Berkeley High School

Endangered science at BHS

December 11, 2009 9:18 am by Lance Knobel

Petri dish

Berkeley High’s School Governance Council voted this week to approve principal Jim Slemp’s latest proposal for a new schedule at BHS. It now goes to the Berkeley Unified School District (although Slemp claims that the proposal doesn’t need BUSD approval).

The most contentious aspect of the new schedule is the elimination of before- and after-school time for science labs. The extra funding that goes to science will be used instead for unspecified “equity grants”, aimed at reducing the achievement gap in the school.

BHS science teachers have written an open letter to the school community. If you’re concerned about the future of science at the school you should read the whole thing, but here’s the key passage:

This proposal flies in the face of the BSEP mandate and the 2020 Vision. The science labs during 0 and 7th periods provide weekly enrichment and satisfy UC and CSU requirements that college prep science classes offer 20% of instructional time for hands-on lab activities. In addition, the extra lab periods provide additional time to support struggling students. The science program meets the goals articulated by both BSEP and the 2020 Vision providing enrichment, support for all students and UC requirements.

The extra time BSEP funding supports allows BHS to maintain an outstanding AP science program. Many of our students take and succeed in three AP level sciences courses as first year courses. Our students’ performance on the AP exams well exceeds the national average. These courses would have to become 2nd year offerings if the labs were eliminated. Approximately 600 students per year enroll in our AP programs. All of our students take Advanced Biology, most take chemistry, physics, or environmental science or anatomy and the extra time provides the support students need to develop a deep understanding of these topics.

The elimination of these labs would reduce instructional time by more than 21% (30% in AP classes). such devastating cuts would force science teachers to eliminate many of the labs that enrich the experience for students by having them “do science”.

It’s difficult to decipher all the signatures, but it looks like the letter is signed by 18 of the school’s science teachers. It calls for parents to phone, email or write to Slemp and the school board to oppose the rescheduling plan.

Parents are also being urged to send a letter to school superintendent William Huyett and to show their support at next week’s meeting of the school board.

Photo by Adam Coster from Flickr

116 Comments

Tagged , , , ,
?
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
  • Max

    As a recent BHS grad, I can say that this is an awful decision. I had a great experience with the BHS science program, and I got a year of college credit out of the way for free (something which cutting labs will take away). My parents aren’t loaded, and BHS’s science labs saved my parents around $5,000 (one year of college science plus textbooks and materials). A lot of my classmates at BHS, (ESPECIALLY those from marginalized groups) simply can’t afford an extra five thousand dollars to get their college science requirements together.

    I’m living in Canada right now, and it’s shocking how much better their public schools are (and how much better those public schools have been at dealing with their own equity gap). Canadian public schools dedicate serious resources to serious subjects – reading, writing, math, and yes, science – and it shows. US schools lag far behind most other developed countries. Worldwide, we’re 21st in science, 25th in math, and 82 percent of public high school students don’t end up getting a college degree. We’re not going to fix the serious problems with our educational system by wasting scarce resources and class time on stuff which doesn’t provide an educational benefit.

    Taking science resources away from students isn’t going to help marginalized youth. It’s going to hurt them. Science labs provide much-needed help for struggling students (they stopped me from failing AP Chemistry) and they save us thousands of dollars in college tuition by providing college credit. Principal Slemp is a nice guy who cares a lot about his students, but he’s totally wrong on this issue.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Deirdre,

    Thank you. I’m in. With the qualifications that (a) I reserve the right to forget, space, or blow-off the meeting for whatever reason without loss of face; (b) As you point out, I’m an outsider to the process coming in so, even in attending, I’m sure to be naive about the work heretofore. Yeah, I’m sure there are “better” things I could do Saturday morning but few that are more worth doing.

    Thanks for the heads up.

    -t

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Max:

    You write: “We’re not going to fix the serious problems with our educational system by wasting scarce resources and class time on stuff which doesn’t provide an educational benefit.”

