Letters to the editor | December 6, 2013 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

Spectrum - December 6, 2013

Letters to the editor

Students in good hands

This story contains 1200 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a member, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Membership starts at $12 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Join


Posted by furious
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 6, 2013 at 10:33 am

@Barb Mitchell [Portion removed.]

You're writing about facts that you only know because of your secret meetings and crazily redacted correspondence. You're asserting facts that are blatantly, totally false but only you know that because only you, and not the public, has been privvy to those conversations and communications. You are not acting in good faith, not being honest, and not acting in the public interest.

You state that "our district has not waited to comply with new federal and state laws designed to make students safer." But a California State auditor's report found that Palo Alto is one of only 20% of districts that have failed to comply with Seth's law on bullying. That is in the story that you are supposedly responding to:

"By the district's own report on a recent state survey, Palo Alto has been missing legal deadlines when it comes to compliance with state anti-bullying laws. Palo Alto is among 20 percent of districts statewide reporting that they had not yet complied with Seth's Law, effective July 2012, according to a State Auditor's report released in August."

We STILL TO THIS DAY DO NOT HAVE A UNIFORM COMPLAINT PROCEDURE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE LAW OR EVEN APPLIES TO DISABILITY HARASSMENT. After all this -- OCR complaints, state audits, Title IX investigation -- the whole shebang, you and your fellow board members still have not figured out how to adopt, implement, or enforce policies that are minimally compliant with the law.

You are burning through hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars ("mad money" to you) to pay for lawyers from Laure Reynolds, to Chad Graff, to Dora Dome to stall, delay, resist, and ultimately delay compliance. You have sought to obstruct public knowledge about these matters -- violating the Brown Act by having closed and secret meetings of the Board Policy Review Committee. You have instructed your lawyers to research (at public expense) resisting OCR, and have refused to allow OCR to interview child witnesses, obstructing the investigation at Duveneck School.

[Portion removed.]

Posted by Marc Vincenti
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 6, 2013 at 3:47 pm

Dear Community,

As a teacher at Gunn for 15 years, I'm leaving this online message to commend Ms. Mitchell for her letter, to express my approval of her comments and my appreciation for her devotion to the well-being of the District's students and teachers.

Marc Vincenti

Posted by Keep writing, Barb
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 6, 2013 at 4:09 pm

With every out-of-touch word Barb writes, it is clear her just-trust-us incoherent plea illustrates how bad this district has sunk. You cannot be a reader of the Weekly and ignore all the smelly revelations of the past few years. Every new discovery and every pathetic response by a board member only makes it worse. Here's some free advice: say nothing, hunker down, and pray that the Weekly stops asking basic questions. Enjoy Barb and the other members of this ongoing debacle, you voted for them.

Posted by furious
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 6, 2013 at 4:21 pm

Hi Marc:

Please tell us more about how handling bullying is really hard because "it's tricky." Or perhaps you want to remind us about how you found the most significant part of the OCR report to be the completely irrelevant fact that there was a teacher's aid who trembled due to a disability and the disabled student thought the aid was shaking with anger at her. Once it was explained to her she was fine and felt better.

Marc: the most significant part of the OCR report is that a disabled girl was hazed, harassed, intimidated, bullied, belilttled, called "stupid" and "retarded," children teased her by making a game out of avoiding her, she was excluded, punched and kicked., The police were called. The board was notified. Dr. Skelly and Dr. Young were notified. The child was taken to the office in a wheelchair. Parents complained many times orally and in writing. Parents warned the district that they were going to go to OCR in writing. Do you know what Katherine Baker did about all that?

She didn't intervene to stop the abuse.

Do you know what Kevin Skelly did about that? On the basis of the known recordd? Nothing.

Do you know what Dana Tom, school board president did about that? He urged the family to trust the school.

[Portion removed.]

Posted by Town Square Moderator
online staff of Palo Alto Online
on Dec 6, 2013 at 5:51 pm

Town Square Moderator is a registered user.

The letter submitted to the Weekly by school trustee Barb Mitchell ended with the disclaimer, "I’m writing as an individual, and not on behalf of my school board colleagues." During the editing process, this sentence was changed to say "I'm writing as an individual, not a school board member."

This editing change inadvertently changed the intent of Ms. Mitchell's disclaimer, which was designed to simply make clear that she did not speak for the board. We regret the misunderstanding created by the editing and have replaced the edited language with the original language in the online version of the letter.

