at public expense that cannot have the full results posted--a problematic aspect to begin with.

They were able to show us summary and graphical results.

There were 17 major categories of questions. The first graphic to the right shows the 17 categories and their distribution within the surveys. The first six are incorporated into the Elementary and Middle School Survey. Categories 2 through 7 are incorporated into the High School Category.

The big findings are represented on the second and third graphic. These pictorially demonstrate a consistent pattern that on most questions, "Black" and "Latino" students rate their school climate less than their "White" counterparts.

To Mel Lewis, this was clear and convincing evidence that the school climate was not perceived the same for all students and it was systematically more difficult for minorities than for white students, according to this survey.

Mr. Lewis stressed that this data will allow us to move away from assumptions to reality. In other words, we do not have to assume that these problems are here, we have evidence and we can now deal with them. As a result, we can improve communication and awareness. And this will help in the formation of various programs that we have discussed such as the Safe School Ambassadors program, the Unconscious Bias Training, among others.

One of the questions that had among the lowest ratings was the question: "I can talk to my teachers about my problems." Overall, only 42 percent of students agreed, that number dropped to 6 percent among black students at one Junior High, 15 percent at another.

Before I proceed with this, I want to stress, that to me Mel Lewis and Pam Mari are very sincere on this issue. They have concerns and I think they are sincere in wanting to address these concerns.

Nevertheless, even though I am sympathetic to the results of this survey, I remain troubled by some of the interpretations of the findings.

First, as a social scientist, I question the interpretation of the results. There is a consistent pattern that shows a difference between minority and white respondents across the board. However, without having the actual figures those differences appear small numerically. Furthermore, given the low sample size for minorities, I am not certain how robust these results are and how confident we can be that these differences are not due to mere chance and random variations.

Let me give a clear and simple example. Let us suppose that there were only 10 black students at a school and 7 told us that they did not feel they could talk to their teachers. That, would be 70% percent. A one student difference in the results would drastically change the results. If one extra student said they felt they could talk to their teachers, the number would drop to 60% or if one fewer student said they could not talk to their teachers, that number would rise to 80%. In other words, one random change in the responses could swing the results by 20%. Even if you have 19 students, as was the case in one of the surveys at a Junior High, small random variation can lead to drastic change in results. Are the differences in the results between whites and non-whites, large enough to overcome the potential for random variation? If they are, they are what we would call statistically significant. If not, then they are not. From the results that we see, it is difficult to tell if they are.

So again, while I might believe the results, I have difficulty having confidence in the process.

Secondly, while I think the results are instructive, I am still far from sure that they asked the key questions. As I was skeptical in May, there were few questions that I would consider actual climate type questions. Few that asked about racism. Few that asked about race relations. Few that talked about harassment, discrimination, differentials in punishment, bullying, etc. The key issues that we have faced over the past few years are not covered by the survey. So yes, we may have stumbled onto some results here, but we might still not be asking the critical questions that will really show us where the problems lie.

Finally, as several told me following the meeting, it is far from clear that the questions asked here are much different from what was found nearly 20 years ago. We do not necessarily need more surveys. We have had surveys. We have developed programs. What we have not done is follow through on these programs with any type of commitment. In May, we talked about the "Racial Climate Assessment Report" that was done nearly 20 years ago and yet could have been written today.

Long time activist Tansey Thomas asked the school district in May:

“I don’t know why we want to start over again, everything that was a problem then, is a problem now. It’s like we’ve gone nowhere… That we form another study group, start another cycle, and it goes nowhere.”

As one person said last night, we've studied this enough, time for action.

The key question is whether these programs will solve the problem and whether the new board and the new superintendent will have the tenacity to follow through with these reports and implement these programs and ensure that programs will do what we are saying they will do. Short of that, we are engaging in academic exercises for no apparent benefit.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Council and Staff Try To Justify Weakening of Historic Civil Rights Ordinance

If you read the Davis Enterprise last night, you would be led to believe that the historic, anti-discrimination ordinance that passed in 1986 was no longer needed. This justification might make sense if they were removing the entire ordinance, but instead they are removing one portion of text dealing with an enforcement mechanism and then attempting to suture up that hole somewhat artificially.

When it was adopted in 1986, the ordinance offered protections not otherwise available at the time, said Assistant City Manager Kelly Stachowicz.

