Palo Alto is known to be a very generous district in providing aid to kids in need and as a result that has encouraged families to move into the district to take advantage of the situation. It is human nature to want as much as possible for your kids but I would like to hear the School Board candidates describe what they would do about it.

As for the OCR related costs, I would like to read about how Palo Alto became a soft target for OCR investigations. The paper has done a good job talking about some of the OCR related issues, but why has OCR focused so much attention on this particular district. [Portion removed.]

[Post removed.]

If only the document were: "Recommendations: Suggestions to Improve Collaboration between PAUSD administrators and the Families and Children PAUSD is Supposed to Serve,"

One of the settlements resulted because PAUSD was not extending 504 procedures to families who needed them, and were even pretending like those procedures did not exist. Administrators were alerted all the way to the board, but it was not remedied until OCR made them. The law actually requires districts to identify children who need 504s and to proactively extend protections, but our district doesn't do that still.

These are warped priorities and money down the drain. OCR would never have gotten the 2nd settlement complaint if the district had made even the barest of effort to meet its duty under the law, in the many months they were alerted to the problem. Recall that the districts themselves write the procedures by which they follow the law, and our district had those, they simply were pretending in many cases that they did not exist.

This is egregious. [Portion removed.] If anyone wants to start a recall, we have 4 good candidates to fill the spaces. [Portion removed.]

A question has arisen as to whether any of the school board candidates have connections to OCR. With one exception, none of the candidates have any publicly-known connections to OCR. The one exception is Ken Dauber. Ken worked as a consultant for OCR from 2009 through at least 2012 and continues to list himself as a consultant to the US Department of Education. The Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights (the head of OCR) from 2009 to 2012 was Russlynn Ali. Ken served as a contractor for organizations where Ms. Ali worked from 2001 through 2008. Ken’s wife, Michele, attended law school with Ms. Ali and has referred to her as “my dear friend” (see Web Link The recent series of complaints filed with OCR started when Ms. Ali was serving as head of OCR and Ken was serving as a consultant to OCR. [Portion removed.]

PIE enables this by paying for basics that PAUSD doesn't have to. Of course PIE will deny this, but they are enabling the wastage at our district.

Please stop wasting our money. This is taxpayers money that is being spent. I am outraged that the district feels that it is acceptable for them to spend all this money. They are completely unaccountable to the moneys they have been entrusted to educate our kids.

This is our hard end money that we have to struggle to pay our ever rising property taxes that is paying for this. It is totally unacceptable the way they are wasting our money without any regard for taxpayers wishes.

@Just-the-facts brings some interesting information to the table, but stops short of asking the key question based on those facts. That question is: if a candidate has being a consultant for OCR on his resume, what are the implications of that candidate having any number of potential conflict-of-interest situations facing him, should he be elected?

[Portion removed.]

Bob,

PAUSD's Conflict of Interest Policy:

"The Governing Board desires to maintain the highest ethical standards...Board members and designated employees shall disclose any conflict of interest and, as necessary, shall abstain from participating in the decision."

[Portion removed.]

This OCR complaint is an expensive ego trip for Mitchell and Caswell. It's going to put PAUSD squarely in their crosshairs for years to come.

After the November election, let's hope the new board re-examines the basis for this expensive legal action.

In the FFF billings for June 2014, Lenore Silverman billed 4 hours on JUNE 3, 2014 for "attend closed session board meeting on Resolution."

The agenda item for that meeting noticed a closed meeting for " Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9: Two cases. Facts and circumstances of the potential cases are not subject to disclosure pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Government Code Section 54956.9."

The Board's resolution does not, on its face, have anything to do with litigation. It authorizes not litigation against OCR but efforts to lobby to change OCR's investigation practices and restrict its authority over civil rights in local schools. It does not involve litigation, and does not involve any cases in which the facts and circumstances are not subject to disclosure.

The board has been holding closed meetings to discuss a lobbying strategy, meetings with political leaders, and the creation of a national campaign about OCR. This is not within the reach of this exception.

I would like to hear our board explain how "meeting on Resolution" was "anticipated litigation."

I am really astonished. I have been hearing people suggest that this was going on and thought frankly that they were over-reacting but now I know what is really going on. It is worse than the Weekly suspected, and kudos to the Weekly for sticking with this story.

[Post removed.]

So, the district isn't fighting OCR, but is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars 'working' with OCR? The one thing that seems to be clear is that the school district may very well more dollars than sense.

