I served as campaign manager for the Payne-Parrish and Swanson for Board of Education Campaign and the Amy Higer for School Board campaign.
On the afternoon of April 12, Lisa Davis, campaign co-chair for the Payne-Parrish and Swanson campaign, sent an email to 19 friends, urging them to vote in the upcoming April 17 BOE elections. Her email was drafted with my full knowledge, assistance and encouragement.
In particular, I suggested she mention the statement made by Dr. Rusty Reeves during the “Public Speaks” portion of the March 5 Board of Education meeting. No one else in the campaign, including the three candidates and Amy’s husband Michael Paris, had any prior knowledge of Lisa’s email, nor were they given the opportunity to review it. They have since indicated they would have refused approval had they been afforded the opportunity to do so.
I take sole responsibility for the email. I regret any adverse impact it may have had on their campaign, but I reject the notion that anything in the email is libelous and would point out it was sent to a list of Lisa's friends, not circulated publicly. If that is violation of ethical campaign practice, then I would urge both campaigns to produce ALL emails circulated on their behalf, by campaign leaders and others closely associated with each campaign. I am in receipt of many generated by both sides. It would, in my view, make a very interesting discussion. And one might further include in that discussion all of the posts on MOL, many of which, in contrast to Lisa’s email, have no basis in fact.
In her email (which is also available on Patch), Lisa voiced support for candidates Payne-Parrish, Swanson and Higer and noted that a key issue in this election was the Board's March 5 decision to proceed with the Superintendent's middle school and high school transformation proposals. She went on to note that Jennifer had voted in favor of those proposals and that Wayne had voted against. She described the leveling system as it has existed as unfair and went on to say that "Some of the most vocal supporters of the Eastman slate believe that Black kids can’t excel because of Black culture." She then provided the public link to a statement made by Reeves at the March 5 meeting. In my view it is a serious issue when someone implies – as Reeves did – that district efforts to address achievement issues are doomed to fail because the students in question are incapable of high achievement.
Nowhere in her email did she suggest that anyone go to the CCR Forum and confront Eastman/Pai/Bennett. Had that been her intention, or mine, we would have made a point to have her send the email to a broader audience and do so more than a few hours before the CCR forum began.
As events transpired, someone (multiple people according to the CCR) posed that question to the candidates on the index cards provided for members of the audience to ask questions. I did not ask the question myself at that time nor did I organize anyone else to do so. It is unfortunate that it was asked. Had I wanted to pose the question at that point, I would have done so and identified myself as the questioner. I am not embarassed by the question. I raised it with John Davenport several nights before. What seems doubly unfortunate to me is the fact that there is more uproar over the supposed impropriety of the question than there is over the Reeves statement itself.
For today, I have the following to say, which represents only my viewpoint and not that of the candidates or Lisa Davis:
I have repeatedly voiced serious concern about Dr. Reeves' March 5 public comments, which he supported in part by citing his professional credentials. I urge everyone to watch the video of his comments and draw their own conclusion. What does that have to do with the campaign of Eastman, Bennett and Pai? Are they guilty by association? Absolutely not. But there are troubling, unresolved issues nonetheless. Here’s what I think:
(1) The comments were made at a public meeting and by law are a part of the official public record. Discussion of them is entirely appropriate, in the context of the campaign and otherwise, because they bear directly on what approach we take as a community to address achievement issues in our schools.
(2) I am not disputing Reeves’ right to make his March 5 comments, nor his right to make the statement at a prior Public Speaks some months ago that he "didn't sign up to pay reparations to black people" when he moved here.
(3) In my view, the comments would be reprehensible and hurtful even if they were at some level correct; that they are profoundly wrong makes them doubly so.
(4) Dr. Reeves was — as Lisa's email's correctly states – a "prominent supporter" of the Eastman/Pai/Bennett campaign. What makes him a prominent supporter? His name is on their endorsement ad; he was active in public distribution of their literature; he was featured in a photograph taken at their launch party and posted on their website (but which was taken down after the uproar began); and, at the time he made this statement, had already scheduled his March 18 coffee, which Eastman, Pai and Bennett all subsequently attended. In this regard, it is interesting to note that Mary Mann, editor of Patch, felt compelled to independently verify that the coffee actually took place, since she was unable to do so by speaking over the last several days to one or more people in the Eastman/Pai/Bennett campaign.
(5) In an Op Ed posted on Patch last night, only after the polls closed, Wayne Eastman rightly rejected Reeves' assertions.