“According to the city attorney, most of those things are now covered by state and federal law,” she added.

The city now has several mechanisms in place to deal with charges of discrimination, including a police ombudsman hired in September, the city's Mediation and Fair Housing Program and the Police Advisory Committee.

“The subcommittee believes there is an adequate web of resources available to individuals and the best roles for the current Human Relations Commission include listening, information intake and referral,” Souza and Asmundson wrote.

There are several components to this claim that need to be addressed.

First, most of these things are indeed covered by state and federal law. The problem is that unless the case of discrimination is egregious enough to warrant the Attorney General of California or the Justice Department/ FBI to intervene, the enforcement mechanism is a lawsuit in court. As we discussed last week, such a mode is expensive and impractical for most situations that arise. Moreover, as we also discussed, the only recourse available to individuals should not be the court system, this is a chief reason why the HRC was empowered in the first place even lacking the ability to subpoena people to testify.

Second the city may have several mechanisms, but most of them involve the police or housing. Those account for a very small percentage of the types of incidents that the HRC in the past has dealt with. So who is going to handle those type of complaints?

The word we are getting is that those complaints of discrimination would be rolled into the Police Ombudsman, Bob Aaronson's duty. Or at least that is what Councilmember Stephen Souza is reportedly thinking at this time. This is not the first time he has suggested expanding the role of the ombudsman. The problem is that it is not altogether clear that the ombudsman is the proper authority to deal with a number of these kinds of disputes that used to be handled by the HRC. Moreover, the ombudsman is currently working well beyond his part time duties, expanding his role would likely necessitate the city hiring additional staff to do the duties that the HRC used to perform.

The Enterprise Article cites the report from the subcommittee:

“As a public body, the commission is limited to what it can discuss in open session,” Asmundson and Souza wrote. “It is also limited in information it can seek regarding personnel issues, information about police officers, and information it can require other jurisdictions to share. This makes it difficult for the commission to appropriately, thoroughly and fairly mediate/adjudicate individual cases.”

As Mr. Souza ought to know since he was on the HRC, police issues encompass only a very small portion of the types of complaints that the HRC dealt with in the past. Moreover, Souza's report only dealt with again a very narrow issue base--police issues. The disputes that arose last year undoubtedly have led to this decision, but the subcommittee is thinking very narrowly when they justify the removal of the ordinance item based on a single-issue area that has now been dealt with through the hiring of the ombudsman.

"At a recent meeting, commissioners discussed the ordinance, and several said they felt uncomfortable in the role of mediator. Others said to dismantle an important city ordinance was inappropriate."

I find the fact that several members of the commission were uncomfortable with the role of mediator appalling. In past HRCs, it was strongly encouraged that the members go through mediation training--and many did. It is part of the duties that they had and were listed in the description. It would be like a member of the BEDC or the Planning Commission uncomfortable with reading and analyzing zoning laws or development agreements. My response is 'oh well, if you are uncomfortable, resign.' As we found out last year, this body and these laws are bigger than the individuals currently holding the appointments.

There is a perception out there that bodies like the HRC are limited in terms of what they can do to effect change. Nothing is really further from the truth. In 2002 and early 2003, the HRC heard a number of incidents involving racism and bullying at the Davis High School. The HRC, helped organize a community meeting that turned out be a real eye-opener for the entire community. Following the Forum on Bullying and Racism hosted by the HRC, the Davis Enterprise reported:

Talk about racism at Davis High School became real for school district officials Monday night, as emotional students recounted experiences with violence, discrimination and taunting.

Davis Joint Unified School District Board of Education members, Superintendent David Murphy, teachers and Davis City Council members joined more than 100 community members and students at a public forum on racism.

The forum, organized by the Davis Human Relations Commission and held Monday at the Veterans' Memorial Center, produced a long list of possible solutions and nearly five hours of testimony and discussion.

"I thought there was a problem. I had no idea of the depth and breadth of the problem and how deep it seems to be within ... our schools, particularly the high school," Joan Sallee, school board president, said after hearing the students' stories. "And I'm grateful for this meeting." (Davis Enterprise, February 25, 2003).

The result of this meeting was that numerous students came forward with heartfelt and emotional experiences and the school board and superintendent could no longer simply ignore the problem.

Emotional -- at times tearful -- students recounted vivid stories of discrimination and poor treatment on campus by their peers, administrators and staff. Some said they are uncomfortable talking to administrators about experiences. Others accused the school district of unfair punishments.