    Well, nobody on either side is proposing wasing scarce resources and class time on stuff which doesn’t provide an educational benefit so you are attacking a straw-man.

    You write: “Taking science resources away from students isn’t going to help marginalized youth. It’s going to hurt them. Science labs provide much-needed help for struggling students (they stopped me from failing AP Chemistry)”

    You ought to be mature enough as a BHS graduate to know that the mere fact that you qualified to *take* AP Chemistry means that you were *not* a “struggling student” in the sense of that term being used in this discussion. It is interesting that you are not.

    Finally, you account that BHS saved your family $5K on college costs. Now, where did the money come from to pay for that advantage? And how disproportionately was it spent for your benefit? And, how certain are you that you could not have achieved those same savings without the extra science periods, but with improvements in other parts of the curriculum and operation of the school?

  • J Nicholas Gross

    T Lord, you ask Max where did the $$ come from to pay for that advantage?

    How about his parents who paid property tax for 17 years while he was a student?

    How about the fact that if he went to a state public university, that was a class he didn’t have to take that allowed someone else to take it?

    The cost/benefit analysis is not as simple as you make it out… and I submit that if you distort the cost/benefit equation too much against those contributing most of the tax base, there will be a reaction to that as well, either by moving from the area, or simply sending kids to private schools.

    While I can’t speak for Max, what I read between the lines supports this notion, namely, that the incremental $$ are not yielding an equivalent benefit.

    More to the merits, there was a point made by a student from BHS today in the news, I thought it was worth repeating:

    http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/education&id=7200914

    Again I am not convinced the resources are not already there. What I strongly suspect from reading this and other blog posts is that the existing resources are not being used adequately/correctly. I say let’s see first if there are other clues to the “achievement gap” that are rooted more directly in basic parameters like ….attendance or homework completion than race.

    good talkin’ to ya

    JNG

  • J Nicholas Gross

    I realized I didn’t include the student’s quote:

    “Junior Kacey Holt thinks there is a sure way students can help close the gap.

    “I think they need to talk with their teachers and get more tutoring, after school programs, and basically show up for class,” he said.”

  • http://blognabbit.blogspot.com deirdre

    While heavy debate continues about addressing this issue at the high school level, strategies at the elementary and pre-K level seem just as critical or more so. Some things I ponder, as a client of BUSD’s public elementary system:
    *Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Project and other sites indicate that the greatest gains can be made at the pre-K level. Yet the Berkeley Alliance and BUSD seem not to have enlisted California’s “First Five” program in developing their 2020 Vision.
    *The 2020 Vision presents a picture, a vision, for what the future could look like. But what should the measurement be to achieve the vision? I would very much like to see effort made to target various cohorts of BUSD kids to track what’s working and what’s not. Let’s try to agree on just a very few variables that we can spend money to track accurately by following cohorts of kids. Otherwise, kids seem to float in and out of the system across different schools between Berkeley, Oakland, and Emeryville. If we can’t track cohorts, we can’t assess results.
    *The 2020 Vision, and almost any other measure of academic success, makes clear that parental/neighborhood/family involvement are crucial. Yet to those of us parents in the early elementary years, there doesn’t seem to be enough commitment demanded of parents. I wonder if the consequences of not doing homework, of missing school, of showing up late, etc are really being spelled out to enough families at the early grades. As a classroom volunteer, I see these consequences so very clearly even in the first few months of kindergarten. Yet sometimes it seems like staff are fearful of alienating parents by telling them the consequences of this kind of leniency. I get the feeing that some teachers are quite fearful of alienating parents who are already somewhat outside the system. Some teachers at the 4th and 5th grade level are giving parents the harsh reality, but it needs to come sooner.
    *Berkeley prides itself on maintaining one of the nation’s most intensive school integration policies. Does anyone understand whether there is a connection between this policy and our achievement gap? I don’t have an explanation here. I’m just puzzled about it all.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Gross says: “I say let’s see first if there are other clues to the “achievement gap” that are rooted more directly in basic parameters like ….attendance or homework completion than race.”

