As the South Orange-Maplewood School District enters the fifth year of its Intentional Integration Initiative — an effort to racially and economically balance the district’s elementary and middle schools after decades of imbalance — the six candidates for Board of Education revealed different approaches to improving and sustaining the “Triple I” initiative at a forum hosted by the South Orange/Maplewood Community Coalition on Race on October 6.
Candidates Daniel Caplan, Ashley Donahue and Ashwat Rishi, who are running together on the Progress Partnership Promise slate, expressed an openness to investigating an expansion of the SES [socioeconomic status] variance used for student placements from the current 5% variance to a 7.5% or 10% variance — “but only if the change did not impact the intent of the Triple I” and was supported by data, said Donahue.
Caplan said he wanted to look at data to “compare pre and post Triple I to see what we’re looking at as far as academic difference.” Caplan also said, “we need to be smarter about when we place students avoiding isolated placements where it results in a loss of community. What we could do better is to microcluster neighborhoods and get four or five students from a street together from the same socioeconomic tier, which has knock-on effects that will help the budget.”
Rishi said that he wanted to see greater data transparency and communication from the district particularly as it related to the Triple I and transportation: “Unfortunately, in the many communications we’ve had with families in the district, the common theme has been a negative perception of the Triple I largely based on the transportation issues that the many of the families with young kids face. As a slate, the three of us want to focus on making the Triple I stronger by increasing community buy-in.”
Data and transparency were also stressed by Donahue: “Dan had mentioned that we don’t necessarily have the data necessary right now to determine whether or not this is working. And unfortunately you strengthen Triple I through buy-in and you strengthen buy-in through trust and transparency.”
Meanwhile Paul Stephan, Malini Nayar and Meredith Higgins, who are running together on the Listen Learn Lead slate, expressed an interest in letting the 5% variance remain as is and give the Triple I more time to play out.
“It will take time to see the impact of Triple I because Triple I is a generational framework,” said Nayar. “It is not a framework for a two or three year plan that rolls out integration and we can then roll it back.”
“Changing the variance will only dismantle the progress that we have made so far,” said Nayar.
The Listen Learn Lead slate also emphasized the importance of the Triple I beyond academics. “When it comes to the Triple I academic achievement is absolutely important,” said Higgins, adding, “but we cannot forget about the non-academic.”
“Our kids are graduating to be a part of this world,” said Higgins. “So it’s really important that they meet as many people as possible within our two towns so that when they go out into the world, they are more compassionate, they are more empathetic, they’re more caring of each other at the same time.”
Paul Stephan echoed those comments, saying that achievement and outcome gaps are “persistent and very difficult problems to solve that require a lot of different pieces coming together. So I would just want to be clear about something that goes to the root of this question. If we don’t see opportunity gaps disappear in a couple years, I don’t think we should cut and run and get rid of the Integration Initiative.”
Caplan responded later in the forum, saying, “I do have to take slight issue that increasing the variance is not an effort at undoing the Triple I initiative. As Paul said, we are looking to strengthen the initiative.”
Below are transcriptions of the two questions from the CCR forum specifically related to the Triple I. Candidates also answered questions about the implementation of 23 Fergus/Rutgers Report recommendations, addressing in-classroom delivery of services and outcome gaps, and other topics. See a transcription of those questions with time marks and a video of the forum here.
Question 1: There are differing opinions on the success of the Intentional Integration Initiative so far. How do you think its success should be measured?
Daniel Caplan: So the in integration initiative cannot just be measured by how we place students at schools. Yes, right now it has done an excellent job placing students within the 5% variance of the SES tiers, or five of the six elementary schools are within that target. However, we also need to understand if there is an academic benefit from the integration efforts as well. We don’t know yet whether academic achievement has improved because we only just received the NJSLA results from last year’s third grade class who were the first cohort in the Triple I. So soon we should be able to compare pre and post Triple I to see what we’re looking at as far as academic difference. But we also need to ensure that teachers have the opportunity to receive proper professional development for teaching a more diverse student population that is represented in their classes.
As part of ways that we can improve the Triple I, we need to be smarter about when we place students avoiding isolated placements where it results in a loss of community. What we could do better is to microcluster neighborhoods and get four or five students from a street together from the same socioeconomic tier, which has knock-on effects that will help the budget. This year I know that 70% of our kindergarten students were placed with their first or second closest school, which is a big improvement from what we’ve had in the past four years. We also need to be aware once students have been put into the different schools of avoiding isolated placements within the classrooms because students need to be able to look around and see themselves reflected by other students that they’re with on a day-to-day basis.
