An announcement by Supt. Jason Bing at a Community Conversation on October 14 that he was recommending changes to the school district’s Intentional Integration Initiative has set the South Orange-Maplewood community abuzz and was the topic of extended conversation at the October 30 Board of Education meeting.
Village Green is providing a transcription of Board comments from the October 30 meeting below, starting with BOE President Nubia DuVall Wilson’s remarks and Rutgers Committee Chair Deirdre Brown’s report, then followed by comments from the remaining seven Board members.
You can watch DuVall Wilson’s remarks starting at 3:55:38, then Brown’s report and the BOE members’ comments starting at 4:18:40:
Nubia DuVall Wilson:
I want to remind our community that the District is looking at making adjustments to our Intentional Integration Initiative (III) to make it more sustainable. It’s not because we don’t believe in integration. It’s not because we aren’t listening to the experts–in fact, the District is looking at models that The Alves Group had originally suggested more than 5 years ago. The District has been taking a close, honest look at how the roll out of our III is not only impacting our budget, but also affecting our families, in collaboration with the Black Parents Workshop and the Board. It is especially important to look at the impact on families of lower socioeconomic backgrounds and families of color who have carried the heaviest burdens of the current model. For decades, The Alves Group has advised districts on integration models across the country and as close as Montclair, and they are now helping us assess and refine our approach. I take my privileged position as a Board Member very seriously, as we have the unique opportunity to look at data first before the public and directly receive feedback from community members on an ongoing basis. We have a responsibility to listen. Students are not just data points to check a box. When the Alves Group confirmed that the schools were diversified well at 5% and this was a success story in the 2025 spring III review meeting, they had not actually seen the experience survey feedback. The success story for them was focused on data, not lived experiences. Here are two anonymous examples from that survey:
“A late start time does not work for our family as dad commutes to the city at 6 a.m. and mom is a teacher. We’ve had to use before-care to make it feasible but it’s financially and logistically challenging.”
“This integration plan has caused so much hardship on marginalized groups—parents who work outside standard hours, don’t have cars, or can’t afford before/aftercare….How does this make sense?”
When you dig into the details, talk to families directly and review student experiences and imbalances in those experiences, especially for our students of color and lower SES, a few things become clear to me: an algorithm with 5% variance, isolated placements, no zoned neighborhoods and no controlled choice SES-neutral transfer process (which Michael Alves has suggested) creates an unstable program. After the conversations I have had with lower SES and Black families in particular, I am advocating that we no longer have unrealistic expectations of our integration model and I support that modifications are necessary to make this program more sustainable. Across the country, school districts continuously review their integration initiatives and adjust their models; Montclair reassesses its variance annually, which ranges from 15% to 25% per their policy.
Board of Education policies are regularly updated and reviewed, it is one of the most important aspects of being a Board member. Modification should not be misconstrued as deviation. Future adjustments to the III are not a step backward—they are an evolution grounded in listening, evaluating and doing better for our students. Lastly, we all see tensions are getting high in the community on this topic, especially as it is currently the Board of Education campaign season. Can we please bring the temperature down online and in person? People will have differing opinions on the III and it’s okay to agree to disagree, and we can do that respectfully.
Deirdre Brown:
The Rutgers Implementation Committee met on October 8. Attending from the Board was President DuVall Wilson, 2nd Vice President Eckert, Board member Sackett-Gable, and myself. Attending from the administration were Mr. Bing, Dr. Gilbert, and Dr. Waibel. Among the issues discussed in committee were the following, the Triple I transfer request and policy 5124. Data provided to the BOE as of September 15 was the most up to date data on transfers at the time of the committee meeting. Mr. Bing had been reviewing appeals, and those were scheduled to start going out to families on October 11. The district explained that once school starts, its priority is to get new enrollments placed and in school. So they have not been working on transfer requests in the interim. Hence that’s why the data the board was provided as of September 15 is the most current.
October 15 is generally when new enrollment work is completed. This is when the district will look at the current transfer waiting list again and see if they can make any more transfers, starting with tier one transfers. The district anticipates this will take three weeks. Therefore, families still waiting to hear about transfer requests should hear in the coming week or so if they haven’t already.
There was also continued discussion about the Triple I evaluation. The middle schools: There was, as discussed in prior Rutgers committee meetings, Alves analysis indicated that more than 90% of students were placed at their closest zone school, which is isolating for those not placed at the closest school. The district recommended not doing the Triple I in middle schools, which Mr. Bing announced at the town hall earlier in the month.
