California’s Test Results Renew a Question for Modesto: Where Is the Academic Recovery Response?

California’s latest test results bring renewed urgency to a question PREP Advocates placed before Modesto City Schools on August 4: How will the district bring substantially more students to proficiency in reading and mathematics—and how will the public know whether its efforts are working?

The October 15 New York Post report describes a statewide educational challenge that remains deeply troubling. California’s official assessment dashboard shows approximately 49.3 percent of tested students reaching proficiency or above in English language arts and 38.4 percent in mathematics. A majority remain below those standards in both subjects.

These are statewide results, not Modesto’s scores. They nevertheless reinforce the importance of the concerns behind PREP’s academic recovery proposal.

Parents should be able to expect clear goals, effective intervention, transparent reporting, and an honest explanation of what will change when results fall short.

That was the purpose of our August 4 submission. What happened at the September 28 MCS board meeting illustrates why academic recovery and meaningful public participation belong in the same conversation.

First intervention: Hearing parents must lead to engagement

During my earlier remarks that evening, I addressed the board’s handling of the agenda and our request that the proposals receive actionable consideration.

I acknowledged the board’s authority to organize its agenda. But I challenged whether the process provided a meaningful opportunity to examine proposals concerning how the district operates and how its students are learning.

My central point was straightforward: there is a difference between hearing parents and listening to them.

Parents can receive a few minutes at a microphone while the substance of their concerns remains unanswered. Meaningful listening requires engagement: questions, examination of evidence, an explanation of disagreements, and a definite next step.

I told the board that we wanted to participate in solving the problems we had identified. We had brought recommendations because we believed the district needed a more serious response.

The opportunity to speak mattered. What happened after we spoke mattered just as much.

Second intervention: Improvement must be judged against the need

Later, when the PREP proposals came before the board, ten minutes were allocated across academic recovery and governance reform—approximately five minutes for each.

In presenting the academic concerns, I challenged the adequacy of incremental improvement from a very low starting point.

That distinction is essential. A district can improve and still have an unacceptable proportion of students below academic standards. Progress deserves recognition, but its pace and scale must be evaluated against the distance students still need to travel.

Children have a limited number of school years. They cannot postpone their education until modest annual gains eventually accumulate into adequate preparation.

I also explained that PREP’s recommendations called for a focused examination of specific problems. A general description of existing programs does not, by itself, answer whether those programs adequately address the weaknesses parents have identified.

The relevant questions are concrete: Which students need help? What instruction or intervention will they receive? What results should follow? By when? What changes if the approach does not work?

What PREP asked the district to examine

Our August 4 academic recovery proposal contained 19 recommendations addressing proficiency goals, literacy and mathematics recovery, alignment of spending with academic priorities, public progress reporting, corrective action, and superintendent accountability.

The board did not have to agree with every recommendation to take the proposal seriously.

A practical first step was available: direct staff to examine the recommendations and return with a written response within 90 days.

That response could identify what the district already does, explain which recommendations it supports or disputes, and specify what additional action is warranted.

Instead, the September 28 meeting ended without board action on our academic recovery proposal.

Parents were left without an adopted timetable for its evaluation or a substantive board response.

Why governance belongs in the academic conversation

My second presentation also addressed agenda transparency and the time available for trustees and parents to study district business.

These concerns affect the quality of educational decisions. People need sufficient time and understandable information to evaluate proposals, examine spending, and offer useful input.

My argument was that the district should provide a process adequate to the complexity and importance of the decisions before it.

Parents who bring evidence and proposed solutions should be treated as participants in improving their schools. That requires a route from public comment to substantive consideration.

The next step remains available

The latest statewide results do not establish whether every PREP recommendation should be adopted. They strengthen the case for examining the proposals and responding publicly.

MCS can still establish a timetable, evaluate the recommendations against current district results, and explain what it will do to accelerate recovery.

The board should acknowledge genuine gains while confronting the learning needs that remain.

On August 4, we submitted proposals. On September 28, we explained why they deserved serious consideration.

Now we need a public response—and a clear next step.

Listening should lead somewhere. For our children, it should lead to better learning.