Sup McGee, please release a clearly written document that spells out in painful detail, why the school bard is spending money that clearly could be better spent on something useful to the kids in PAUSD, like a new teacher, rather than on an expensive legal/political lobbying team that appears to be more of a response to bruised egos on the school board than anything else.

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

[Post removed.]

The District’s memo mentioned in the third paragraph of the Weekly article is fascinating. Anyone interested in the OCR issue should read it – and anyone posting a comment on the OCR issue should be required to read it. You can find the District’s memo here: www.paloaltoonline.com/media/reports/1411505017.pdf. The memo starts as follows:

“GOAL: To improve collaboration between OCR and school districts on our shared mission to safeguard the civil rights of all students and to include basic due process protections for school districts in OCR investigations that build confidence in OCR's neutral fact-finder role while encouraging effective use of educational resources.”

It then continues:

“Introduction: With this goal in mind, our Board Resolution described ways that OCR's current investigative practices have disrupted rather than facilitated this vital shared mission. The following examples and recommendations are drawn from our District's experience and are offered to improve the working relationship between OCR and school districts. Examples are limited in their specificity consistent with protecting confidential student information.”

The memo then goes on to describe 20 different problems with how OCR conducts investigations. In most cases, the memo provides a specific example of where the problem arose, and in all cases the memo recommends a solution to the problem.

I found the memo very well written and persuasive. It becomes clear as one reads the memo, that the OCR process is not like anything we’re used to in traditional legal proceedings. OCR can, apparently, choose not to seek information from witnesses who are aware of facts that rebut the allegations in a complaint. They can deny a school district the right to review and challenge inaccurate evidence – in fact, a school district is not even entitled to review a complainant’s allegations and evidence. And a school district is not entitled to appeal an OCR ruling. As if that is not enough, OCR did not respond to multiple written from PAUSD about specific concerns even after OCR had encouraged PAUSD to submit its concerns in writing. Wow!

The very last issue the memo raises is a particularly interesting one when it comes to the issue of how an OCR complaint is reported publicly. Once a complaint is opened, a complainant many share information with the local media, but the school district is not allowed to respond. The complaint may be completely unsubstantiated, but the school district has no way to make that information public. As a result, all the public knows is that another OCR investigation is underway, often with allegations that would concern any member of the public. A response from the school district might make it clear that the district has handled the problem appropriately (or that perhaps there wasn’t actually a problem in the first place) – but that is not allowed.

Given all this, and given the multiple OCR cases in Palo Alto in the last few years, it’s understandable why our school district is making such an enormous effort to improve how OCR does its work. My guess is it’s uphill climb for a local school district to get a federal agency to improve how it conducts its business, but perhaps if other school districts (and colleges and universities, some of which have also faced challenges in dealing with OCR) are brave enough to join Palo Alto’s effort, change might come eventually.

I will say that if any other government agency conducted business the way OCR did, people would be screaming for changes. Think of the recent VA scandal on patient waiting times, the recent issues at the IRS on how the agency reviewed applications for not-profit status, and so on and so forth.

[Portion removed.] Hey, Weekly, how much did the district pay the lawyers to deal with the 4 OCR cases that the agency closed for lack of evidence of discrimination? How much staff time did it take to deal with those cases? You asked for the lawyer bills for those, too, didn't you?

[Post removed.]

When you donate to PiE, you create a [portion removed] fund for programs and personnel that should be paid out of the general fund and various categorical funds, making it too easy for the board to burn through extra cash to pay for lawyer hours, which does not help our children in any way. These are the board members that you elected and you deserve them. Next time don't blame the victims for brining complaints to Kevin Skelly and Charles Young. [Portion removed.]

Ralph B. (very clever) points out that the school board met in in secret about the Office for Civil Rights resolution under the "anticipated litigation" exception to the public meetings law (the Brown Act). That is clearly illegal. I wondered if that was a one time only event. I looked at the January bill. Sure enough, there is also a bill there for meeting with the school board in closed session under the "anticipated litigation" exception to prepare for a meeting between Barb Mitchell, Dana Tom and OCR to discuss investigations. Investigations are not litigation.

Let's put it plainly: the school board has been illegally meeting in closed session to discuss dealing with the Office for Civil Rights. That is just as illegal as the serial meetings that the City Council held to discuss the Arrillaga proposal, but even more blatant. [Portion removed.]