Variance: As discussed in prior records committee meetings, Alves analyzed the 5, 7.5 and 10% variance and found no significant change in school balance. Subsequently, the district further discussed modeling 15, 20 and 25% variance with Alves. In general, variance is used as a guardrail for ensuring school balance. The district discussed other variances with Alves, as other schools Alves services use higher variance. So for example, Montclair uses between 15 and 25% variance. Champagne, Illinois uses 15, and Cambridge, Massachusetts uses between 10 and 15% variance.
However, the district concluded that anything over 15% variance would be too high because you would have 50% or more students from one SES group. For example, the ideal balance of a school is 33% low SES, 33% medium, and 33% high SES. So if one has a 10% variance, that means 33% and one tier could go up or down by 10%. So you would have a maximum range between 23 to 43%. This does not mean necessarily that schools but would be in this range or would be at that 43 or 23, but rather they were guardrails that the schools could not go be beyond.
As a result of the analysis and discussion, the district recommended moving to a 10% variance, which Mr. Bing announced at the town hall early in the month. Adjusting the variance by 10% does allow for some placement flexibility and does not affect balance significantly, according to the Alves modeling for data sent to the board in August. School capacity is generally the largest factor in students not getting assigned to their closest school. However, if a school does have capacity, upping the variances a little would help place a student at a school closer to their home.
There was also exploration of other iteration options. There was a robust discussion on the sustainability of the Triple I in its current form, namely the long route times and early pickup times for students and high transportation costs. Many in the meeting felt that the Triple I is unsustainable in its current form, especially in light of the tough budget situation we are facing.
However, all agree that integration is important for our district. Where there is disagreement, it lies in whether and how to modify the Triple I.
Within the discussion, Triple I transportation and its costs were discussed. It was commented that effective and efficient transportation is imperative for any integration model. So logistical changes are needed because transportation is not working for families in its current form. There was a question as to what are isolated placements and the response was it’s those placements where one child is going to a school that no one else in the neighborhood is going to. The district is examining prior years’ transportation data to determine estimates of costs related to pre-K and triple I K through 8 busing.
The district also shared preliminary data on a three school zone model [with] South Mountain, Marshall and Clinton as one group; and Bolden, Tuscan and Seth Boyden as another group — so essentially if you live in an area of one of those three schools, you would be zoned to that area and be sent to one of those three schools as opposed to the current model where students are potentially sent to six schools. By grouping the schools in those two groups that resulted in SES balance. It was discussed that just this change would also likely reduce transportation times and costs because those three school groupings are closer together.
However, the school capacities do not match the current zoning. So, for example, South Mountain, Marshall and Clinton would have too few seats for their neighborhood zones, and the other group too many. As a result, if the district wanted to take this approach, some rezoning would be needed.
Other considerations to help integrate schools to be explored by the district include a dual language program at Seth Boyden and continued expansion of multilingual learners classrooms. However, these were not discussed in detail as the committee meeting was running late.
The district has or will make the following modifications to the Triple I: The district will move to a 10% variance. The district has implemented a transfer policy, and the district is using proximity placement. It was also suggested that to help address families’ needs and to improve routes in the near term, the district could look at isolated placements and proactively reach out to families and potentially do swaps of students between schools, if parents are agreeable and it maintains the balance.
For the longer term, the district will undertake a larger review of various approaches to integration and what those approaches would look like. Gentrification needs to be examined as part of this review. The review could be part of the strategic planning process the district will be undertaking in this next year, and the district’s budget needs to be considered. A rough guess of pre-K and Triple I transportation is at least $4 million, but the district is working on more educated estimates of transportation costs of Triple I K through 5, and they’ll be sending that to the Board of Education once it’s completed over the next few weeks.
The district stated that the way to roughly think about it is that every $1 million in savings equates to 10 teacher positions.
By the next Rutgers meeting, the district states that it’ll have more information and if they want to pursue the three school model and or undertake other approaches to integration. Given the expected budget challenges in this year and future years, everything is on the table for exploration. This is similar to what other districts are going through, including our neighbors in Montclair.
The district also provided a brief update on the future plans for the Triple I survey. The district would like to revise the Triple I survey to collect feedback, not necessarily on climate and culture experience since that’s covered in other surveys, which the district [indistinct] some things are better, but really to focus on questions that are on placement, transportation and hardships. And they also suggest conducting the survey one time a year, which would require a change in board policy.