Posted by furious
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 6, 2013 at 5:56 pm

So now the Weekly edits the letters to the editor of public officials?

Why does the public know so much less than the board members, individual, collective or otherwise and why is the Weekly helping Board member Mitchell to use it as a PR vehicle rather than telling her to announce her views in open session of the school board where they belong?

I can appreciate that the Weekly wants to allow her to respond to the Weekly's coverage. However, in this instance a letter to the editor is not the right way to go about it. The right way would be to interview her on the record and subject her statements to fact checking. Instead, you handed her the megaphone [portion removed.]

Posted by furious
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 6, 2013 at 7:35 pm

Let's just be clear. Mitchell says that "Over the past year, OCR met with both CDE and CSBA to address federal compliance concerns with state procedures, and we believe they continue to work together to resolve different viewpoints. "

According to Mitchell, Palo Alto was complying with state law but since state and federal law differ, OCR is penalizing Palo Alto for following state law. She hopes that CDE and OCR will work together to ensure that no district is caught this way again.

Not a single statement above is factual. The truth is that Palo Alto followed neither state nor federal law. State and federal law are consistent -- both bar discriminatory bullying of disabled children -- and Palo Alto ignored both.

1. Palo Alto ignored California Law:
California law requires that districts, when they have actual or constructive notice of disability harassment will take effective action to stop the harassment, remedy its consequences, and ensure that the harassment does not continue under Cal. Ed Code 200 and 220. Palo Alto failed to do this.

Palo Alto's Uniform Complaint Procedure does not, as required by law, apply to discriminatory disability harassment. That hardly matters, because Palo Alto ignored its Uniform Complaint Procedure.

Cal Ed Code 234.1 requires that Palo Alto have a complaint procedure for receiving and handling complaints of bullying based on protected classifications. Palo Alto did not have that for a number of categories. Palo Alto instead offers a site-based, randomly enforced, ad-hoc process.

Palo Alto violated federal law.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that school districts that receive federal funds must, when they have actual or constructive notice of bullying based on disability, intervene to stop the harassment, remedy the consequences, and ensure that it is not repeated. Palo Alto failed to do this at Terman.

Federal law requires a prompt, accurate and fair process for investigating complaints of discrimination, including discriminatory harassment. Palo Alto did not have one at all regarding disability (and still doesnot). Even had its complaint policy applied to disability, Palo Alto ignored it, so that didn't matter anyway.

If I had a buzzer I would be pressing it after each law we violated so please visualize a buzzing sound after each of the above screw ups.

Now, why did OCR enhance Palo Alto's version of the UCP so much to make it stronger than the model used by CDE? That was for 2 reasons.

A. Palo Alto fought back and negotiated hard against OCR on certain things. PAUSD wanted to use site-based policies for nonprotected classes and it wanted to have a 10 day site-based informal resolution, neither of which were typical or provided for in the Resolution Agreement. In exchange, OCR negotiated for some things it wanted. That is what "settlement" means. Stop whining, PAUSD. You bargained for what you got and now you just seem like a big baby.

B. Palo Alto is in the dock because it screwed up royally at Terman. PAUSD is one of only 15 districts (out of 1500 with similar complaints) to earn itself a Letter of Finding for being discriminators in the NATION. So we have to have a more restrictive policy because it is a PUNISHMENT because WE SCREWED UP. That is why. If you want to stop crying and whining about why us, why, why, oh Lord why, I'll tell you exactly damn why. It's beacause Katherine Baker screwed the pooch over at Terman and then her staff lied to investigators and then she said that her staff was so "sophisticated" that they didn't need any training from the guv'mint.

So that is what happened, and that is why. Now all we need to know is why isn't this done. Why is it still a mess? Why is Dora Dome in over her head? Why doesn't she know basic facts about how the law works? Why are we paying her and Chad Graff and FFF and Lenore and Laurie? How many PAUSD lawyers does it take to screw in a lightbulb.

Oh my God someone just end this.