Amazing.

As more information comes to light, it is clear that the course chosen is the correct one. McGee, having now given access to all the information, has now come to agree with it. What a juxtaposition to the candidates claiming that they will repeal it without access to that information. Fortunately there is one cool head among that bunch.

What were the odds that Barb Mitchell would agree to hire a superintendent who was not willing to enact the board's embattled view of itself, the federal government, and the press? Most alarming is that McGee is going to spend staff time over the next month calculating the supposed "costs" of responding to Public Records Act requests by the press. Those "costs are entirely the cost of doing business in dubious closed meetings, and of keeping information from the public that should have been public. Attacking the press for doing its job to cover local issues is just so wrongheaded. It is a continuation of a negative relationship with the press that should stop now.

To spend staff time calculating how much money was spent trying to conceal expensive activities such as the lobbying campaign against OCR is very discouraging. It is throwing yet more good money after bad. It is truly the wrong direction. And the timing of the release of the "tab" of October 28 is also nakedly political and intended to influence the election by placing the district "spin" on the "costs" associated with "compliance" immediately prior to the vote.

Attacking the press is just such a wrongheaded move that it is astonishing. Thank goodness for the Weekly staying with this story or the public would know nothing of these fees and costs being spent by our board on lobbying.

I want my dollars spent in the classroom not the courtroom. I will vote for a candidate who agrees.

Thank you PAUSD for not rolling over.

I think the motivation to file the cases against Paly are an issue. No specific accusation, and open fishing to find more of something to accuse the school for.

I'm not a law expert but from TV shows, I believe that's almost like entrapment?

"I want my dollars spent in the classroom not the courtroom."

Unfortunately with the recent encouragement to file OCR complaints against the district that have no merit, as has been seen in all but 2 of the OCR cases, this is going to be an on-going issue.

I prefer candidates that realize this and are willing to make the hard choices to do what is required. Burying your head in the sand is never a good option.

Brown Act poster says above: "Investigations are not litigation."

They very well could be.

This from prior thread: "Closed sessions are OK even if the district has not been sued if a point has been reached, based on existing facts and circumstances, where there is a significant exposure to litigation. CA Gov Code 54956.9(d)(2). The Brown Act says those facts can be as simple as 'a statement threatening litigation' on a specific matter. "

Web Link


Ralph B says: "In the FFF billings for June 2014, Lenore Silverman billed 4 hours on JUNE 3, 2014 for 'attend closed session board meeting on Resolution.'"

Not completely true either and other explanations are as or more plausible:

The resolution related to matters where litigation could have been mentioned or threatened, for example "evidence of complainant document tampering on May 23, 2013."

Per the board, the closed session related to "two cases." Ms. Silverman's other time records that day said she met with Holly Wade to "review cases" so consider that she may have mis-described that time entry in her time records.

That 4 hours included travel time both directions.

Web Link

Looking at records to make sure that the district has correctly and fully complied with the law is called oversight, not entrapment.

@dwtoc
That's true. What would be truly useful is to know why the OCR is investigating Paly when no complaint has been filed. That has never been fully explained.

[Portion removed.]

Charles Young is the compliance officer and was responsible for the mishandling of basic complaints that led to many OCR filings. [Portion removed.]

About the compliance review at Paly: the district said at the time that it was due to the "rape culture" article in the Verde student magazine. That article talked about harassment of girls at school as a result of sexual assault off campus. That is a violation of Title IX. Not only was the article in the Verde, the teacher and student journalists did a media tour, including a spot on NPR. It's not hard to figure out why OCR decided to look into that, particularly as PAUSD was one of the few districts to actually be found to have violated civil rights laws in the Terman bullying case.

Add to that the fact that Phil Winston, who was supposed to be ensuring compliance with Title IX at Paly, was actually engaged in behavior that got him removed for sexual harassment. As the father of a junior girl at Paly, I can tell you that I am very happy that the federal government is involved in making sure that Title IX is followed.

[Post removed.]

"the district said at the time that it was due to the "rape culture" article in the Verde student magazine."

That's the reason OCR gave? OCR reads a student newspaper and launches an investigation. That's the level of due-diligence they conduct before starting an investigation? No interviews; no complaints; reads a random article and kicks off an investigation.

And you wonder why the district is challenging OCR processes.