(6) As prospective elected leaders of the community, especially ones who enjoyed Dr. Reeves' substantial public support, one might have hoped that Eastman/Pai/Bennett would have seen fit in the time available beween March 5 and April 17 to reject Reeves’ support or at a minimum, dissociate themselves from these specific views. They were all in the room when he made his statement. They were all aware that he made it.
Sometime in the next week, as time permits, I intend to draft a longer statement about why Reeves’ assertions are so wrong on so many levels. I believe it is important that we talk about these issues in more than whispered tones. Does that mean I think most people who supported Eastman, Pai and Bennett (or even the candidates themselves) share those views or are "racist"? No. But I do think that many people might entertain the validity of at least some of what he said, and that's why it needs discussion — and in my view — rejection by an informed public, if we are to move forward with the range of measures necessary to overcome the problem of underachievement for which so many children, especially black children, are at risk. I believe that most people in the community – however they voted on April 17 – share the desire for the school district to succeed in those efforts.
— Steve Latz is a 23-year resident of the community, a former nine-year Board of Education member, and the proud father of two CHS graduates.
Kalani Thielen
1:43 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Mr. Latz,
You write:
"In my view it is a serious issue when someone implies – as Reeves did – that district efforts to address achievement issues are doomed to fail because the students in question are incapable of high achievement."
But what Dr. Reeves said (in the context of his having worked with prisoners and adolescents):
"We don’t want to acknowledge the reason for black kids’ underachievement, which is broadly culture and single-parent families."
Nowhere did Dr. Reeves say that these kids can't achieve academic success (nor did he blame "black culture" for anything). In fact, he explicitly stated that he wants to see these kids succeed. He stated that the board had made an unsound judgement, and that the course of action that they were taking would do little to solve the actual problems that are holding some kids back. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't like to see those problems solved (for God's sake, the man has devoted his life to trying to solve those problems).
I am not a lawyer or judge, and can't say with certainty that what was done to this man legally justifies the award of civil damages. However, as a citizen of Maplewood, I can say with certainty that what was done to this man is unacceptable in civil discourse, and I will do whatever I can to see that it doesn't happen again.
Jennifer Payne Parrish
9:06 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
Kalani, the actual problems that are holding some kids back are not due to culture and single-parent households instead the issue is one of systemic barriers (of which leveling was one). Once those barriers are eliminated, we can talk about "culture and single parent housholds".
Kalani Thielen
11:02 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
Ms. Payne Parrish,
With respect (and I do respect you greatly, I was impressed by your insights during this campaign), you may be absolutely correct but that point is irrelevant to my post, which you've responded to here.
The fact is that Mr. Latz, in his capacity as director for your political campaign (and I acknowledge that this had nothing to do with you), made the statement that Dr. Reeves believes that "the students in question are incapable of high achievement" when Dr. Reeves said nothing of the kind.
To my mind, this kind of misrepresentation and attack on a private citizen (who was not a part of any political campaign) should have no place in our politics. The asymmetric power of a political message machine should be applied to discuss the substantive issues of education (as you did at every public debate I watched) rather than to denigrate private citizens to further an objective at the 11th hour of a political campaign.
As Ms. Higer has said, in our conversations about public policy in our local schools, we need to move beyond Dr. Reeves and what has been said about him. However, this matter is not yet resolved in our politics, and I fear that it will become an issue again in the future if not adequately addressed.
Regards.
dr jay
5:40 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Thanks for clarifying the issues, Steve. It's encouraging to see that there are still some people in our towns who believe it's important to talk about what many try to suppress or deny.
Kalani Thielen
3:20 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Mr. Latz,
A good point was made earlier, but it has since been removed from this post and so I will follow up on it.
Your email (and I think that it's fair to call it your email now that you've taken full responsibility for it) stated precisely, "I believe that the other slate believes that any gains for Black students will come at the expense of high achieving White students."
Do you regret that statement now, or do you stand by it? If you accept that nobody made this statement (neither Dr. Reeves nor anybody in the Pai/Eastman/Bennett campaign), do you believe that it is acceptable to make statements like this in furtherance of political objectives? Will you make such statements again in the future?
Lee Navlen
3:28 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Mr. Latz,
Your campaign led by you, pulled out the race card and it blew up in your face. Rather than apologize, you now seem more interested in damaging the reputations of Dr. Reeves and the candidates (all 6) .
Sir, all you're actually doing is damaging yourself.