[Brief mention of Rutgers recommendations.]
Before I open it up to questions or comments, I wanted to make a comment of my own if that’s okay. I wanted to thank Mr. Bing for his leadership in taking a close look at the Triple I program. I really appreciate the time and the thought that’s gone into evaluating what’s working and what’s not. As Nubia mentioned, as board members, we hear from families across the district every week and I want to share some of what I’ve heard so that people understand the impact of the current design of the Triple I. I’ve heard about kindergartners waking up really early to catch a 7:00 AM bus ride, riding for 45 minutes plus across two towns. Some kids to get to school too early and have to wait for school to start. Others arrive too late. Parents tell us they’re paying for extra childcare or getting to work late because of unreliable transportation.
We’re also facing serious financial strain. The district is spending roughly $4-$5 million a year on pre-K through 8 transportation and Triple I is a part of that. The district ended up having to add buses this year to address transportation challenges. And so any savings the district thought we were going to have disappeared. At the same time, we’re trying to plan for the future. Things like buying our own buses or hiring more paras. All of those are investments that take real money.
I want to be clear that I, and I believe all members of the board and the district, are fully committed to integrated schools, but I believe that we need to do it in a way that is sustainable for our families and our budget. Changes won’t happen overnight, but we have to start now. I truly believe that we can design a smarter plan that maintains integration, reduces costs, and keeps more resources in the classroom.
I’ll just end by saying that the amount of time adjusting and working within our currently flawed integration system takes away from the real work of educating our children, addressing our achievement gap, and improving our school’s climate and culture. We saw from our NJSLA results that we made progress, but a lot more work needs to be done and I would like to get to a place where that’s the focus of our administration 100% of the time as opposed to the significant amount of time they spend simply trying to work within the current triple I. Thank you.
Bimal Kapadia:
Thank you. Thank you Deirdre, for the recap. And I wanna also take a moment to support Mr. Bing’s efforts and commitment to the integration initiative. I also wanna take this moment to extend some of the sentiments shared by Deirdre and also by Nubia. The triple I is imperative to our district’s mission to drive student outcomes academically and across social emotional factors. But alongside the positive impacts for our community, we’ve also now experienced rather acutely challenges of the model, including ongoing transportation woes, chronic lateness, disproportionate hardships, soft and hard costs of isolated placements, a loss of learning time, ultimately impeding progress to close the achievement gap for students, including our most vulnerable. It’s why policies are not doctrinal. It should always be modified to more data, more experiences, changes, professional recommendations and learnings are presented without losing sight of the purpose.
The challenges I mentioned before are apparent. We’ve seen the data, we’ve heard from parents, we’ve heard from students. It’s why I support looking at placement criteria, hardship criteria, zoning, owning our buses amongst other proposals, all with the shared goal of sustainability and longevity for Triple I. For clarity, these are proposals I would support even in a healthy budget environment.
Said another way, if we continue the current iteration of the III, do nothing and [indistinct] on the current budget circumstances, we not only make the triple I unsustainable, we put the entire district at risk and in short, everyone loses. Which is why in this budget climate I will not support any teaching staffing cuts or program cuts. It’s the last resort. We must exhaust efficiencies and reallocation elsewhere first. I’m reminded of the math that Mr. Bing stated in his community speaks and we heard here before, every $1 million equals 10 staff. And I’m also reminded of the oath that I took as a BOE member to ensure the education and integrity of our district. Simply put, any relief and improvements on the III’s implementation helps us to focus, preserve and progress the actual teaching and learning outcomes, which is the ultimate intention. Thank you.
Shayna Sackett-Gable:
Thank you. Board member Brown, as you said, I was in attendance at the October Rutgers committee meeting and respectfully I disagree with the decision to raise the variance and overhaul the Intentional Integration Initiative structure at this time. With the minor adjustments already made, the current implementation has improved while ongoing evaluation and refinement are certainly appropriate as needed, and the Rutgers recommendations acknowledge this, there has been no clear evidence presented to justify such a significant alteration. Given that in the progress we’ve seen, I don’t believe that now is the time to make changes that will make our schools less integrated and make future data more difficult to discern. Changing to a zone model would further pull our district leaders away from the needed work in the classrooms. Instead, let’s prioritize putting resources into the true integration that happens in the classrooms, hallways, and on the playgrounds. As we know from occurring incidents of bias, this is where resources are sorely needed.