"There is no word in the English language like (the N-word)," Babajide Olupona, a DHS students and commission member, said, recalling years of discrimination and negative experiences in the schools and community. "No one really understands the impact of that word."

Other students offered detailed accounts of discrimination, vandalism of their property and violence based on race, ethnicity, religion and status.

The result of that meeting was that the Superintendent Murphy worked with members of the HRC to create new programs and new positions to deal with the problem. One of the results of that work is the climate coordinator position, now held by Mel Lewis.

We see from this both the possibilities but the shortcomings of the a body such as the HRC. First, the HRC was able to organize a meeting to educate the community. Second, they were able to work with the Superintendent to create new programs.

But third, as many who read these pages realize, the problems that were identified then, still exist now. Why? There was a lack of follow-through after the crisis abated.

However, the HRC was able to facilitate with the school district new programs, new discipline code language, and a new position. This set the stage for what has happened this year, where all of these aspects have been tightened up due to greater levels of follow-through and commitment by the current school board.

Most importantly, there was key communication fostered and changes enacted without a lawsuit having to be filed. I do not see how the Ombudsman would be able to perform this function.

In October of 2003, four teenagers threw more than 120 eggs at five vehicles--mainly owned by minorities including a gay man.

Russell and several friends, concerned community members and fellow victims of hate crimes scratched out signs and banners to protest the Yolo County District Attorney's Office's willingness to drop hate crime charges against a teen-ager who is charged with vandalizing several cars and a home on Oct. 26, 2003.

One of the victims is Russell, a 27-year-old openly gay UC Davis lab assistant.

"This is silent affirmation to people who commit these type of crimes because they can look and see that nothing is going to happen to them if they get caught," Russell said of the plea offer. "This allows this type of behavior to continue."

Four youths reportedly shouted racist and bigoted remarks as they threw more than 120 eggs at five vehicles and one house early that October morning. One car was owned by Russell; another was owned by a black family. The house was owned by a black family.

Witnesses told police they saw four juveniles throw more than 120 eggs at the two cars. Russell's vehicle suffered more than $4,000 in damage, he said. Liquid from the eggs seeped through into the engine, causing damage, and the paint was also ruined.

Russell was able to pick one of the juveniles out of a photo lineup and he was arrested for the crimes. However, the youth has refused to tell authorities the names of the other three suspects.

"This was devastating to me," Russell said about the hate crime. "Then to have the crimes basically dismissed makes the whole experience exponentially worse."

Raphael Moore, Russell's attorney, said the proposed deal - announced at a pretrial hearing last week - might include dropping the hate crime charges against the juvenile. The 16-year-old could face limited probation and the possibility of having his record expunged in three years if the plea agreement is approved. (Davis Enterprise July 15, 2004).

As a result the HRC took up Mr. Russell's cause. The result was that the HRC worked with the new police chief Jim Hyde, yes the same police chief and the same HRC chair that were at odds a year later. At this time however, the HRC arranged for public meetings where various individuals spoke about the problems of hate crimes. As the result of those meetings, Chief Hyde greatly improved and expanded the department's enforcement of hate crimes legislation.

Even though, Mr. Russell's case was never prosecuted as a hate crime and the juvenile was slapped on the wrist at most, it set in motion a series of changes that will ensure that such events do not occur in the future.

These are but two of the more recent and easily accessible examples of what the HRC has been able to do in the past. Both of these incidents show an effective use of this commission that can both investigate and use community resources to resolve disputes that do not have to go into the legal system as law suits and litigation.

The council now wishes to turn this commission primarily into a listening, intake and referral commission. My experience is that few will come before such a commission. In the past many came before the commission because it was the only body that would listen to their complaints where they believe they were getting a fair hearing. The council wishes for the most part to take this vetting which is often healthy and cathartic out of the public process.

In the end, the council is weakening an historic document to fix a small and limited problem that arose in 2005-06 when the dispute over the proper way in which to deal with a given set of complaints erupted more broadly than it should have. Instead of finding ways to resolve the situation, the council opted for the hatchet approach first purging the HRC, then rewriting its rules, and now changing a landmark civil rights document. This is compounding the problem that began with the inability of either the police chief or the council to recognize the existence of problems and complaints within the community. These actions may quell the public complaints at this time, but they also put a lid on problems rather than solve them, at some point they will erupt again, boiling to the surface. This current council will probably not be in power when they do and they will not have to deal with the mess that they have created.