Lee Navlen
Amy Cox-Martins
10:13 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Lee, The thing is, the achievement gap in this district is about race by a much larger percentage than by gender. Yes, Steve Latz took responsibility for the email, however I found his explanatory response thorough and to the point. Actually his succinct response made me realize why he was on the school board for nine years. Race is the elephant in this campaign room.
STEPHANIE VOLIN
4:05 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Ms. Theilen, you want to frame Mr. Reeve's comments in the context of his work with poor, troubled and jailed blacks. Please explain to me what relevancy that has to a BOE meeting and discussion of our achievement gap.
The answer is it doesn't. If Mr. Reeve's was trying to communicate any of his ideas on closing the gap, they were completely lost on me. Equating our school's black population with his clients while grousing vaguely about "lifestyle choices," makes almost no sense, contextually, and is highly offensive to boot.
I voted for the PEB ticket, but two things continue to disturb me: the PEB team not immediately disassociating themselves from Mr. Reeve's comments; and Ms. Davis' use of them in a get-out-the-vote email, as if they were in flaming red-type on the home page of the PEB website. Seems like an all-around failure to address the elephant on both sides.
In the meantime, those of you crying for a slander lawsuit need to take a deep breath and re-listen to the tape. People should be encouraged to speak their minds in public forums, but should also be prepared for the response.
dr jay
4:35 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
>I voted for the PEB ticket, but two things continue to disturb me: the PEB
>team not immediately disassociating themselves from Mr. Reeve's
>comments; and Ms. Davis' use of them in a get-out-the-vote email,
Ms. Volin, the two things are far from equivalent. PEB were candidates for public office, and the comments were made in public by one of their supporters. Ms. Davis sent private e-mail to 19 personal friends, hardly a "get-out-the-vote" effort from the campaign.
I was unfortunately unable to attend the meetings in question: either the one where Dr. Reeves made his remarks or the one where as-yet-unidentified persons asked questions referring to those remarks. But it's clear that, contrary to Mr. Navlen's comment, it was not Ms. Davis or Mr. Latz who "pulled out the race card." It was Dr. Reeves, and I fear that it did precisely the opposite of "[blowing] up in [his] face."
Finally, Ms. Volin, just which "elephant" do you see as not being addressed? If it's Dr. Reeves's comments, or the race issue, that's precisely what Mr. Latz and Ms. Davis have been addressing, and to date I've not seen them get anything but grief and threats for their efforts. If it's the leveling issue, then I certainly don't think it's addressed helpfully by either Mr. Eastman's pre-election statement that he "respects the decision even though I voted against it," or his post-election platitude that "We are all levelers. We are all delevelers."
Jay Banks
Kalani Thielen
4:37 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Ms. Volin,
Of course Dr. Reeves's comments were relevant. Ostensibly, when the board endeavors to address the achievement gap, it's very important to answer the question of whether or not they've made a sound determination as to its causes. Dr. Reeves was in a position to cite experiential evidence contradicting the judgement of the board.
What I heard in Dr. Reeves's testimony was concern for all high-achieving students (including black students, as he said), and a frustration that the board was unnecessarily racializing the issue of leveling to score political points rather than actually trying to address the causes of the achievement gaps in our schools. Mr. Latz's email and his continued non-apology have demonstrated, to my mind, that Dr. Reeves was correct about the untoward political machinations at work here.
PS: I am a male.
STEPHANIE VOLIN
4:57 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Mr. Banks, the elephant of which I speak is Mr. Reeves comments; I do not believe either side addressed them properly, they were mostly danced around. Ms. Davis basically attributed them to PEB almost as though they uttered them themselves. PEB didn't make any statement about the comments until after the election.
Personally, I feel like discussion and parsing of Mr. Reeve's comments should have no place in the discussion of the candidates. they were the personal opinions of a private citizen. They only reflect on himself.
I hope that clarifies my points, Mr. Banks.
Mr. Thielen, I apologize for the assumption that you were a she.
dr jay
10:26 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Thanks for your clarification. I disagree with some of your points, but I think I do understand them now.
E Rohan
9:06 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Mr. Latz: "I believe it is important that we talk about these issues in more than whispered tones."
You mean like you circulated an e-mail under someone else's name?
Mr. Latz: "What does that have to do with the campaign of Eastman, Bennett & Pai. Are they guilty by association? Absolutely not."
Agreed. But you then go on to say that Mr. Eastman only addressed the remarks after the polls had closed. You mean like you only came on Patch to explain about your e-mail after the polls had closed?
Your e-mail stated, "I believe that the other slate believes that any gains for Black students will come at the expense of high achieving white students." There is no evidence to support that statement. None. It seems like you're trying to preach from the pulpit about how wrong it is to make racial generalizations. Mr. Latz, making unfounded accusations to help win an election seems pretty ugly too.