Integration should not be reduced to a disposable budget line item. Just as we wouldn’t remove sinks in bathrooms to save on plumbing costs, we shouldn’t dismantle fundamental initiatives because they have a cost. The real cost is what our children would pay without them. Additionally, this process requires transparency and broader engagement. I propose that the Rutgers committee meet as a committee of the whole so that the full Board can engage and the public can be privy to the discussion behind any changes to the Triple I. And since we’re headed into our strategic planning process, it’s also important that any major shifts happen within that broader framework. So my view is let’s stay the course and allow the current model time to demonstrate its full impact before taking steps that could compromise the progress we’ve already made.
Liz Callahan:
Thank you. I appreciate everyone’s comments and I agree that this work requires consistency. And I think it also requires transparency. I think we’ve made meaningful progress. I think we’ve moved to a proximity model. We’ve liberalized policy 5124, and I agree, ongoing evaluation is going to be essential. For example, reviewing hardship data, which so far this year has not yet been presented to us in a way that will allow any real understanding of socioeconomic breakdown among what the transfers look like. Ensuring we do have a definition that was shared tonight on isolated placements and a completed transportation analysis. To date, we have not had any additional FFT [Finance Facilities Technology Committee] meetings regarding transportation though they have been requested. So we’d also need to look at that in a more in-depth level. And also sharing what this revised Triple I survey results show us. And I think given these evolving factors as we approach having fully integrated elementary schools next year, I believe that continuing to monitor the variables we’ve changed rather than making enormous structural changes is the right next step.
I do want to echo the concern around process and communication. Not all board members have had access to the same information from Rutgers. So in advance of the community conversation without committee notes, the full board lacked visibility into these discussions and data that informs what was apparently a finalized decision. So some of these ideas certainly been socialized, had been in notes, but for some of us, the first time we heard that they were finalized was secondhand. That we would have a double variance, that middle school was being removed, were presented as finalized, not under consideration. And that was found out from some board members after the fact. So now having reviewed the notes, as I’ve shared with colleagues, my concern deepens not only because of the content, because the whole board didn’t have the opportunity to provide input, ask questions, despite assurances and norms that that kind of engagement occurs.
Additionally, we weren’t aware that the Village Green would be speaking with Mr. Alves, an opportunity the full board hasn’t had since the summer. And so these lapses in communication and information sharing get difficult to build trust and confidence in the way that this process is playing out. So I strongly support Board member Sackett-Gable’s proposal that the Rutgers committee convene as a committee of whole, so that all Board members and the public can engage in these discussions together. Doing so would ensure that these decisions have the full board’s perspective and are made transparently in full view of the community that we serve. And lastly, as we said, our priorities should, I think we all agree, remain on meaningful integration. The kind that happens every day. As board member Sackett-Gable said, we have seen incidents of bias and indeed our variance metric is only one way that we look at integration.
And to do that well, we need our team to be focused on that. We need accurate data, open communication and shared understanding. I think staying the course, continuing to monitor the adjustments that we’ve most recently made and resolving the major logistical issues around transportation requires the focus of this Board. While improving transparency and collaboration and grounding our future decisions and the upcoming NJSBA strategic planning process gives us the best chance to sustain and deepen the progress that we’ve already begun to make. Thank you.
Will Meyer:
I’ll just jump in really quick. First I want to say that I appreciate the work that’s been going on in the Rutgers committee, both around the important Rutgers equity work and the Triple I piece that’s sort of been tacked onto it. … I appreciate as well the memo that Superintendent Bing has sent out and the conversation that has been started, and specifically reiterating that the discussion about how integration is happening in our community is something that requires significant community involvement. Because this is something that is very clearly impacting a massive portion of the community. Some folks more than others, some in very different ways than others. And I think the work that has happened in that committee before is important. I do think it is time for us to really move intentionally to having more public conversations with the Board as a whole to make sure, first of all, that all members have that opportunity to be speaking with each other, which of course we can only do in front of the public, which is good because then it’s in front of the public. And also that we’re moving to having more community conversations to discuss things like the proposals that the Alves Group have put out and that so far just board members have seen so far.