    Yes, let’s see about that. An efficient means of doing so, well established in practice, is to assign each student an academic adviser and each adviser a manageable number of students. The adviser’s role shall be to communicate to the students the expectations and to offer some guidance about how to achieve that level of basic responsibility. Meanwhile, by pooling and collectively analyzing their notes, the advisers will be able to very directly answer questions about things like “basic performance” (attendance, and such). We want that data – we want that data with high quality – advisors are the efficient way to both get that data and have a simple intervention point for improving the metrics.

    So, we need some money to pay for such advisers. And, there’s not a lot of fat in most places in the system but the advanced science stuff won’t obviously be much harmed by a bit of a trim, at least if the faculty is competent. And here we are.

  • J Nicholas Gross

    Deirdre: your point is critical, b/c I think its unrealistic to expect BHS to rectify such substantial ills in such a short time. You can’t take a child that is already way behind and expect to have them catch up with so little time left on the clock. There should be better measures/data to explain to parents – at the earliest possible ages – what factors are most important in having their children succeed.

  • Maureen Burke

    The latest and lamest explanation for why current science labs are inequitable is that only privileged students can attend labs outside of the regular school day of periods 1-6. Wow. The school day has always been defined as periods 0-7 or more, and was never labeled inequitable until now. This new contorted path of reasoning means the jazz band, lab band, youth orchestra, sports teams, peer tutoring, the Jacket student newspaper and the yearbook will have to be labeled inequitable as well and also receive the axe. This is getting to be like an article out of the Onion.

    Since the principal has repeatedly claimed that Berkeley High must prepare all its students for college, then he has to acknowledge that it requires a minimum of 2 years of lab science classes to be eligible for the CSUs and 3 years for the UCs. For all students. So I guess the original storyline that science labs are only for privileged students fell flat from a lack of internal logic and they’re trying out this latest narrative.

    I wonder what the reason for science labs during 0 or 7th period being inequitable will be next week?

    http://www.reddit.com has picked up the story and there are over 1,300 comments there.

  • Carol Lashof and Bill Newton

    We applaud the recent decision by Berkeley High School to integrate science labs into the regular school day.

    When our older daughter was at BHS, she took three AP Science classes and received perfect scores on the corresponding exams, so we appreciate the value of the AP science program and very much hope that these courses will remain available for all students who are ready for them.

    But for every science-obsessed teenager who happily spends several hours a day on challenging physics or chemistry problems, there are many more who struggle through AP science courses short of sleep, anxiety-ridden, and even paying $80/hour for private tutoring. Under the current system, many students feel pressured to enroll in AP science courses beginning in their sophomore year. And if they resist this pressure, they may find that the level of their classes is below the appropriate standard because so many of the more ambitious students have opted for AP classes. Science courses ordinarily offered to 9th-11th grade students should be rigorous college-preparatory courses. And it should be possible for these courses to be taught effectively within the regular six-period school day, as are all other such core academic classes.

  • Karen Hemphill

    For me, the focus of this discussion is that the current practice of having science labs only conducted during zero and 7th period (before and after the mandated school day) is out of compliance with standard pedagogy, national practice, and possibly even the California Education Code. This is a SEPARATE issue than the discussion around how best to address the achievement gap and the two should never have been intertwined.

    Quite frankly, I was shocked to discover that science lab was regularly taught 0/7 period. How can a core academic class have a course requirement only available to be taken outside of regular, mandated school hours? How can a core requirement (science lab) be considered “enrichment”? Its not enrichment is part of what’s required for high school level science. Also, according to district records, the Board has never approved an extension of the school day for science lab, so its not clear to me how science lab conducted this way is an authorized part of a science class grade.

    Addressing these issues WILL be a challenge in what is likely to be ugly financial times as the State’s budget deficit is only getting worse but the District has to find a way to have science labs within mandated school hours. As Board President, I have asked the Superintendent to have the high school make a proposal to have science lab as part of the mandated school day in late January/early February for implementation next year. As yet, this issue has only been discussed at the high school NOT at the Board.

