BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
Superintendent Don Austin is working on an “advanced diploma” program that would allow students to separate academically from their peers as young as fourth grade.
“That’s when our parents want to start differentiating right now … It’s already happening, so let’s just lean in and go with it,” said Austin, who has been accused of devaluing academic excellence.
An advanced diploma would be given to students who check nine boxes, including taking four Advanced Placement courses by their junior year, getting an internship, doing well on the ACT or SAT, being a national merit semifinalist and orally defending their portfolio.
“We could set our students aside and really do some pretty neat stuff,” Austin told the school board June 17.
Austin suggested that select students could reach Algebra 2 or higher by eighth grade — two levels above the district’s standard pathway, which is already advanced by a year from the state’s standards.
“We’d have to talk about capacity and some more philosophy,” Austin said.
The district is at least a year away from rolling out more advanced math, but the rest of the program is ready to go, Austin said.
Gunn High School would need to add AP Seminar and AP Research to match Palo Alto High School, and a new counselor will help track what students have completed, Austin said.
Math teacher Nadine Herbst and Assistant Superintendent of Innovation and Agility Jeong Choe are spearheading the academic distinction program, Austin said.
Choe came to Palo Alto from a high-end boarding school in Illinois, and Herbst came from a district in Austin that is top 10 in the nation, Austin said.
Austin’s announcement comes after three new board members — Rowena Chiu, Alison Kamhi and Josh Salcman — were elected in November on platforms of change. They’ve pushed for more academic opportunities when discussing goals for next year while acknowledging that struggling students would come first.
“We’d like each student in the district to be appropriately placed or appropriately challenged,” Chiu said at a board meeting on April 29.
“Wouldn’t it be amazing if we could somehow have an (individualized education program) for every student?” Salcman said at the same meeting.
The old board, represented by board members Shounak Dharap and Shana Segal, focused more on reducing academic stress and having each student reach a minimum baseline.
Before his announcement, Austin specifically thanked Segal and Dharap for talking about all students, not just select groups.
Austin also announced that Multivariable Calculus will be available after school at Gunn High School next year, taught by an instructor from Foothill College.
The district in 2023 stopped offering Multivariable Calculus for high school credit, but a teacher at Palo Alto High School is working on getting his certification and bringing the course back, Austin said.
Just what students need, more pressure to earn the top diploma.
What? And this will help promote equity and reduce manufactured pressure in our schools how? Please tell me the high school counseling staff were consulted about this. Sounds like pandering to some of the worst instincts of our overachieving adult community vs actually valuing student learning/experience/inclusion.
“The old board, represented by board members Shounak Dharap and Shana Segal, focused more on reducing academic stress and having each student reach a minimum baseline.”
Uh. No no.
Shounak was part of the anti-academic group. Shana was not. Shana campaigned on differentiation — she just never had the board support (until now) to get anything done there.
Shana is an enabler. If she has core beliefs, she hasn’t shown them. She bends to whatever Austin and the staff want. It doesn’t matter what her private thoughts might be—thoughts she apparently has never voiced except to you— she’s on the wrong side of this issue and needs to go.
She spoke about academics and differentiation repeatedly in the past two elections. She also spoke about it in board meetings, even when she was the lone pro-academic voice. She also endorsed the three pro-academic candidates, which I can’t imagine is a coincidence.
The comment above illustrates what’s going to be happening — everyone is going to be blaming somebody for the bad choice PAUSD made to sacrifice academic excellence in favor of psycho emotional wellbeing crap. Parents expect more from a school district that they pay dearly to support with their tax dollars. Don’t be surprised if the parcel increase is defeated next year. Sadly the ballot box is the only place where the majority can influence the district’s leaders. After Austin and Dharap are gone we can talk about more money. But until then, it’s a “no” vote from me.
Wasn’t PUSD going in the opposite direction just recently, trying to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator? They can’t make up their minds. Just vote no on the parcel tax and let them stew in their juices.