I also think it’s really important that we acknowledge there are a lot of proposals on the table for things that we could do to change pieces of the Triple I. And I don’t think we need to consider it to be a sacred cow that can never be modified at all. But we do need to be really careful and really slow, right? We are just seeing the whole elementary school as of next year become fully integrated under the Triple I. And so we’re looking at the possibility of changing the variance, the possibility of changing to two zones, essentially having, I guess, sort of two Triple Is in our town. Looking at the possibility of changing the middle schools. There’s a lot of pieces here and I think we need to make sure that we are doing the right ones and not doing all of them, or doing them scattershot or in a rushed way.
This plan took a long time to be developed after a lot of different things were considered and I want to make sure that we’re not rushing into something and cutting off our nose to spite our face. We do have to fix the transportation issues. Kindergartners shouldn’t necessarily be having to leave the house at seven o’clock in the morning to get to school, but we do also need to figure out how the entire community can help figure out our work life balance because it can’t all just be on the district either. So I appreciate the work. I do think it should move more of it in public now at this point now that it’s really moving quickly. And make sure that we have a plan that will keep our eye on that guide star of continuing our integration process and not losing sight of it while also of course making sure this is working for our budget, for our community in general.
Jeff Bennett:
I want to say that I agree with my Board colleagues on the need to actually have this conversation more in public and to share more data with the public. The Board of Education has received a lot of information on the current workings of the Triple I and analysis of what might happen under various changes that this information hasn’t been shared with the public. For instance, we could see like what the beta testing would be if we adjusted the variance from a 5% to 7.5% to 10%. We could see what the demographics were of each school’s proximity zone. I don’t mean the kids who were assigned to that school, but the kids for whom that school is the closest school.
We have that data. The board has seen it and it’d be something good for the public to see because they could actually make their own judgment from that. We the Board have seen the impact of the new proximity precedent system and it would be good for the public to see that too. We’ve seen maps of actually where kids come from who are assigned to each school and I’ve seen those maps which were released for the first year of the Triple I — 2021-22 — and I think would also inform the public very much.
I want to reiterate something that Will Meyer said two seconds ago. We wouldn’t be setting up six elementary school zones like we had before the Marshall-Jefferson pairing. Before Triple I, we really had six schools in five zones, but we wouldn’t be setting up something like that. We’d be setting up something I like to call two sets of three … most likely the most logical way to do it, we have the three northern schools, which would be South Mountain, Marshall and Clinton, and then the three southern schools. If you do that, actually we have the data to see that actually those zones are demographically extremely similar. In terms of race, they would be within plus or minus 5%. And in terms of the three demographic tiers, they also would be within plus or minus 5% just naturally. It would make a much better situation for busing. I’ve looked at the maps and actually the longest bus route I think a child could have under that system would be 2.4 miles, which would be from Van Ness Street to the Bolden School. And under our current system in theory a child could have a four-mile bus ride. So 2.4 miles, a lot less than four miles.
Also there are a lot fewer transportation dyads. Once two sets of three were fully phased in, and only thinking of gen ed students, there would the at most 12 transportation dyads. Whereas under the status status quo, year three of the Triple I, there were over 25 transportation dyads. With the proximity to precedent system there are fewer transportation dyads, but it’s still in the mid teens. It’s more than 12. So transportation would work a lot better. Shorter distances, fewer dyads, greater efficiency.
Something I don’t think has come up yet is that having two sets of three would also make a really natural, fair, efficient way to assign kids to the middle schools. When the Triple I was planned a few years ago, there was no planning at all about how elementary Triple I cohorts would be assigned to the middle schools. Since 2022-23 just used the Triple I, to assign sixth graders, which works because there isn’t a lot of busing that requires and 85 to 93% of kids are assigned to their closer school. And we still could do that for the rising fourth graders who would be the first Triple I cohort, but it would mean a lot of kids are separated from their friends and they wouldn’t like that. And, for some kids that would be pretty hard. It’s been suggested we could set up the elementary schools as feeder schools and that would make a lot of predictability. A child would go to middle school and all their elementary school friends would be there with them.
That sounds really good. But actually as a public speaker pointed out, that would require a lot more transportation because a lot of South Orange kids who are assigned to Maplewood elementary schools and vice versa. And a lot more of those kids — sixth graders would be over two miles. We’d be busing a lot more kids, which we can’t afford right now. But we if had two sets of three with the northern schools and the southern schools, it’s just natural that the northern schools should go to SOMS and the southern schools would go to MMS. The only thing we have to decide is actually if we do a formal zone so that maybe some kids who are closer to MMS are assigned to SOMS because we want the two schools to be equal in size. Would we do that?