Posted by More than Furious
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 6, 2013 at 7:39 pm

Barb, you are one of those who fail the student. You knew it because she plead for help to all of you who weresitting down at the board meeting like kings on those chair and did not move a hand or say anything to make the lessen the paint that the little girl was feeling. The pain of being bullied everyday, for not just one kid, but many. So if I was you, I will hide my face and do what you did the times the girl came to plea for help, NOTHING. Now is to late to try to make us believe otherwise. The truth is out, and nothing you say will change it. I cannot believe that in your handbook was not even mention that it was against the law to harass others based on their disability. i am wonder how many young adults who passed this district are out there trying to heal, because I am sure that this little girl was not the first one. She was the only first one whose parents had the guts to make it public, when they saw no other ways to get her help and protection. I am wonder if there is a way that we can all make it up for all the pain she went through. I am not talking about $$$, because that is not going to reverse the mental damage that she suffer on the hands of the bullies. Sorry to tell you, but I do not believe that our kids are in good hands, at least not special education students. Probably the rich and the ones who are professionals and know their rights and how to make you respect them without having to make the abuse public. The poor and the ones without good education God helps them.

Posted by More than Furios
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 6, 2013 at 7:42 pm

[Post removed.]

Posted by furious
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 6, 2013 at 8:10 pm

Here is the language from PAUSD's current version of the UCP:

"The district shall use the uniform complaint procedures to resolve any complaint alleging unlawful discrimination in district programs and activities based on actual race, color, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, gender, gender identity or expression, or genetic information; the perception of one or more of such characteristics; or association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics."
See: Web Link

Scavenger Hunt 1: find the word "disability" in the above policy!

Here's the California Law on complaint procedures (Ed Code 220 and 234.1):

"Adopted a process for receiving and investigating complaints of discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying based on any of the actual or perceived characteristics set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code and Section 220 of this code, and disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived

Scavenger Hunt 2: see how many missing categories you can find that are in the law but not in PAUSD's policy!


Posted by Thank you
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 6, 2013 at 8:14 pm

Thank you, Barb. Unfortunately you see the response to anything you say. When the choices are between the hounds on these forums and the best interest of our children, I'm proud of your choice to work in the best interests of our children. Please continue.

Posted by No thank you
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 6, 2013 at 9:11 pm

[Post removed.]

Posted by Voter
a resident of Community Center
on Dec 7, 2013 at 8:21 am

Thank you for your letter. I voted for you twice because I was impressed by your intelligence and independence. You are disappointed me in your handling of the OCR matter. You and the rest of the board have mishandled this situation so severely that it has called into question your fitness. This matter calls for oversight and for reassuring the public through transparency. You have not governed conscientiously. If you run again I think you will be defeated .

Posted by More than Furios
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm

They did something, they gave a promotion to Katherine Baker (former Terman principal) to keep her away from our kids, and so no others will suffer as the disabled girl did.

Posted by No hounds!
a resident of Fletcher Middle School
on Dec 7, 2013 at 8:59 pm

Stop picking on Katherine Baker. Poor leadership starts at the top. Basically, the district is flush with our money. It's not going to kids, it's going to Kevin Skelly, Charles Young, Holly Wade, and all the principals and teachers. And the lawyers. I almost forgot them. Post your anonymous support of Skelly-Young and the board right here or be brave and post your name, too. Or post your displeasure. I've posted mine. Barb Mitchell: instead of rambling about how our kids are in good hands, do what you are supposed to do and vote No on December 10 to paying Skelly $300K per year. And please no more so-called letters to the editor, I am embarrassed for this district.

Posted by furious
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 7, 2013 at 9:44 pm

Now just a cotton-picking minute! Kevin Skelly, like Kenneth Lay, Dick Fuld and Angelo Mozillo, deserves his bonus. Just because he peddles a combination of faith-based success and hidden toxic failures that are blowing up around him -- is that a reason to deny the man his inflated lifestyle? His million dollar interest free taxpayer funded loan? His three deep bench of incompetent cronies? Have a heart, Mr. Hound.

Posted by C
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Dec 8, 2013 at 12:16 am

I don't think that not listing disability in the student handbook should be as big as a deal as it is being made out to be in these forums. Almost no students read the handbook, and even those who do probably skim what to not be discriminatory based on. Isn't disability implied, as are income, hair color, intelligence, and athleticism? It's not like students are going to selectively bully the disabled because it isn't explicitly prohibited in the handbook.

Posted by Commenting person
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2013 at 8:26 am

C is right that the handbook language likely has very little effect on student behavior, but this whole thing isn't really about student behavior - it's about the way student behavior, or complaints about it, is handled.