I have no trouble spending district funds to fight the federal government if it is the thinking of the school board that the federal government is in the wrong. Most of the top management of the federal government are political appointees--so it's very difficult to believe that the feds always are right, and everyone else is always wrong.

I also have no problem terminating any school district employees--up to the superintendent--who have not complied fully with all laws.

Sadly .. we still don't know much about the details here--due to all the confidentiality involved.

The Verde article said that girls had been sexually assaulted off campus, and then harassed at school to the point where it was interfering with their education. At the same time, Paly administrators and district administrators believed that they had no obligation under Title IX to protect girls from harassment. I remember Skelly saying that since the girls were assaulted off campus, it was not the school district's problem to protect them on campus. That reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.

Incidentally, the Gunn incident that was reported in the spring (where a girl was assaulted off campus, and then harassed on campus) demonstrates that the district still has not figured out how to comply with Title IX and protect girls in our high schools.

If the school board spent the $50,000 on educating staff on compliance with law, rather than complaining when the federal government has to step in to correct the mistakes of staff members, we would all be better off -- most importantly our female students like my daughter.

This is a terrible waste and a denial that PAUSD let its children down.

[Portion removed.]

@Kent
I understand that reading the memo could make someone agree with the resolution. But just because the district wrote about disruptive practices by the OCR, doesn’t necessarily mean they are true. We are only hearing the district’s version.

@rational thought
“Unfortunately with the recent encouragement to file OCR complaints against the district that have no merit, as has been seen in all but 2 of the OCR cases, this is going to be an on-going issue.” - I take offense that I was “encouraged” to file a complaint and that my complaint has no merit. The only thing that encouraged me was Skelly’s incompetence. And you do not have the facts to make judgement about my case’s merit.

I was at the meeting last night. It seemed clear that the board did not really understand the public comments. They kept saying how they are not allowed to talk about specific cases due to confidentiality. Well, we agree - no one asked that they do that. There were also lots of complaints by board members about compliance costs. But if the district had been in compliance from the start, all of this time and money would have been saved. It was disappointing to hear that McGee is siding with the board and the resolution. It was nice to see 2 of the candidates stand up and advocate for the right course of action.

I am very concerned about the idea that the board is going to present some sort of "accounting" with a cost estimate for each public records request. I have three concerns:

A. The public and the press have a right to make these requests. This is the law and it is the public's right to use the law. The school board is retaliating against the press and public and this will have a chilling effect on the exercise of basic free speech and First Amendment freedom of the press. The board is trying to shame the Weekly, the Daily Post, and the public. It must not do this.

The website that lists Public Records filings and the person who filed them is also chilling of free speech. The only purpose of exposing people and of now making up some supposed cost to it is to discourage people from trying to find out what is happening.

B. If the board had not held so many secret meetings (which we now know were not on topics allowed to be secret, thank you Ralph B) then no one would have filed in the first place. These requests were not frivolous at all. They were necessary. We should not call out or blame or shame or try to discourage people from exercising their freedoms and rights.

C. The timing of the release of the supposed cost, which is going to be a post-hoc made up number, is incredibly suspicious and I think it is designed to sway the election. October 28? One week before the election? One week prior, the board just happens to release a supposed cost of how much all these OCR complaints and the reporting on them cost the district? Pullleeezze. This is wrong. The district staff should stay far away from the appearance that they are being used by the board for partisan political purposes.

The district PR strategy clearly involves smearing families who file OCR complaints, the OCR, the press, and anyone who tries to find out what is happening.

Protect the First Amendment and defend the Weekly. Also defend those families who felt that they had to file complaints. They deserve support not shame.

[Post removed.]

In a certain corner of Palo Alto inhabited by libertarians and school board members (and there seems to be an overlap there) the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights is an alien force that does not have a role in our schools. For everyone else (including the people I talk to), OCR is part of how we ensure that our civil rights laws protect our children in our schools. If our school district falls short, as it did at Terman, probably at Paly and Gunn, in a case involving 504 procedures, there is recourse. Our kids' civil rights are not at the mercy of our local school officials.

You can tell the community sentiment about this from the fact that 4 of 5 school board candidates have said they would rescind the board's resolution, and the 5th (Catherine Foster) seems to be turning herself into a pretzel trying to qualify and caveat her support for the resolution.

Spending 100s of thousands of dollars to cook up a lobbying strategy and then to join up with other people who want to cut back on federal civil rights authority (the resolution calls them "education affiliates") may make sense to the school board. I don't think it makes sense to taxpayers of the district. But answering that kind of question is what elections are for.