If you are offended by Mr. Reeves' remarks, why not talk to him about them instead of trying to publicly drag him through the mud? Personally, I think you should move on instead of trying to teach us a lesson.
Amy Higer
10:21 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
Elizabeth Rohan: I believe Rusty placed himself in the mud. He made a public statement, and offended many in the room that night, including me. But I defer to my friend Julie Burch's blog on Patch. We really do need to stop talking about Rusty Reeves and start directing our community discussion to where it belongs: on race, racial justice, and the quality of education for ALL students in our schools.
Kalani Thielen
12:12 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
Ms. Higer,
With respect, do you have any questions in mind along those lines that you'd like to see the community consider? I'm curious to know where you see racial injustice remaining (and I ask this in all seriousness, as I concede that you are better placed to answer that question than I am). Perhaps you might consider writing an article for the Patch along those lines yourself.
My experience in talking to people about these issues in the schools is that folks are largely happy with "level determination" when it comes to math (now, whether those "levels" translate to different classrooms or just more advanced coursework is another matter). The reasons I've heard for this comfort with "levels" in math mostly come down to the perception that the subject is unambiguously objective. Maybe, in the interest of racial justice, we should be looking at ways that we can evaluate other subjects in a way that's similarly objective?
Regards.
PS: As I said to your husband in another thread, although I didn't vote for you I respect the way that you conducted yourself in this campaign and I was impressed by many of your insights at the public debates I attended.
Lee Navlen
7:46 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
ACM,
Race is an issue everywhere in life but Mr.Latz attempted to use it in order to get his candidates elected. His interest wasn't racial justice, his interest was politics.
Amy Hilger,
If you believe that speaking out on racial injustice is your best bet moving forward by all means continue that conversation. However, it is your campaign manager, Mr. Latz who is continuing the Rusty Reeves conversation. Perhaps, publicly, you should admonish him for doing so.
Lee Navlen
Amy Higer
9:43 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
Lee Nalven,
It seems Mr. Latz is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Mr. Latz has made his statement. While I understood his and Ms. Davis' anger, and I was angered myself by Mr. Reeves statement and disturbed by his subsequent affiliation with the PEB campaign, I would not have endorsed this as a campaign tactic. And for the record, here's what I think of Steve Latz: Very few people in our community have worked longer or harder to address the problem of racial injustice in our schools than Mr. Latz. Even his political opponents concede this (see Mr. Davenport's post-election comments on Patch). Again, it's now time to turn our attention to what really matters here: the quality of education for every child in our district.
Lee Navlen
11:17 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
Amy,
If that's how you feel, that's good enough for me. I have had my past issues with Steve Latz (and his Robin Hood persona) but you have earned the right to become a leading voice in an argument that may or may not ultimately get you a seat on the Board of Ed. Still, when you speak, I promise you that I will listen with an open mind.
Thanks again for running. I do hope you are proud of your accomplishments because you should be. That said, I'm sure the best is yet to come!
Lee Navlen
Janet Kazenel
10:28 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
Mr. Latz,
I completely agree with you that as a community, we stand to greatly benefit to have public forums to discuss openly and directly the problems of underachievement for so many children and the inpact of our current levelling structure on underachievement.
Ms. Thielen,
Regarding your statement that "folks are largly happy with level determination when it comes to math", I have a very different perception. As a parent of a middle schooler, I have spoken to many parents as well as to middle school students and high school students themselves , who are very unhappy about the current levelling structure in math. Students complain that the levelling makes them feel that they are "not good enough", and parents complain about the confusion of the math curriculum itself and the unfairness that levels 2, 3, and 4, are presently excluded from being able to take an algebra course in 8th grade. I would like to see public forums as well to talk about our present system ot teaching math in our district and how we can improve quality and accessibility of curriculum for all children.
Janet Kazenel
Kalani Thielen
11:23 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
Ms. Kazenel,
Fair enough. You bring up good points, and I apologize if I came across as speaking for the community on the subject of leveling in math. I completely agree with you that it's reasonable to expect kids to get exposure to algebra by 8th grade (I myself was fortunate enough to take algebra in 7th grade). Moreover, I agree absolutely with your final statement, that we need to ensure the highest quality and accessibility possible for our math students (and of course, for all of our students).
I have always considered math/science to be natural delevelers as subjects. Aside from some notational baggage, Calculus takes no sides in culture wars and doesn't care a lick what you look like. You've given me a few new angles to consider in this position, and I will take some time considering them before I come back to discuss this issue.