Maybe, but it’s an opportunity because depending on how you draw the line, you could actually make the two middle schools even more demographically identical.
So anyway, I don’t know how soon, we’re not gonna rush things, we have to share the data with the public and we have to give the public a chance to weigh in. But I do think that two sets or three, which was considered back in 2018, 2019, is a viable solution that would provide integration for the elementary schools and the middle schools and could give us a chance to have their busing so that it feels like no child is treated unfairly. No child is waking up to catch a bus for 7:00 AM. The system’s not working for everyone right now. I don’t think we can accept that.
Regina Eckert:
So I shared some of this in committee meetings, but I do agree. I think we do have to start having more public conversations. And so I do want to express my appreciation for Superintendent Bing, his commitment to integrated schools and the work that’s gone into getting us here. We all want integrated inclusive schools that reflect the diversity and strength of our community. It’s not up for debate, it’s just, it’s simply not. The question is how we get there. And I think it’s totally fair to pause and ask whether the current path still makes sense given where we are now. The initial iteration of Triple I rolled out during the 21-22 school year, it was poorly planned and executed and, Will, to your point, that actual plan wasn’t what was initially designed. So I think the fact that there are some community members and quite frankly some board colleagues that think it is time, it’s been, when we have four years of data, both qualitative and quantitative data, I think we’ve all formed our opinions and that’s totally okay.
But it was poorly planned and executed and it’s created real hardships, stress and financial harm to many families in this district, including many students of color and lower SES students. My colleagues have already shared some of the stories that we’ve heard as board members, so I’m not going to bother repeating them, but I will go back to one of the first things that I have truly believed and said since I’ve joined the board and had initiated the first iteration of the 5124 transfer policy around hardships. Who are we to determine what a hardship is? We have no idea what anybody’s personal situations are. Who are we to say parents that are requesting hardships simply for convenience? We absolutely don’t know. And I think there are some real challenges that students and families face and maybe they don’t make it as public as we want it to be and there’s a reason for that.
But I think we should acknowledge that other districts, including ones that our consultant has worked with, have found different ways to reach the same goal. And what matters is finding what works best for our community. Something that supports students, has community buy-in and is financially and operationally sustainable long term. And I do believe that it is perfect timing because we are about to kick off the five year strategic plan that actually it is all aligned with that. My understanding is that those conversations around what potential modifications, whether it’s the two zone-three school could look like. Given our budget realities, we need to be practical about how we move forward. I truly believe we can stay true to the goals of integration, still make adjustments that fit today’s reality. With in-district transportation costs around $4-$5 million a year, I think is worth asking whether some of that could be better spent supporting teachers, classrooms and programs that directly impact students. And thank you.
Bill Gifford:
I can’t believe we still have to get through some more readouts. But this is an issue dear to my heart. And I come from a different angle a little bit here. So, I want to respond to the recent criticisms of increasing the variance of placement for Triple I. Also in general, to the proponents of Triple I who feel a threat to it is somehow diminishing our commitment to equity. More than 20 years ago, I ran for the Board of Ed as a high school senior because when I dug into the numbers of our level twos, the lowest levels, which thank God don’t exist anymore, were almost completely Black, over 95%. I ran again as a college freshman with now soon-to-be-assemblyman Chigozie Onyema. We ran specifically to close the achievement gap. And what that meant to us was directing resources towards the students who needed it most to be uplifted.
We needed to give those students more opportunity to thrive. I say this to beg the question, does our integration initiative address the needs of closing the achievement gap? Integration is a noble endeavor, but does busing a student across district to another, to another part of the district, provide them with more opportunity? The cosmetics of Triple I look fantastic, but how does a student who is struggling to read get more resources from this arrangement? When I envisioned fighting the achievement gap, it was first de-leveling, which we have done to a certain extent, but it was also hiring more Black teachers, changing the curriculum in a significant way that spoke and transformed Black students’ experience from stagnation to success, strategies that have proven to work. And when I talk about success, this is not just about a good GPA or acceptance to college, but self-actualization and pride in their history and present struggle to continue to challenge us in this comfy community of ours where so much inequity still exists. That’s all.
Nubia DuVall Wilson:
Thank you, Bill. Thank you, everyone. Appreciate all the feedback and we’ll continue the conversation. After our meeting, we’ll talk a lot behind the scenes.