    I am VERY committed to quality science education (daughter of a behavioral psychologist and married to an astrophysicist – consider myself a liberal arts science “geek”) and absolutely see this issue as critical to establishing a quality science program at the high school. I understand the concern that incorporating science lab within the school day may result in less instructional time (and look forward to the high school addressing this concern in its new science proposal) but conducting science lab only outside of mandated school hours is simply not a tenable way to continue.

    Karen Hemphill

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    It’s unclear to me what, exactly, the presumed difference is between “instructional time” and “lab time”. I remember my lab periods as being chock full of instruction. Conversely, I remember many, many *lecture* periods where it would have been vastly more efficient to skip the lecture and instead hand out a few pages of annotated “slide”.

    People keep saying that folding the labs into the ordinary periods will cut down on instructional time. Well, I don’t think any course should be taking more than 6 hours per week, and ideally 5, and perhaps 4. Every hour in the course should be “instructional”, even the ones where kids have a test tube or some frog guts in their hands. Lectures are usually the *least* efficient way to spend instructional time, in many subjects.

  • laura menard

    Karen,

    I am “shocked” that you claim to “shocked” about the purposeful dismantling of double period science by the small school advocates, the very folks who elected you to school board and worked your campaign. How is it possible that you missed this? especially since the moving of labs to 0 and 7th was discussed repeatedly at election forums.

    I strongly suggest the school board review the 7 period day schedule potential: including on-campus lunch, resource period mandated for below proficient students in math and English, advisory as an elective and expand the music program, including choral as per Logan High model.

  • Maureen Burke

    Ms. Hemphill writes:

    “For me, the focus of this discussion is that the current practice of having science labs only conducted during zero and 7th period (before and after the mandated school day) is out of compliance with standard pedagogy, national practice, and possibly even the California Education Code. This is a SEPARATE issue than the discussion around how best to address the achievement gap and the two should never have been intertwined.”

    How could the issue of science labs and equity not be intertwined, given that the SGC voted to take money from science labs and give it to undefined Equity Grants? The 12/08/09 SGC minutes state:
    “The SGC will review proposals for Equity Grants that will utilize the enhancement money that is equivalent to 6.0 FTE and is primarily used for science labs.”

    As for whether there is a violation of the Ed Code, I applaud BUSD for finally showing some concern for this issue. Perhaps the blatant, long-term and ongoing Ed Code violation of the high school’s SGC composition will finally be addressed (see Ed Code sec 52852 on parity).

    And if indeed there is a concern over possible Ed Code violations in offering required courses during a newly defined part of the day that is not now considered the regular school day, the public would appreciate a citation of the specific statute.

    Ed Code sec 37253(a) states:
    “The governing board of any school district and a charter school may offer supplemental instructional programs in mathematics, science, or other core academic areas designated by the Superintendent of Public Instruction.” This statute supports offering science labs in zero/seventh periods. Let’s not play semantic games with the meaning of supplemental in its above use, or hopefully not pit lawyer against lawyer.

    Regarding what constitutes a school day, the School Board voted on a bell schedule last June that started with zero period at 7:30 a.m. and ended with seventh period at 3:30 pm.

    This newly found concern over classes that take place during zero and/or seventh period is confounding. For years many classes have been scheduled for zero/seventh periods. A partial list of classes (many required) offered during zero/seventh periods in the 2001/2002 school year include:
    Writing, AP Literature, World Media, Yearbook, Social Living, English Backup, Integrated Science I, Advanced Bio, IMP 2A, Honors Geometry, Geometry, Advanced Photo, Ceramics 1, Jazz Band, Chorus, Badminton, Soccer, Team Sports, French 7/8, ELD, AP Spanish, Spanish 3/4, Spanish 1/2, Journalism, World Lit, American Lit, Jacket/Journalism, Common Ground US History, CAS Best History, American Govt., Algebra 2, Math Analysis, Algebra 1, C++, Drawing, Band, and more.

