Angry Parents Storm Out of School Board Meeting

The sound of a door slamming loudly punctuated the exodus Tuesday night of dozens of angry parents at the Palo Alto Unified School District’s weekly meeting, where the school calendar change again took center stage.

Six months after the , the board last night received a controversial report from district staff highlighting how they plan to adapt to the change.

The report was supposed to detail mitigations in three contentious areas: adapting to hot August weather at elementary schools, adjusting to unequal semester lengths, and supporting seniors with college admissions. 

What was presented to the Board Tuesday night however, was short on details in many contentious areas, prompting an outcry from parents concerned that their children are being used as guinea pigs and doing little to assuage the concerns of Board members who were skeptical of the change to begin with.

“I really trusted that we were going to take mitigating the issues in these three areas seriously,” said Board President Melissa Baten Caswell, who voted against the change in May. “I believed that we could make some differences and at least show that we really cared,” she said.

Unfortunately, said Caswell, the report focused less on proactive solutions and more on discrediting the concerns expressed by parents, teachers and students.

“I was disappointed by this report,” said Caswell. “It felt like there was a lot of time being spent on why these weren’t issues. If an issue comes up over and over again then it is an issue.”

On the subject of how to deal with hot classrooms during the new August school days, the report cites a data analysis that found the new days are two-thirds more likely to be hotter than the soon-to-be-cut June days, averaging 76 degrees versus 72 degrees in June.

That seemingly innocuous statistic failed to sway parents in attendance.

Phil Mahoney, a parent representing Time to Thrive, or ‘T3’, a parent group with more than 300 members, said outside temperatures have little to do with the heat inside, and suggested the Board and District hold all their August meetings at without air conditioning.

“That should end this debate,” he said. “Have any of you ever been to a Back to School night and sweated your behind off? Go do that. And bring your squirt gun. See if you stay cool.”

Caswell echoed that sentiment, dismissing the value of the report’s data.

“Sure, you can show me lots of statistics that show me this isn’t an issue,” said Caswell. “But if you are a teacher in a hot room facing the sun, you will be sweating all day.”

The data in the report was compiled and analyzed by students in Gunn and Paly AP Statistics classes. The report also offers numerous staff suggestions for mitigating the heat, including using fans, turning off the lights, and having “yard supervisors use squirt bottles to cool off kids who want a few squirts!” among other tactics.

Board Members Barbara Klausner and Barb Mitchell, who were in the uncomfortable position of having to defend the calendar changes Tuesday night, agreed that the report was incomplete and called for more research.

“We need a more complete report that adequately answers the questions that were raised in May,” said Klausner.

But Klausner was quick to defend the Board’s decision, arguing that numerous studies and best practices throughout the county suggest that the calendar change is worth at least trying out, if only for the two years between now and when the Board will revisit the issue.

“This is really tough,” she said. “The conclusion we came to in May is that there is no calendar that will satisfy all constituents. Not everybody’s interests can be addressed fully. It’s just not possible.”

Klausner went on to note that 57 out of 66 public schools in Santa Clara County have a pre-break finals calendar, and that “we are joining the vast majority of high schools in our area.”

“It was a difficult decision,” she continued, “but the decision was made.”

This comment elicited audible groans and sighs from the crowd, followed by a dramatic exodus of parents from the room who made loud and disgruntled noises as they left.

Perhaps the most volatile issue prior to that moment concerned how to mitigate a changed academic curriculum.

The 2012-2013 school calendar will have 86 days in fall and 94 days in spring versus the evenly distributed number in the current calendar.  The report, which according to critics was supposed to have detailed how teachers would adapt to the change, instead offered vague assurances that teachers, if given more time, would with confidence be able to transition smoothly.

“Overall, the staffs at both high schools have taken substantive steps to assess the adjustments needed to transition smoothly to next year’s calendar,” according to the report. “With continued site level planning and administrative support, staff is confident in a successful transition to the unequal semesters in next year’s calendar.”

Deborah Wexler, a parent and Paly PTSA fundraiser, was sharply critical of the report, telling board members that the plan lacks the details necessary to implement it confidently.

“It appears to me that there’s enough uncertainty with this calendar that I wish you would consider revoking your decision in May, put a freeze on it, and put something in place that is more specific.”

In order for the board to have revoked it’s decision, a member of the majority that voted for it would have had to motion to do so, but none did.

Barb Mitchell, a six-year board member, instead praised the members of the public for their outspoken contribution to the debate.

“It does take courage to come up to that mic in my view,” said Mitchell. “Clearly your arguments are principled and your concerns are valid.”

She quickly pivoted, however, comparing parents’ concerns to those expressed by parents in other districts where similar changes have been implemented.

“I’ve personally spoken to over 60 teachers or board members from districts that have made this change,” she said.

Mitchell then took issue with what she felt were unfair attacks by parents.

“You have to either believe that we’re stupid or that we don’t care,” she said, imploring the remaining parents to “understand the context of my perspective.”

“It was my sense that we certainly asked for mitigations in May and I think that was thoughtful and sound, but I didn’t interpret that to mean that we were supposed to have a completed mitigation plan by tonight,” she said.

Ultimately Mitchell agreed that more research needs to be done, but stopped short of calling for the calendar to be revoked.

“The most important thing—and I think it’s literally a do-or-die thing—I think we need to have an excellent evaluation that produces valid and credible information,” she said.

The board agreed to put together a committee to produce such an evaluation and report on it at a March board meeting.