The handbook/policy language is not just for students. It is also intended to shape the way the administration responds to things. The school administration, if it followed the handbook language in handling complaints, would not have the express policy of the handbook to rely on in case of discrimination or harassment claims based on characteristic not listed (and likewise under the district policy would not use the UCP for types of complaints not listed). That's not to say they would ignore complaints entirely if they involve conduct that isn't enumerated, but part of the reason to have policies like this is to frame expectations and identify the types of issues that are automatically coded as high-concern, action-needed. So leaving something important out does matter from that standpoint.

Posted by furious
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 8, 2013 at 9:16 am

The categories listed in the policy as those that are covered by the policy. The policy in question is the Uniform Complaint Procedure and the implication of the missing categories is "a big deal" because (1) the law tells districts which categories are covered by the Uniform Complaint Procedure and (2) the policy is given to parents and students and they are told that this is the district's procedure for handling discrimination complaints including bullying and (3) our policy violates the law, and also gives parents incorrect information about what to do if their child is bullied on the basis of disability.

As a result of the lack of disability in the uniform complaint procedure, the district failed to respond correctly when a disabiled student was severely bullied at Terman. That fact has already cost our district tens, and perhaps hundreds, of thousands of dollars and the meter is still running.

[Portion removed.]

Posted by Correctimundo
a resident of Greene Middle School
on Dec 8, 2013 at 9:50 am

Most of the PAUSD kids are in good hand most of the time, but those times that they are not are the ones that do untold damage.

We cannot ignore the fact that there are bullies here and that the problem is not taken seriously enough. Nor are the teachers empowered enough to do much about it. Kevin Skelly is the one in charge here, yet he just smiles and changes the subject.

Bullying can, though rarely does, lead to school shootings. Those few times it has have been hugely catastrophic. Do we discount bullying because of the rare catastrophe? Ideally, no. Yet Mr Skelly continues to downplay the severity of it in PAUSD. He completely ignores the sexual and reverse-racial harassment and Jordan and Paly.

[Post removed.]

Posted by Integrity--try it
a resident of another community
on Dec 8, 2013 at 9:59 am

[Post removed]

Posted by furious
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 8, 2013 at 10:49 am

[Post removed.]

Posted by Correctimundo
a resident of Greene Middle School
on Dec 8, 2013 at 11:00 am

[Post removed.]

Posted by furious
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 8, 2013 at 11:47 am

For a sampling of Kevin Skelly's frequent memos to the School Board regarding his fondness for drinks at Antonio's [portion removed] please see the Superintendent's weekly memos. These memos are the place that he should be telling them about things like federal findings against the district or agreements he entered into with the federal civil rights investigators or state audits of our special ed program. Nope, none of that. [Portion removed.]

October 2012 memo to Board: Web Link

BOARD CALENDAR [fall 2012]

October 26 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. PAUSD Happy Hour at Antonio’s Nut House on
California Ave.

November 2012, memo to board:

"I enjoyed my time at Antonio’s Nut House last Friday. We had a decent crowd and all present
seemed to be enjoying each other’s company." Web Link

May 2013 memo to board:Web Link
"Below is an email I sent to staff, and another to parents, for your information.

Dear Colleagues:

Happy End of the School Year! I have been travelling around the district visiting schools and folks have
never looked happier! Summer is upon us.

Below is an email I sent to parents last night, for your information. I know from my own experience that it
is often terrifying to have to be responsible for your children all summer. Never underestimate schools’
value as a daycare provider!

It is late notice, but if you are free, I invite you to join me at around 3:00 p.m. at Antonio’s Nut House for
a farewell refreshment and a toast to another great year, and a chance for me to thank you in person for
all you do on behalf of the children and families of our community.

Antonio’s is at 321 S. California Avenue, near the Caltrains station.

In any case, here’s to a great summer.



Posted by furious
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 8, 2013 at 11:53 am

[Post removed.]

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.


Sign-up now for 5K Run/Walk, 10k Run, Half Marathon

The 39th annual Moonlight Run and Walk is Friday evening, September 29. Join us under the light of the full Harvest Moon on a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon. Complete your race in person or virtually. Proceeds from the race go to the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund, benefiting local nonprofits that serve families and children in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.