    I truly do not understand this newly found concern over course offerings during zero/seventh periods. Hopefully the public will learn before school starts next year what other activities will be affected such as the yearbook, the Jacket newspaper, the jazz band, the orchestra, and more. And if only science labs are axed, it will be interesting to follow that path of reasoning.

    There are numerous examples of BHS not following standard pedagogy or national practice and I would not put science labs in first or last period as an example of such. But if there really is concern over this issue, then perhaps BHS will stop forcing students to enroll in IMP math, which is used in less than 1% of California schools and has been characterized by Professor Wu at UC Berkeley (former chair of the math dept) as completely ineffective.

    I can only scratch my head at this latest rationale for reducing academic instructional minutes in science classes.

  • Maureen Burke

    A correction to my previous post: BHS 7th period ends at about 4:15, not 3:30.

  • laura menard

    Thanks Maureen,

    Adding to the COMPLIANCE issues,

    Karen could you please explain when will the school board require BHS prepare a School Safety plan as required by SB 187? We did have some pretty strong earthquakes last year!

    I reestablished the safety committee in 2001 and over the next two years we steadily developed a functioning committee. Then Jim Slemp was hired. He did not want the school community to know what kind of problems existed so he squashed the committee, lied and submitted the same plan I drafted in 2003 for the next four years. Every year the SGC (Carol Lashof) would rubber stamp the same document without any review for implementation or accountability. In 2007 and 2008 I filed a series of formal complaints. Neither the school board nor the Supt ever bothered to respond to any of the complaints which are a requirement under state law, so the complaint automatically goes to the CDE. Eventually BUSD was scheduled for a Compliance Program Monitoring process, specifically regarding Slemp misuse of a grant and his refusal to allow the community to review the results of CA Health Kids Survey. However BUSD was spared that scrutiny when the monitoring process was canceled due to state budget crisis.

    BUSD is more political than most districts, there is always a hidden agenda, and rarely is there transparency, community involvement or compliance with state law. This has got to stop, these our kids and this is their future. Hoping your kid gets through BHS ok is not good enough.

    For a good example read today Planet’s coverage of a recent violent incident and recognize the missing piece, a capable engaged principal.

    http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2010-01-07/article/34451?headline=Teenagers-Arrested-in-Downtown-Fight-Arrests-Made-in-West-Berkeley-Shooting

    Do not renew Slemp’s contract, how can the board support an executive who consistently retaliates against parents, students and teachers while ignoring critical responsibilities to the community.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Ms. Menard,

    You are challenging the governance council on the grounds of a statute which says their must be “parity” between representatives from the school, and representatives of parents and students.

    According to the Berkeley Daily Planet, the council has 20 members from the school, and 8 representing parents and students.

    “Parity” would have been substantively violated if and only if, in the case at hand, 5 or more of the parent student representatives were opposed to the action plan.

    My question to you is a simple factual question: how many of those 8 voted “nay”? If the answer is 5 or more, I think your technical challenge has merit. If the answer is 3 or less, I think your technical challenge is frivolous. If the answer is 4, then we do indeed have an Interesting Situation that would give your challenge considerable merit (in my opinion).

    What was the actual vote?

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Also, you write: “For a good example read today Planet’s coverage of a recent violent incident and recognize the missing piece, a capable engaged principal. [... see link above ...]”

    Nothing in the article you cite justifies your “missing piece” accusation.

    You also say:

    “Do not renew Slemp’s contract, how can the board support an executive who consistently retaliates against parents, students and teachers while ignoring critical responsibilities to the community.”

    I’m not sure you have to exhort so. I’m increasingly convinced that you and a handful of others will run the guy out of town without a lot of additional effort. I’m also increasingly convinced that that will be a damn shame if it comes to pass.