Unfortunately this is a done deal, fait accompli. And it is a shame that Davis will once again take a dramatic step backwards in their protections against civil rights abuses.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

History Repeats: "Racial Climate Assessment Report" Reads as Though it Was Written Today

As we discussed last week, the school board listened to District Climate Coordinator Mel Lewis discuss the climate action report that he was implementing. Not surprisingly it called for a number of new programs, courses, surveys, and a number of other recommendations to deal with some of the issues of racism, discrimination, bullying, and harassment that the district has now faced for a long period of time.

As many in the room remarked, the programs suggested and the goals themselves are laudable. It was an impressive presentation. We already spoke at length about a pilot program called the safe schools ambassador's program. This was just the beginning of a long series of recommendations for improvement in the school climate.

We had expressed concerns about the Yale Survey that was mailed to the houses of parents and also sent home with students. As we discussed at the time, the survey really did not appear to address the key issues that were facing the school district. Our inquiry into the rationale by the district produced an explanation for this, but did not alleviate our concerns. The survey has been implemented as a generic survey that will yield the district some information that can be compared at the national level. The district personnel did not feel they had the resources or the expertise to design their own and more comprehensive survey. Still, as suggested at the time, this does not address the key issues of racism, discrimination, bullying and harassment and instead asks a series of generic questions that aim to ascertain the condition of the schools and rapport that the principals have with the teachers.

Nevertheless, those reservations aside, there was little in the school action climate plan that one can criticize. That is until Tansey Thomas stood up and spoke about the "Racial Climate Assessment Report" that was prepared for the Davis Joint Unified School District in 1990.

Ms. Thomas, a long time community activist, pointed out that this report made a number of great recommendations, but it was never implemented by the school district. In fact, the school district for the most part flat out refused to implement it or even adhere to its voted on policies. The result of this failure of follow-through and implementation is that the only thing that has changed since the report was written was the statewide passage of a law that prohibits affirmative action in public schools-—the finding and recommendations are all there and just needs to be updated to include Prop. 209 (end of Affirmative Action).

As Ms. Thomas said, “I don’t know why we want to start over again, everything that was a problem then, is a problem now. It’s like we’ve gone nowhere… That we form another study group, start another cycle, and it goes nowhere.”

Reading through the report, it is very easy to see where Tansey Thomas' skepticism came from.

Here are some of the specific recommendations that the 1990 made...

"The District should establish... no later than the 1990-91 school year, a district-wide multicultural curriculum committee... [that] should oversee and assist in implementation of the plan within the District. The responsibilities of the committee should include developing staff training programs, curriculum materials, and other similar matters."

"The district needs to employ a specialist in multicultural education who can provide assistance to the administrative staff in the areas of staff development and development of multicultural curriculum materials."

"To promote teacher input, a committee of teachers should be established at each site."

"Job responsibilities of all school personnel should include being knowledgeable of, and attentive to, the educational needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds... Training should be broad, covering all aspects of human relations and multicultural education."

"The district should promote follow-through, such as peer coaching, where teachers can have other experienced staff observe, evaluate, and provide feedback concerning the implmenetation of teaching principles and methodologies covered in the training."

"A strong consideration in the selection of Mentor Teachers in the District for the next several years should be their skill in multicultural education."

"As part of its affirmative action program, the District should focus on strategies to attract and hire qualified applicants with diverse cultural backgrounds who are trained in multicultural education."

"The district should offer more kinds of programs such as Global Education in which teachers learn about different cultures within the United States and in other countries."

"The District needs to develop ways to help students realize their academic potential... a State task force recommended that local school districts review their policies to deliberately expose minority students to a strong academic background and prepare them for higher education."

"Assessments every two years or on an annual basis, as needed, should be made to evaluate the progress the District is making in improving the racial/ethnic climate in Davis schools."

This report also activated numerous committees and bodies with oversight power over the implementation most specifically the Davis Joint Unified School District's Human Relations Committee (NOT to be confused with the Davis Human Relations Commission chartered by the city). The DJUSD HRC was given the authority to oversee and implement these programs and changes and to monitor progress. None of these recommendations were ultimately followed and many of the recommendations on this list have been launched anew this year in the latest report.