Ashley Ludovicy-Donahue: So most families that we talked to talked about their frustration about triple I, the busing, the placements. And so I believe the district needs to be more transparent. So transparent on how the decisions are made, relevant policies that affect everyone and data. So we’re talking about data to back up the decisions. Now Dan had mentioned that we don’t necessarily have the data necessary right now to determine whether or not this is working. And unfortunately you strengthen Triple I through buy-in and you strengthen buy-in through trust and transparency. So the Board’s already made improvements, specifically the 5124 transfer policy and we would like the Board to further investigate the Alves model of variance because the variance of 7.5 to 10% as opposed to 5%, the Rutgers committee actually stated that it would not change the intent of the Triple I. And so again, we need to look at data to determine whether or not this would work.
Meredith Higgins: When it comes to the Triple I academic achievement is absolutely important. It’s what we should focus on in the classroom, but we cannot forget about the non-academic.
Our kids are graduating to be a part of this world. So it’s really important that they meet as many people as possible within our two towns so that when they go out into the world, they are more compassionate, they are more empathetic, they’re more caring of each other at the same time. If they don’t feel safe to communicate when they need help or when something’s going wrong, how are we able to allow them to be able to do that as adults? When it talks about like academic success and data points, there are systems in place, but we’ve got to be patient. We have to wait for this year five data. If we keep messing with things, we’re not gonna get accurate information. I mean, any sort of evidence-based research, you have to give it time. And it’s really hard because it’s unfair for the parents that are struggling with busing right now. That is unacceptable and that needs to be changed now. And then a plan needs to be put in place well before next year starts.
Malini Nayar: The Triple I initiative, the placement works based on an algorithm that places students based on socioeconomic status. The way we measure that is to see how kids are placed and if we’ve met those placement standards. Beyond that, we do have to measure academic outcomes and we have systems in place to do so. It will take time to see the impact of Triple I because Triple I is a generational framework. It is not a framework for a two or three year plan that rolls out integration and we can then roll it back. It prepares our kids to be kind, compassionate people. It reduces bias. And these are things we are going to see over a course of time, not something that we can measure tomorrow or the day after tomorrow or next year or the year after. Finally, with respect to variance, the Alves report, the latest report that came out in August, stated that increasing the variance does not materially change bus route times and neither does it impact the kids who get placement in the nearest school. So changing the variance will only dismantle the progress that we have made so far.
Ashwat Rishi: As I mentioned earlier, I have two kids who go to Seth Boyden, both of whom take the bus and we’ve been fortunate this year to not have to face many of the challenges that most in the community are facing. Unfortunately, in the many communications we’ve had with families in the district, the common theme has been a negative perception of the Triple I largely based on the transportation issues that the many of the families with young kids face. As a slate, the three of us want to focus on making the Triple I stronger by increasing community buy-in. I’m glad that Malini mentioned the Alves report and what that states. Unfortunately it doesn’t state is the impact variance would have on transportation because transportation unfortunately is not something the district does. It’s outsourced. But in terms of looking at data, I want to point out two things. I think one, what the district needs to do better is track data over time. You know, the district recently moved over to IXL and iReady; both those platforms thankfully give the opportunity for giving us realtime access to data, which we need to track over time to see if there’s any measurable impact in student outcomes long term.
Paul Stephan: I think integration is part of who we are. People move here because they want their kids to get a good academic education, of course, but they also want their kids to grow up with people who are different from them and learning alongside people who are different from them. And that’s why we’ve been trying integration for many decades. And of course integration is in fact a research based way to close opportunity gaps, but those gaps are not going to be closed in one or two or three years. These are persistent and very difficult problems to solve that require a lot of different pieces coming together. So I would just want to be clear about something that goes to the root of this question. If we don’t see opportunity gaps disappear in a couple years, I don’t think we should cut and run and get rid of the Integration Initiative. I think once we have integrated schools and we do, then the conversation becomes what do we do in the classroom to make sure that every student in every class, in every grade, at every level is being exposed to a rigorous curriculum that they see themselves in their teachers and paraprofessionals and that students feel like they belong in their schools.
Question 4. There are a lot of new families in the community who are unaware of the history of integration efforts in our district. When someone asks you why we launched the III, how do you answer?