Regards.
Elizabeth King
11:20 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
Mr. Thielen,
I'm not sure why you are so intent on continually demanding apologies to Mr. Reeves. He is not an aggrieved party. His work with prisoners does not qualify him as any type of educational expert in our district unless you are of the belief that our students are criminals. He has made inflammatory comments more than once. You can continue to be his lone champion but not a single politician from any slate has stepped forward to join you.
Ms. Payne-Parrish refers to barriers and these exist and are acknowledged. Before you continue down your path of single parents/culture perhaps you should better acquaint yourself with the realities that have existed in our schools.
You also seem to be misinformed on the general happiness with the way the math leveling works. I agree with Ms. Kazenel's comments - the math department is currently a fiefdom with a single gatekeeper. This is not the way to run a program.
Kalani Thielen
11:35 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
Ms. King,
My complaint is with the way that Mr. Reeves comments have been distorted to win political advantage. I object to this manner of conducting political campaigns. I don't blame any political actor for shying away from this fight, it is a minefield and I'm probably excluding myself from a life in politics by stepping into it. :)
On the subject of Mr. Reeves's qualifications, you're absolutely right to say that it doesn't make him an educational expert. However, he did say that his experience was in working with prisoners and troubled adolescents (I assume that he linked the two because he sees that some troubled adolescents grow up to become troubled adults when their problems are left untreated). This experience may give him a skewed view of a subset of kids who are having trouble (for example, the child who quietly struggles with reading assignments, concluding that he "can't read well" but who otherwise never runs afoul of the law, probably doesn't make it into Mr. Reeves's field of vision).
Has Mr. Reeves identified a large untreated problem that has handicapped the education of some kids in M/SO? Maybe, maybe not ... as you say, I'm not really in a position to say one way or the other (I've had a limited experience with our schools). However, I do know that he didn't say anything like that these kids "can't succeed" or any of the other distortions that have been applied to what he said. I am trying to stick up for rational debate here.
STEPHANIE VOLIN
11:57 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
Mr. Thielen, I'm sure most will agree there's a huge difference between a child struggling with math and a "troubled youth."
If Mr. Reeves has had any studies published on whatever links exist between his work and our students, I'd love to read them. If not, they are his theories, his opinions, his conjecture. And since he put these thoughts "out there" at a BOE meeting, they are open to public discussion.
Kalani Thielen
12:12 pm on Friday, April 20, 2012
Ms. Volin,
I myself agree that there's a huge difference between a kid struggling with math and a troubled youth (that's why I brought up Mr. Reeves's possibly skewed perspective in my previous comment). I agree with your that Mr. Reeves's identification of the main problems facing some of our kids may be incorrect. I also agree that when you put out public comments at BOE meetings or public debates (as I myself have done, though thankfully not on this subject -- I'm actually completely agnostic on the question of deleveling), then you should expect that people will talk about them (presumably that's the reason that you make the public comments in the first place).
However, what is not acceptable to my mind is the distortion of comments made on issues that are obviously sensitive -- especially a distortion that inflames people in furtherance of political objectives. Now that this issue has become so toxic and so racialized, because of that misrepresentation and the subsequent messages put out by Mr. Latz, we have a diminished opportunity to help the people we purport to want so desperately to help.
Regards.
John Davenport
2:09 pm on Saturday, April 21, 2012
Steve, that was not an apology. And you quoted another remark of Reeves's out of context. The joke about "reparations" was in response to the superintendent's claim that we owe and educational "debt," as if a past fraud or misappropriation was awaiting compensation. I went back & checked.
I hope you will desist from attacking Reeves. However, a depersonalized analysis from you explaining how youn understand the causes of the achievement gap would be helpful to all. I would welcome it and probably learn from it; I remain earnestly interested in this topic. While I'm not expert, my own sense is that there are multiple causes. One could certainly be overly low expectations in some cases: it has always stuck in my mind that a teacher told Malcome X as a high schooler that he could not get a professional job. That sort of thing is very damaging; I've personal experience in this area. However, I think this is not common at all in our district; our teachers work overtime to encourage struggling students.
In any case, when you write your analysis, I encourage you to address the statistically grounded formula the NYC uses to project likely student achievement without any extra effort or intervention or initiative on the part of the schools. And I would ask that you also include some explanation of the well documented white - Asian achievement gap, and the gender gaps. It might also be good to address why several almost entirely African American districts near us retain levels.