There has not been sufficient follow-through on the racial/ethnic climate issues facing the district. By 2003, the district was forced to confront this issue once again in the face of an angry mob, the result of a long meeting between the Davis Human Relations Commission and the school district, where hundreds of students and parents came forward to press then Superintendent Murphy to deal with issues of racism and bullying at the high school. It was only then that the district would become serious again about these issues and it formed its Climate Coordinator position--a half time position--in response.

As we see currently, the district is doing the exact same thing in essence it did in the late 1980s and early 1990s--developing multicultural curriculum. Mel Lewis discussed last week the development of curriculum, programs, and in fact there is a new course that addresses this topic, “Race Relations and Social Justice in U.S. History,” that has been approved for next year. They are still trying to increase the diversity of the certificated staff--the number of minority teachers remains alarming low despite the acknowledgment of this problem 17 years ago. They are trying to implement and improve mentoring programs.

The achievement gap which will be discussed at length next week as the task force gives their report continues to be a huge problem despite the realization of the problem 17 years ago.

One of the major problems facing the 1990 report was the lack of historical continuity and institutional coherence. There is constant turnover in district personnel, elected officials, and even activists. At the meeting last week, very few seemed to be aware of the existence of this report, in fact, only five years after the report was written, the same could be said. The DJUSD Human Relations Committee was charged with overseeing and monitoring school progress on this report, but that fell by the way-side because by 1994, none of the members on that commission even knew of its existence.

In short, had the district simply implemented the policies from 1990, they would have been in much better shape much faster than they are now.

There is nothing wrong with the recommendations made last week, many of them were made in one form or another in 1990. The question remains will the school district have follow-through on these through changes in the elected board members and through times when this is not a hot-burning issue on the forefront of the public's consciousness. That remains to be seen, unfortunately, history has a tendency to repeat and in Davis, the history of race relations has indeed proved that aphorism to be true.

The one burning question we all must ask is how do we ensure that these recommendations--which all seem good and beneficial to the school climate--get implemented, enforced, and that future bodies engage in active fall-through? That seems to be the most daunting task that a collective of well-intentioned people in the school district and in this community must grapple with.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Innovative New Junior High School Program Targets Bullying

At last week's school board meeting, Davis Joint Unified School District Climate Coordinator Mel Lewis discussed the innovative new program that is being piloted at the Junior High School level--the safe school ambassador program.

A partial grant in the spring of 2007 was used to implement this program at Holmes Junior High School. This was a one-time grant for the training and it is only at Holmes. Mel Lewis recommended it to the district for the use at all junior high schools.

This was an idea that Board Member Keltie Jones had picked up from the CSBA meetings.

"This actually one of the things that I got most excited about at CSBA and got on an email list and got an email about this grant and forwarded it to the district office and that's what got this going. This program was developed by someone in Santa Rosa... And it was developed in response to Columbine where he is a psychologist and an educator and really started examining why those kinds of things happen and how can we really effectively prevent the kind of abuse that our students go through daily in the hallways...

It's kind of nice, because at this point we are really benefiting from many years of what works at other schools and what works at other environments. And also I liked it because its individualized where each school, each community can kind of make it their own with families of teachers who are willing to be on board. So I'm very very excited that you're doing this work. And my own daughter at Holmes has noticed the changes as well."

The cost of this program was around $3900 for one-time training. Some of the follow-up training they can provide on their own. Certainly an affordable program that can have good benefits to the student culture. This is a program that is designed for grades 4 to 12.

A teacher and two ambassadors came to the meeting to give a presentation on the safe school ambassador program.

They had a training in March at the teen center--intensive training for two days. As the teacher explained, "What's really good about this program as opposed to others, I feel, is that we're dealing with students who are the first on the scene, who can react much quicker than teachers can, because we hear it from them if they tell us, and they are the ones that can quietly deal with the situations that arise on our campus."

They selected forty students with "social capital" in their peer groups, it is not just the straight A student or the perfect student, but rather students who have actual influence within their peer groups that have been selected. It is a broad cross-section of all groups. Five teachers have volunteered to participate--family leaders--who meet with eight students every few weeks to discuss any interventions that they have had with students. Each of the teachers have committed to be involved for two years in this program (if funding is enabled to continue).

