administrators

In May 2025, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) superintendent proposed an equity grading system for 14 high schools, bypassing school board approval. After swift backlash, the plan was canceled, but it raises questions about grading fairness and educational quality.

What Is Equity Grading?

The proposed system aimed to simplify grading and reduce disparities. Key features included:

• Wider grade ranges: On a 100-point scale, grades were assigned every 20 points (e.g., 80+ for A, 60–79 for B, 40–59 for C, 20–39 for D, below 20 for F), compared to traditional 10-point increments (90+ for A, 80–89 for B, etc.).
• Final exam focus: Grades depended solely on a final exam, which students could retake multiple times, excluding factors like homework or attendance.

Proponents argued this would reduce stress and promote equity by leveling the playing field. Critics, however, warned it could inflate grades and lower academic rigor.

Impact on Students and College Admissions

Equity grading could significantly boost students’ Grade Point Averages (GPAs), a critical factor in college admissions, especially in California, where the University of California system no longer considers SAT or ACT scores. Higher GPAs might give SFUSD students an edge, but colleges could adjust evaluations if grade inflation is widespread. How would this reshape admissions fairness?

Does Equity Grading Support Quality Education?

As a CUSD board member, I believe our district’s primary goal is to provide high-quality education. Critics of SFUSD’s equity grading argue it may prioritize equal outcomes over academic mastery, potentially undermining rigor. Supporters counter that it addresses systemic barriers, enabling more students to succeed. This debate prompts us to examine what “equity” means in education and whether it aligns with delivering excellence.

Relevance to CUSD

In the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD), we prioritize personalized learning, offering differentiated pathways like math tracking in middle school. SFUSD’s proposal encourages us to reflect: Should we consider alternative grading models, or continue emphasizing tailored education?

On January 21, 2025, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) board voted 3-2 to merge its 9th-grade Biology Honors and standard biology courses into a single curriculum, a process known as de-tracking. This decision has ignited significant debate, drawing both local and national attention.

A Push for Equity

PAUSD cited equity as a key rationale for the change. By offering one biology course, the district aims to “reduce stigma and labels” and foster “inclusion and diversity,” ensuring all students receive the same foundational education. Supporters argue this approach promotes fairness and equal opportunities for learning.

Criticism and Concerns

The decision has faced pushback. Local U.S. Representative Ro Khanna called it “absurd” and an “assault on excellence,” arguing that eliminating honors courses could undermine academic rigor for high-achieving students. Critics question whether a unified curriculum can meet the diverse needs of all learners without compromising advanced instruction.

Some comments from the survey:

• DEI has been misused to penalize Aisian and Indian kids. DEI focusses only on race and never looks at diversity of ideas and financial situation
• Democratic party uses race baiting to win election. DEI is not helping but hindering progress of Blacks and Latinos
• DEI is important. white people have built-in advantages in this society and we need to do as much as possible to level the playing field. this might feel unfair now but it is how we can root out privilege.
• DEI is absolutely essential to ensure diversity in workplaces. Its important that thoughts are ideas are shared from different backgrounds to ensure great/universsaly acceptable products
• DEI, such as race or gender equality has gone way too far. It is pushing competent people out. At this time, it is best NOT to have DEI, because it is really confusing and unfair to implement.
• This is social engineering. emphasizing representation at enxpense of merit is a bad idea and will lead to erosion of quality. I belong to the medical field and merit trumps all. Insufficient skills or abilities is dangerous to patient care.
• Abolish DEI. It’s discriminatory
• I think there needs to be a balanced approach to everything rather than a strict all or nothing interpretation.
• My belief is that balancing merit-based policies with other “community “ factors allows for a more well rounded educational community that more closely resembles our full society.
• merit-based is the only fair and honest method
• DEI policies are an indication that Americans need more open but respectful discussions about our common civil society and NOT social justice initiatives enacted by businesses or educational institutions.
• DEI is necessary and allows for a better representation of race, gender, ethnicities and backgrounds in the candidate pool whether it comes to colleges or workplaces. My own college and workplace experience has been a lot more fulfilling due to the diversity of people I have had a chance to study and work with.
• I find the backlash against DEI initiative morally reprehensible. They appear to stem from the flawed idea that everyone had the same opportunities in this country, when the data clearly shows that not to be true.
• DEI initiatives are unconstitutional & racist. When merit (ability) matters, there can be no justification for using criteria other than ability. Nobody wants to get on a plane piloted by a pilot who was hired for any reason other than being the best pilot. Nobody wants to drive a car designed by an engineer who was qualified by their race rather than by their car engineering ability. There is simply no justification for race conscious policies in any situation where the required criterion is merit.
• In my opinion, any privileges based on race, nationality, sex, religion are discriminatory and racist in nature and should be considered extremely harmful to our society and should be prohibited at the federal level. Any DEI program is dangerous to our society. All people are equal and no one should receive any advantages because of the color of their skin or sex.
• You are obviously engaging in bad faith. I am embarrassed by your inclusion on the school board.
• Teach common sense in school. Not political crap like DEI.
• Equity should be established early in education by helping students and families succeed in their education and not at the time of College admission or job hiring where merit should be the only consideration.
• DEI initiatives are vague and ill-defined. I've seen them rolled out at work, and they were top-down. There was no organic problem they were solving. Rather, after George Floyd in 2020, every institution started DEI to virtue signal. In my experience, DEI appears to serve as cover for institutions to discriminate by race/sex/etc. while denying they're doing so. The effort to bring these "initiatives" to schools, especially with young kids, is completely age-inappropriate indoctrination.
• Instead of using race or ethnicity the system should use economic-hardship and help those people who come from hard economic circumstances instead of helping people based on color of their skin or ethnicity or religion.

In a recent directive, the Trump Administration has mandated that all U.S. schools and universities eliminate their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, threatening the loss of federal funding for noncompliance. Additionally, the administration has launched investigations into the admissions policies of Stanford University, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC Irvine, targeting what it describes as "race-based preferences" in an effort to enforce anti-DEI policies.

What is DEI?

DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. These initiatives aim to promote opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups by addressing systemic barriers in education, employment, and other sectors. Proponents argue that DEI fosters fairness and broadens access, while critics contend that it can lead to preferential treatment for some groups and disadvantage others.

DEI and California Law

California’s stance on race and equity in public institutions is shaped by Proposition 209, passed in 1996. This measure amended the state constitution to prohibit public entities—including schools, universities, and government agencies—from considering race, sex, or ethnicity in public employment, contracting, and education. In 2020, Proposition 16 sought to repeal Prop 209 and restore the ability to use such factors, but voters rejected it. As a result, California’s public institutions remain legally barred from implementing race-, sex-, or ethnicity-based preferences.

The Trump Administration’s recent investigations into Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC Irvine signal a determined effort to uncover whether these universities are quietly defying California’s strict ban on race-based preferences in admissions. Despite the state constitution—via Proposition 209—explicitly prohibiting such practices, the administration suspects these institutions may be secretly favoring certain racial groups, and it has threatened to cut federal funding if evidence of these hidden “race-based preferences” comes to light.

Cupertino Union School District’s Position

The Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) does not currently operate formal DEI programs. Given this, and California’s existing legal framework under Prop 209, CUSD appears unlikely to be directly impacted by the administration’s anti-DEI measures or funding threats.

DEI in College Admissions and Workplace Hiring

The debate over DEI extends to college admissions and workplace hiring, where DEI initiatives can sometimes conflict with purely merit-based approaches. DEI-focused policies often aim to balance representation across factors like gender, race, or other identities, emphasizing systemic equity. In contrast, merit-based systems prioritize individual qualifications, such as academic achievements or professional skills, without regard to demographic characteristics. Both approaches spark discussion: DEI advocates highlight the need to address historical inequities, while merit-based proponents argue for evaluating candidates solely on their abilities.

These approaches reflect distinct philosophies. DEI policies often group individuals by identity categories to achieve balanced representation across diverse groups. Merit-based policies, however, focus on treating each candidate as an individual, emphasizing their unique qualifications and contributions without reference to group identity. Both perspectives fuel ongoing discussions about fairness, opportunity, and the best path to equitable outcomes.

Cupertino Mayor Liang Chao made comment below in WhatsApp.

In my opinion, it’s a bit misleading to attribute the transition to district based election to potential attorney letters. As you might have known, FUHSD Board just decided to transition because some people were pushing for it.

The intent of CVRA was that in case there is racialized voting (people voting according to racial lines), district based election might help minorities, assuming that minorities concentrate in one district.

But that’s not the case for a racially diverse area like Silicon Valley. People here don’t congregate by race in where they live.

Splitting FUHSD into 5 districts, in fact, split up Chinese votes since there is not enough Chinese votes in any one district, similarly to ethnic groups.

Chinese voters might not all support Chinese candidates but they might support candidates who share their values on education. Splitting them up into districts, splitting up their voting power.

The California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) of 2001 aims to prevent the dilution of minority voting power in at-large election systems. Unlike federal voting rights laws, the CVRA lowers the bar for minority groups to challenge governments using at-large elections, often prompting cities and school districts to switch to by-trustee-area elections to avoid costly litigation.

At-Large vs. By-Trustee-Area Elections

• At-Large Elections: All voters in a district elect every trustee, regardless of where they live within the district. The Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) currently uses this system.
• By-Trustee-Area Elections: The district is divided into separate geographic areas, each electing its own trustee. Voters cast ballots only for the trustee representing their specific area.

Recent Transitions in Neighboring Districts

• In 2024, the Fremont Union High School District, which encompasses the entire area of CUSD, shifted from at-large to by-trustee-area elections, sparking lively debate among local residents.
• Similarly, the Mountain View Los Altos High School District began transitioning to by-trustee-area elections in 2024, with the process still underway as of February 2025.

These changes highlight a growing trend in the region.

What Triggers a Transition

The shift to by-trustee-area elections often begins with a demand letter from an attorney citing the CVRA. Under the law, plaintiffs don't need to prove that a minority group is concentrated enough in a specific area to form a majority, giving them a legal edge. However, districts can resist the change if they demonstrate that no such concentration exists. For instance, the Palo Alto Unified School District received a demand letter but successfully argued that its minority populations were not sufficiently concentrated to justify by-trustee-areas, allowing it to retain at-large elections.

Potential Benefits and Drawbacks of By-Trustee-Area Elections

Benefits:

• Candidates campaign in smaller areas, making it easier to connect with voters.
• Campaign costs are typically lower due to the reduced geographic scope.
• Each major area of the district gains its own representative, which some view as fairer geographic representation.

Drawbacks

• CUSD might lack strong evidence that a minority group's voting power is significantly diminished by at-large elections, weakening the legal case for a change.
• Voter influence is reduced: In a five-trustee district with four-year terms, voters currently elect all five trustees over four years under at-large elections, but with by-trustee-area elections, they'd vote for only one trustee in that time.
• Trustees might prioritize their area's needs over the district's broader interests, potentially fragmenting decision-making.

Looking Ahead

By-trustee-area elections offer a potential path toward localized representation, but they also raise questions about voter influence and district unity. As CUSD considers its options -- possibly in response to a future attorney letter -- the trade-offs between these systems remain a critical topic for community discussion.

District staff presented on CUSD property matters at the board advance meeting on January 23, 2025. The presentation can be found here.

Current Property Conditions

Below is the screenshot for property current conditions.

Options for Meyerholz and Finch

Meyerholz Elementary School:

• Meyerholz Elementary School, which was closed (see here for more detail), currently houses Cuperdoodle, a district-run preschool, utilizing the portable structures of Meyerholz. For more details, see here.

Finch Property:

• The Finch property is a 1.48-acre vacant lot purchased by the district around 2017. The house on the property was removed, and the contaminated soil was cleaned up. It is currently zoned R1-6, indicating single-family homes with a minimum 6,000-square-foot lot.

Finch Property Options
During the meeting, several options for the Finch property were discussed:

• Central Kitchen
• District Educational or Recreation needs
• City needs
• Revenue generation

The first two options were briefly mentioned with high cost/maintenance. The option for city needs remains undecided due to a lack of formal communication with the City of Cupertino.

Potential revenue options: The consultant presented three potential revenue generation options.

• Senior Project:. Estimated value range is $5.5M - $6.5M, but this option was ruled out due to the site's unsuitability for a senior project.
• Single Family Project: Estimated value range is $9M - $10M.
• Townhome Project. Estimated value range is $10M - 11M. Please notice it would be up to developer to change the zoning.

The consultant advised that the district should not act as the developer. The recommended approach involves:

• Selling the property to a developer with a plan
• Purchasing another commercial property to generate rental revenue.

These steps can be combined to appear as an "exchange" to the district.

However, several questions require further exploration:

• Do we need to sell the Finch property? Keeping it vacant incurs maintenance costs, and the government might begin charging property taxes.
• If we sell the Finch property, should we exchange it for a commercial property?

(Disclaimer: this article is NOT investment advice.) According to investopedia, the S&P 500 index has significantly outperformed real estate over the last 50 years. Also,

• The index comprises 500 top companies, offering more diversification and lower risk than specific real estate investments.
• The index ETF also provides quarterly dividends, offering the district a cash flow as well.
• Additionally, the index ETF is a "buy and hold" investment, eliminating the need for property management, tenant acquisition, and concerns about natural disasters.

If we do it right, CUSD probably might never need to issue more bonds 50 years later.

Meyerholz Options

Currently, Cuperdoodle occupies the portables at Meyerholz. There are two rental options for Meyerholz: with or without the portables. Renting all buildings would generate more rental income, but the district would need to find a new site for Cuperdoodle if all buildings are rended out.

Another resident replied at https://pastebin.com/KD1ZUXVz. Below is the content.

The response from resident James not only lacks proper nuance, but is evidence of the lack of education relating to this subject.

Yes, trans people do represent a small portion of the population. But in the real world, chances are, more likely than not, that your child will interact with a person who identifies as such. Exposing this topic to them so they have a better understanding of the world around them is crucial for their success as they grow up.

Characterizing the increased visibility of transgender people as a 'social contagion' fundamentally misunderstands what we're observing. Consider the following analogy: Imagine if left-handedness was stigmatized and forcibly suppressed. In this situation, left-handed people didn't cease to exist—they simply hid their natural inclination. As society's acceptance grew, the recorded number of left-handed people rose dramatically, not because being left-handed was 'contagious,' but because people finally felt safe being themselves. By the time acceptance was widespread, the percentage of left-handed people stabilized at its natural rate of about 10%.
What may look like a 'sudden increase' to some is actually the unveiling of what was always present, just hidden from view. We aren't seeing more transgender people being created—we're seeing more transgender people who feel safe enough to live authentically.

The last claim is just straight up moronic. Bathroom signs are not stopping rapists and perverts. Please cite sources when making claims as bold as “rapes are clearly correlated with trans women using the women’s bathroom”.

CUSD Measure Z Approved with $347M Bond

Measure Z, a bond measure for Cupertino Union School District (CUSD), has been approved with a 61.07% approval rate. This bond, amounting to $347 million, will be funded through a property tax rate of approximately $21 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, generating $23,300,000 annually. Importantly, Measure Z extends the current tax rate without any increase.

Next Steps: Allocating the Funds

With the bond approved, it's now crucial to determine how to allocate the funds to maximize benefits for the community and the school district. A Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee will be formed, appointed by the school board, to ensure transparency and effective use of the bond money. For more information about Measure Z, please see here.

Partial Project List

The district hired a third party conducted a survey about priorities of the projects.

Hiring Contractors for Measure Z Projects

There is a discussion on the best approach to hiring contractors. One perspective advocates for exclusively hiring unionized contractors to ensure better quality work and suggests using a Project Labor Agreement (PLA). According to sources, PLAs can have various impacts:

• Impact on Cost: PLAs may increase the overall cost of the projects
• Impact on Competition: PLAs could discourage or prevent non-unionized contractors from competing for construction projects.
• Impact on Minority Contractors: PLAs might disproportionately impact small businesses, particularly those owned by women and minorities.
• Local Impact: PLAs can be used by public project owners like school boards or city councils to set goals for creating local jobs and achieving social welfare goals.

This issue was visited at the Board Winter Advance on January 23, 2025..

Use Measure Z to Reimburse Previous Project?

There was a tentative resolution proposed at the board meeting on December 9, 2024. The tentative resolution stated, "the District will reimburse the District’s Building Fund 21 the balance of the debt lease financing for the District solar project costs from the bond proceeds from Measure Z".

The resolution was for discussion only and didn't appear at subsequent board meetings.

The solar project was approved on November 2, 2023. According to the presentation, the project is funded with a debt that can be paid off through savings on utility bills. The district starts to save money even with the debt in place. The debt is like a mortgage. If not paid off, the 19 year total payment would be more than $61M.

Pros and Cons of Using Measure Z to Pay Off the Solar Project
Pros:

• The district won't need to pay for the solar debt in the future, which will reduce the expenditure from the general fund (about $1.8M per year).

Cons:

• It will impact the number of new projects Measure Z can support.
• The community may not anticipate or agree with this usage of funds.

Response from resident James:

In general, trans issues probably shouldn't be taught to children, unless proper context is provided. Although there are people who are actually born trans, they tend to be less than 1% of the population.

The massive increase in "trans people" (mental, not genetic or physical) over the last decade or two, is in part due to a "social contagion" aspect, which appears to be bolstered by such widespread media surrounding it.

There are plenty of reasons why people might feel like they "don't fit in," especially, again, in the last decade or two, where the amount of "ways to live" is higher than ever. This doesn't mean that they should be incentivized to pursue life-changing hormones/surgeries with a relatively high incidence of life-long pain/discomfort, both physical and mental.

Also, with regards to the safety of "biological women," "trans women" probably shouldn't be allowed in women's prisons, sports, etc., and perhaps even restrooms, as the increased amount of rapes and injuries is clearly correlated.