[Portion removed.]

What disclosures has Mr. Dauber made of such prior work for the OCR? If OCR matters come up before the PAUSD board and Mr. Dauber is elected, will he be obligated to recuse himself? Do any current PAUSD board members or any other candidates for the board openings have similar OCR conflicts of interest?

[Post removed.]

The board's attitude, in a word, is stupid.

If Dauber is the only candidate who gas worked for the OCR before, he has the best chance of getting this huge facial wart removed.

He just got my vote.

@parent who posted this:
A. The public and the press have a right to make these requests. This is the law and it is the public's right to use the law. The school board is retaliating against the press and public and this will have a chilling effect on the exercise of basic free speech and First Amendment freedom of the press. The board is trying to shame the Weekly, the Daily Post, and the public. It must not do this.

I don't see this as retaliation. I see it as being transparent as the public and the Weekly have been asking them to do. Why are you afraid of this? Do you fear what will come out of it? Why would it have a chilling effect on free speech, etc? The people making these requests for information are well informed about their rights and would probably welcome being seen as transparent in their requests.

The following comment by Rational Thought shows the ongoing lack of understanding of OCR complaints and how they are handled:

"Unfortunately with the recent encouragement to file OCR complaints against the district that have no merit, as has been seen in all but 2 of the OCR cases, this is going to be an on-going issue."

When a complaint is filed that ***is strong enough*** the OCR intervenes, explaining to the District that it cannot do what it is doing. If the District is smart enough, it complies, changes its practice and stops depriving a student of his or her civil rights. Then the case is closed. This does not prove the case has no merit. On the contrary, these are the strong cases that have parents with the resources to fight them adequately.

There is no "encouragement" going on to file complaints. It is a difficult and arduous process that strains the family and the child. But when there is no other way, thank God there is the OCR. The respect for the civil rights of all is what makes this country great.

[Post removed.]

Well at least now you know what the October surprise is going to be.

"... the district was waiting for OCR to respond to two pending appeals of its Freedom of Information Act requests ..."

Does the FoIA mandate a certain response time to such appeals? Where is the appeals process set out within the FoIA?

down with the old canoe,

"Looking at records to make sure that the district has correctly and fully complied with the law is called oversight, not entrapment."

Last I heard, the Paly investigation was at the interviewing stage. Request to interview students without parental consent and without district staff present.

How weird is that?!

At the end of the day these investigations are not about record requests. Or are they? Maybe they are, since the penalty is to improve education of staff and employees, and probably record keeping.

Too much mixing up the actual cases of Winston and the rape culture article with a generalized problem at Paly. If there were MORE problems why are they not reported?

It should not be up to the OCR to fish around to catch some record keeping error.

Thank you PAUSD for not rolling over.

Paly dad and lawyer,

"Add to that the fact that Phil Winston, who was supposed to be ensuring compliance with Title IX at Paly, was actually engaged in behavior that got him removed for sexual harassment. As the father of a junior girl at Paly, I can tell you that I am very happy that the federal government is involved in making sure that Title IX is followed."

Is this what the OCR is trying to confirm?

Is this what the search for evidence is about?

[Post removed.]

@The Facts - Strong OCR Cases, the board materials make clear that of the 11 OCR complaints filed, OCR closed 4 because of lack of evidence of discrimination, and declined to open 2 at all. When more than half the cases have been tossed out, I don't think that suggests that the OCR cases are strong.
[Portion removed.]

Just to be clear, at the October 28 school board meeting, PAUSD “staff will provide legal costs and the costs associated with compliance with OCR, policy development, and implementation.” See Web Link PAUSD will not simply be reporting how much they have spent responding to public records requests from the press or from school board candidates or from other members of the general public. This all appears to be in line with the quote from Max McGee in the Weekly article above: “If somebody were to ask me how much have you spent fighting OCR, I would say zero. If they asked how much have you spent responding to OCR requests, (I would say), 'We'll figure that out.'" So the October 28 report will, presumably, be the result of the “we’ll figure it out” process.

Given all the allegations flying around on just how much PAUSD has or has not spent complying with OCR – or, as some allege, fighting OCR (notwithstanding McGee’s comment to the contrary) – I suspect most people will welcome PAUSD’s openness on this issue. As for whether PAUSD is timing the release of the information in a way to influence the school board election, if they are, they have their timing off. The vast majority of Palo Alto voters are absentee voters and it is likely most people will have already voted by October 28. So if PAUSD wanted to influence the election with this information, they would get it out right now.