There will be a follow-up training in the fall where the newly arriving seventh grade students will receive training to replace those who are ninth graders.

As the teacher made clear,

"This is not something where if there is a serious situation that a student had to deal with, they are not going to deal with it on their own. They know there are certain lines that they can get to and then they need to go for help. They can go to the family members, they can go to the counselors... They are not the undercover cops that can kind of deal with everything, they know when they get to the line and they need to pass it on."

Two students came forward to talk about their experiences. They work behind the scenes within their own groups to help stop bullying. For example, if they see a friend put down someone else, they intervene and try to tell the student it is not the best thing to do and they also help comfort the victim.

The big thing about the program is that students are there where the teachers cannot be. They see what the teachers cannot see and can be involved in that capacity.

One of the students witnessed for example an incident where one kid pushed another kid off his bike. One of the ambassadors confronted the kid to ask why he had done this, while the other ambassador made sure the kid who was pushed off his bike was okay.

The female student described typical types of interventions:

"Most of what we do also is just like put-downs like 'oh that's so gay,' 'you're so stupid,' 'what type of dress is that oh my gosh,' so what we usually do in those type of circumstances, talk about what we did last night, like that really good movie so that they stop thinking about it or talk about what that person might have that is good. But if it's something like 'that's so good' or something like that, we tell them that that's not right, you shouldn't say that, that's..."

Board Member Provenza asked:

"Do you find that effective in changing the way students are relating to each other?"

The male student responded,

"My view really changed after I went to that ambassador training. And when I went to that ambassador training, I realized how wrong that was."

The other student added that most of their friends have stopped using those kinds of words around them and she hoped that would change their habits in general and that would carry over to their other conversations as well to change the school.

Another component of the effectiveness of this program is that it is not a situation where the students are in uniforms and designated as authority figures. In fact, they have not told the other students about this program and instead are trying to work behind the scenes to change the culture of the school from the inside.

"I really do think that students, obviously they do have a lot more pull with their peer groups than teachers do. We're there to educate, we're there to be positive role models, but as far as interacting with each other, one we don't see it all and the students do and they can really do the on-spot corrections... These discussions between themselves can have a huge impact."

They have also had less than positive responses to their interventions, but the support group is in place that they can bring it back to their "family" and discuss better ways that they could approach a certain situation.

As Mel Lewis suggested:

"I like it because its relevant to what the kids are dealing with now. It's not a package program that just stays in an old binder, it really comes to relevancy of what the students are dealing with."

There were concerns raised that many of the Columbine type situations, and the most recent one at Virginia Tech are perpetrated by loners, who are not in any social groups.

As Tim Taylor said,

"I agree with that approach [finding leaders of the subgroups], that approach is easier said than done, so to the extent that they are accomplishing it, that's a pretty big thing to find the subgroups and all this who are out there. What it doesn't catch though is the individual, if you think of some of these incidents that have been so prominent in the news, and those are individuals that don't identify with any group."

Mel Lewis however suggested that one of their duties is to try to reach out to these type of students and hang out with students who seem to not have friends. They go and sit with them, and they have lunch with the students who do not necessarily eat with anyone else.

Tim Taylor agreed that was a good approach.

Will this program ultimately succeed? It is hard to say for sure, but there are several promising aspects of it. First, it works within the peer social structure. One key question is whether the knowledge of the existence of this program will work to undermine it, however, by working within that social network, it has a chance to succeed.

Second, it is not a police program, rather it aims to change the interactions of students through positive peer pressure.

Third and most importantly, we know from social psychological research that bystanders rarely intervene. In fact, there have been numerous studies on crowd's failure to intervene when a woman was attacked to the failure of people to prevent atrocities in Zimbardo's study on prisons. What this type of program does is empower bystanders to intervene. It gives them the tools to do so. The social support to do so. And more importantly, it raises the awareness that they need to do so, which would seem to be so vital.

In fact, one of the questions they had during their training at the conclusion was what would they change when they got back into campus.

According to the teacher, many of the students said, "I'm not going to be a bystander, so that was a powerful message because they are teens, they would view something that was happening and they would look the other way. They said they wouldn't be a bystander, and I think our ambassadors are proving that."

This program seems to hold some promise to help with situations of harassment and bullying that have been burning issues for a long time. It is not going to solve all of the problems, but it seems to be a powerful tool that can help.

For more information on this program, please click here.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting