More people turned up this week to haggle over the proposed facelift of the Santa Barbara School District’s Gifted and Talented Education program (GATE) than they did for last week’s brutal $6-million budget-cut bloodbath. With the district eyeing a barrier-busting maneuver that would do away with the GATE label and fold all current GATE and Honors level students into one big, high-achieving category in the name of equity and access, parents and students alike have been eager to have their voices heard since the board first broached the subject one month ago. And, on Tuesday night, for nearly four often-emotional hours, that is exactly what happened.
The road to this week began months ago when the board adopted a list of “focus goals,” among them a desire to increase the number of Latino — and other such underrepresented students — in advanced courses. To that end, after crunching test scores and enrollment data, district staff led by Associate Superintendent Robin Sawaske, presented the board early last month with a plan to do away with the GATE label and create an Honors section that encompasses both the existing GATE and more easily accessible Honors classes in grades 7-12 while also, and more importantly, revamping the enrollment guidelines and requirements for the programs. Explaining how the current and overwhelmingly white-student-populated GATE program works — which typically identifies its students via a standardized test as early as the 6th grade and then allows high-achieving “non-GATE” identified kids to sign up for the coveted high-end English and history classes only if space exists — Sawaske said, “[The proposal] is addressing a barrier that exists for many students … Our current system has created a really unfair system for a lot of children.” The hope, according to Sawaske, is that by changing the name and the manner in which kids qualify, more students who do well in school will be able to find their way into the challenging classes that they and their college applications not only crave but deserve.
Many current GATE parents aren’t quite as sold on the idea. While Tuesday night’s crowd was basically split down the middle between folks in favor or leery of the plan, three GATE debate-specific meetings held by administration staff in between the February meeting and this week’s board hearing have been chock-full of worried adults. Though their concerns run the gamut from a lack of transparency in the decision-making process to the outright destruction of advanced learning, the primary worry of the critics is that the current level of academic rigor found in GATE classes will be lost if the standards for acceptance change and/or more students are allowed in. “Teachers will be forced to teach to the lowest level in the class,” said parent Gina Perry during public comment. “There is no reason that our GATE kids should be brought down,” added another GATE mom.
Visibly bristling at such statements, and in one of the evening’s more charged moments, boardmember Annette Cordero spoke directly to such concerns and the racial undertones — intentional or not — that accompanied them. “As a person of color and the only Latina up here, I’m really offended by the question of a decline in the rigor of courses if the proposal goes through … This idea of dumbing down — I find it insulting on behalf of the Latino community,” said Cordero. Steering clear of the race situation but still very much addressing the potential decrease in academic excellence should the GATE label be abandoned, several school principals from the secondary district testified on Tuesday that not only are most current Honors courses already on the same level as GATE classes but, more importantly, the real deal-breaker in the rigor debate are the teachers themselves and the curriculum they are using — two things that Sawaske promised Tuesday night would not be compromised by the change.
For their part, the board, to varying degrees, all spoke in favor of approving some incarnation of the proposal. Of particular concern to them was how exactly students would be indentified for the new GATE/Honors hybrid, how teachers would be prepared for the switch, what would happen to underperforming students in the classes, and how exactly the whole process would be monitored. The board is slated to vote on a final version of the plan at their March 23 meeting.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
The School Board has to make brutal cuts across all programs. GATE is the least important of all these possible cuts. If parents want academic rigor and are not satisfied with Honors sections, they should put their children in AP or IB or dual-enrollment classes where high level performance is required. Get over it and move on.
henryjk (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2010 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Unfortunately, henryjk, In elementary school or Junior high, there is no such thing as AP or IB. This year, (I am a freshman) I tried to get into an IB class for biology instead of having to be in the non-GATE class (they didn't have an advanced one), but they insisted that I was too young. I tried to seek challenges every day, and in my biology class, I never encountered one. I support GATE, and do not want it's removal. It will not affect me next year, but the removal will affect younger students. Has anyone tried asking what the students thought before asking their parents? We like our education too, you know. Every one of my friends that I have spoken to about this issue all agree that the removal of GATE is completely biased and GATE is looked at in the wrong way. We would all like more diversity in our GATE classes. This is a latina speaking, by the way. GATE has nothing to do with racial differences. It's about if you like school, try your best every day, and want to succeed in life.
science_lover (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2010 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
“As a person of color and the only Latina up here, I’m really offended by the question of a decline in the rigor of courses if the proposal goes through … This idea of dumbing down — I find it insulting on behalf of the Latino community,” said Cordero.
Why do people have to inject their own race to make a point? To say "as a..." (fill in the blank) implies that those of other races automatically are not offended. If something is offensive and racist, then it offends sensible people of all races. Her pointing to her own ethnicity in this matter only continues the divide.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2010 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Paul Wellman, that is a great photo!
Pimms (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2010 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder if the achievement gap today is markedly different than when I went through the public school system long ago? Or are some parents pushing their kids a lot harder than in the past along with higher expectation levels? Products like Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby seem to support that notion.
When I was @SBHS, I don't recall any stratification of kids like there is today (GATE, honors, college prep, etc). All we had back then were a list of classes you needed to take if you wanted to get into college and a list of classes that could earn you advanced placement in college. Thats it. No GATE. No honors. Otherwise you could pick whatever classes you wanted, be they easy or hard. Why is it so different today?
I firmly believe K-12 public education has been one of the things that has made America as great a nation as it has been. Its a place where we not only feed fertile minds and prepare kids for higher learning, but its also a place where kids from all kinds of backgrounds can interact and learn to get along with each other. I just hope we're not unintentionally creating classes of haves and have nots. And losing the opportunity to get along with others.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
March 5, 2010 at 12:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gate was not about race or color or... until recently and to include or exclude based on race or color or... is racist. GATE only tested the mental ability of the kid taking the test and nothing else. If the issue, however, is about the name then change it by all means but do not lower the standards. The current GATE is as racist as the special ed programs that are for the special need studetns. Does special ed also need more under-represented kids in it?
Also, by lowering the standards (375/400 score and 3.0/3.5 GPA) the teachers will either have to lower the level to help this new group of kids which will hurt the upper group or maintain the level which will hurt this new group more than had they not been included in the first place.
If there is concern that some kids are smart but are getting excluded then the solution is: 1- Improve the quality of education (as proposed here by training our teachers) and 2- improve the quality of the early elementary programs so more kids can enjoy better and higher levels of education. Do not lower the quality of education for the hard-working and high-achieving kids and their families. That is wrong for our kids, it is wrong for our community, and definitely wrong for our country, in this changing world where balance of power is shifting.
info (anonymous profile)
March 5, 2010 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)