Wondering why no one who spoke about the OCR resolution during Open Forum last night mentioned the New York Times interview and article last month [portion removed]:

New York Times' interview of Michele Dauber:

“'Title IX can’t have teeth when the O.C.R. is not making reports fast enough, is dramatically underfunded, and is not getting things done,' said Michele Dauber, a law professor at Stanford, where she helped develop the university’s Alternative Review Process, a disciplinary procedure established at Stanford in 2013 to address sexual assault, relationship violence and stalking.

"the office employs 'half the staff it did in 1980, when the O.C.R. received only a third of the amount of complaints as today.'...That means it can take months, if not longer, between a student filing of a Title IX complaint and the beginning of an investigation."

New York Times: Web Link

[Portion removed.]

Complying with the law is free. OCR even offered us free training. We turned it down and elected to hire our own trainer. The state publishes free versions of the UCP. We elected to try to maintain site-based control and write our own custom policy. Saying "yes we will follow the law" is free. Saying "no, we didn't do anything wrong and we will fight you over every detail of your request" is expensive.

Fighting over interviews of students or turning over documents is expensive and pointless. Lobbying is expensive and pointless.
[Portion removed.]

This was a quote from Michele Dauber in the NYT article: Ms. Dauber says transparency is the single most important change that Congress could bring about. “Absent transparency, we don’t know what problem we are trying to solve and we have no idea how to solve it,” she said. “We are just fumbling around in the dark. When you want to change, you take an honest inventory of your situation.”

I think what the district is doing is trying to be transparent and that includes the things that people are uncomfortable with, including the costs and how they were incurred. I want to hear about this from the district. It's only fair that they should have their say. We only have the OCR's "inventory" and we need to hear the other sides.

[Post removed.]

"Unrelated to the OCR cases, the district has spent upwards of $30,000 since March on its litigation with the family of a student with autism who, after moving to the district in 2013, sued Palo Alto for denying in-home education for the student."

It is bad enough that the district expended $30,000 fighting this poor family, who only wanted to ensure that their child was not killed by consuming an allergen and then, due to his autism, being unable to communicate. That number of $30,000 was also surely expended by the family of the student in trying to fend off the district's lawyers from FF and F. As the prevailing party, it is likely that the family will have its fees paid by the district now, bringing the total cost (not counting the emotional toll on the family) to upwards of $60K.

All that, to avoid providing services to a child who badly needed them, as determined by the U.S. District Court.

The most disturbing thing about this story isn't however these fees. It is the extent to which Max McGee seems out of touch with the reality of what is happening with Fagan Friedman, with OCR, and with this board. McGee is really at risk of being used and needs to get hold of this situation and bring it under his control quickly.

He should start by talking directly with the families who filed the OCR complaints, including those who spoke at the board meeting on Tuesday night. He should do that alone, and without any senior staff or board members present. And he should be sitting down.

@Paly dad and lawyer
“You can tell the community sentiment about this from the fact that 4 of 5 school board candidates have said they would rescind the board's resolution, and the 5th (Catherine Foster) seems to be turning herself into a pretzel trying to qualify and caveat her support for the resolution.”

Actually, according to the Weekly 9/12/2014, Catherine Crystal Foster’s position was clear: she has not had access to all the confidential information and can’t declare her position without that access to the facts. The other candidates presumably have not had access to the confidential information either. But Foster’s the only one who actually is demonstrating data-based decision making and demonstrates the courage to be an independent thinker.

In heated issues like PAUSD’s relationship with OCR, rational analysis and data-based decision making are critical to effective resolution, not emotions or pandering.

"can't declare her position without that access to the facts"

Declaring that one would err on the side of employees fighting accountability under a higher authority rather than with families when the full facts aren't known is not exactly data-based decisionmaking.

We try to teach our children to choose their battles and prioritize their resources, time, and energy. We should be leading by example. There is nothing at stake here worth the cost to families; the district administration hasn't shown nearly the same concern or effort to understand its own failings (many disturbingly similar to their stated concerns about OCR) when it comes to serving families and the children of the district.

Even when one is correct in one's assertions, does not make all battles in life worth fighting. This is a stunning demonstration of misplaced priorities.