Malini Nayar: I think Paul mentioned this, people move to Maplewood and South Orange for diversity. They come here because there is a vibrant community. There are people of different backgrounds here, and you get to have a really enriching experience both as children and as adults. I think what could really change in terms of how we educate new families coming here is, I know realtors have started to do this a lot more, but realtor training around the fact that we have a Triple I initiative and what does that likely mean for families that move into this district? What services are available to families? How do they get placed into the district? That’s really important. It’s also really important for us as an overall community to remind ourselves why we have Triple I. We may just keep going with it. We make tweaks, make adjustments, supervise our policies, but from time to time, especially because we do have an influx of new families coming in, and sometimes existing families also could just have a refresher to understand why this is supremely important for our children, our families, and for us as a society.
Ashwat Rishi: SOMA is a rich and diverse town, but one with a history of not delivering equitable outcomes for our black and brown students. After years of efforts, we’re still working on delivering aspirational goals. And the Triple I is one way of bridging the gap between families of different socioeconomic status. The current iteration uses 2019 data, and places families based on their location in a census group, not based particularly on that family’s own socioeconomic status. It’s a work in progress with many more improvements that could be made and tweaked, and data that could be used to assess whether the current implementation of the Triple I, which differs from the original recommendation of the Alves group, which is micro communities. But it’s a work in progress and it’s a community that’s committed to delivering equitable outcomes no matter who lives and attends the district.
Paul Stephan: I’m really glad Malini got that question first, because she’s lived here longer than anybody up here and can really speak to some of the history. Diversity and inclusion. These things don’t just happen. They take a lot of sustained work. They take a lot of focus. They take organizations like the Community Coalition on Race, and they take a Board and a superintendent who are committed to it. That’s not always easy to do. We’re in a time when people’s values are being questioned and we’ve seen far too many institutions, organizations succumb to the pressures of a federal administration. This requires focus. It requires sticking to who you are. It requires saying no to policies that might sound innocuous, that are going to unravel integration, like the variance changes. And I think one thing that Melanie and Meredith and I bring to the table is we all work in the public service in different ways. Uh, we sit out in our jobs every day to try to make the world a better place. It’s what we’ve dedicated our careers to. And if we’re on the board, we are gonna aim to make this district as excellent as it can be, and particularly to look out for the students that we’ve historically failed to serve.
Daniel Caplan: So SOMA is a district that continues to try and do the right thing, even if we don’t always succeed. We have been trying integration efforts for decades. We have done the Marshall/Bolden pairing to try to integrate those neighborhoods. We have done the Sep Boyden opt-in as a way to try to integrate that school. And now we have the Triple I. So why have we launched it? Because as I said, we keep trying to get the right answer. We have a very unique district in its breadth of racial and socioeconomic diversity and its size. And because of that, we have many more challenges, because of the way that neighborhoods have been segregated historically. And so we keep trying to do the right thing of figuring out what is the way that we’re going to end up with integrated schools. I do have to take slight issue that increasing the variance is not an effort at undoing the Triple I initiative. As Paul said, we are looking to strengthen the initiative.
Ashley Donahue: I agree with everybody that SOMA’s a vibrant and diverse community. We have the arts, we have sports, and we want to maintain a rigorous curriculum at our school system. I’m happy to say that we’ve acknowledged an issue and that we’re committed to working to it, and that we are working on it currently as it’s still going. And as I had mentioned in one of my previous answers, we need buy-in. We need beyond buy-in from the community for Triple I. We need to make improvements, such as Dan mentioned, on variance, and we need to look at the data to find areas for improvement. So we have the long term goals from markers and we are making headway in the goals, but it’s slow. And so it needs to be communicated to the community and people who are moving in, as to why we’re doing this and what the purpose is for.
Meredith Higgins: I am a new family. I came in 2021 and I knew absolutely no one, I had to start from scratch. My husband has friends who live here, but they work with him, so I didn’t know them. I had to put myself out there and drop myself into as many groups as possible to connect. And that’s really hard. It’s really hard to put yourself out there and meet people that you don’t know that look like you, don’t look like you, have your background, don’t have your background. So I would love to see SOMA actually take the steps in action of creating diversity and creating equity and living that, walking that every single day. No, it doesn’t mean creating more hardships or undue hardships, but it does mean we have to do something about it. We can’t just say we’re doing it. We have to actually do it. And what that means is, suggestions that I gave to the early childhood advisory council is kind of exactly what you said, where you’re putting the kids and the families that need it most first in the pre-K program. Start at the beginning.