  • Maureen Burke

    Regarding rules for the high school’s SGC per Ed Code sec 52852:

    “At the secondary level the council shall be constituted to ensure
    parity between (a) the principal, classroom teachers and other school
    personnel; and (b) equal numbers of parents, or other community
    members selected by parents, and pupils.”

    The Berkeley High SGC has 22% community (4 parents, 4 students) and 77% school representatives (27 principal, teachers, classified staff). It has been this way for years, despite the Ed Code quoted above which calls for 50% community and 50% high school representatives.

    A complaint was filed about this violation years ago with BUSD, so the school board was informed of this but chose not to pursue the matter.

    To make things worse, not only does the principal try to ensure only his supporters are on the SGC, but the school representatives who do not support the principal’s plans are subject to retribution.

    Whether one agrees or disagrees with the principal’s views on education, this situation is illegal and the school board has failed to ensure that the district is run in accordance with the California Education Code.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Ms. Burke, my problem with your interpretation is the definition of “parity” and structure of the paragraph in question. Parsing it out, it says that there should be parity between groups (a) and (b). It also describes who is in group (a) and who is group (b).

    So, there has to parity between school folks on the one side (group (a)) and parents and students on the other (group (b)).

    Parity, however, does not have to mean numerically equal representation. It only requires that both groups (a) and groups (b) have the same power.

    By analogy, the federal House and Senate have parity on most legislative matters: both must pass a bill before it can be sent to the President and either may block the bill. So they have parity. But in a bar fight, the Senate would be badly outnumbered – more than four to one.

    That’s why I think it matters whether or not there was a *substantive* violation of parity in this matter which would be the case if the 8 parent/student representatives voted 5-3 or worse against. If the parent/student vote was 4-4, that would especially highlight that the voting rules are messed up need reform. But if the vote was 3-5 or better in favor, then no substantive violation of parity would seem to have occurred.

    The state law you cite is pretty intrusive and micro-managing. It’s pretty remarkable law in that way. At the same time, it appears to be deliberately constructed so as to *not* dictate such details as how many council members there will be, how they are selected, how often they meet, what voting procedures they use, etc. The only constraint of relevance there is “parity” — “equal power” — between groups (a) and (b).

    If the council as currently chartered and run uses a simple majority vote, allowing a majority of parent/student reps to be overridden, then yes there is a technical violation there. If that technical violation had no impact on outcomes, though, then its a minor technical issue that’s easily fixed. The fix does not *have* to mean increasing the number of parent/student representatives.

  • laura menard

    Thomas,

    Slemp is a known liability to the BUSD by the Supt, board and the entire district staff. More importantly contrary to your suggestion parents (however capable and persistent) do not have the power you suggest. There are limited systems for accountability in public education.

    It is principal Slemp who is responsible for the consent decree imposed on BUSD a few years ago. Yet he still hasn’t learned from his mistakes, this fall he tried the same nonsense, finally the district stepped in, since it is costly to maintain the necessary legal support and takes district staff away from actually helping kids. Education dollars wasted because of poor practice by a rogue principal.

    Slemp is notorious for not maintaining student suspension documentation and then when the shit hits the fan because the student has injured his 20th victim, under pressure from teachers Slemp demands the district transfer the kid. This is what really happened in the lawsuit for “alleged” discrimination and the resulting legal monitoring. Supt Lawrence selected a fall guy to cover for Slemp. This is yet another story local papers missed.

    As for my complaint regarding SB 187 compliance and the complaint about site council rules, there are separate but followed the same process. The district still does not comply with the formal complaint process even after the earlier state audit resulted in the district having to publish the parent student handbook informing the community of their rights. I know because this one of reforms I contributed to this community.

    Thomas if you really are that interested in the history of district efforts to comply with site council governance read through school board minutes over the last ten years. The fact the Supt attended a governance meeting last week with the policy subcommittee says is all. You might find it interesting to know that when during the years I served on the PTA council one of our best efforts was to organize the fall site council training session for all K-12 teams provided by the county board of education trainers. We are pleased that the district has adopted this practice and hope the high school governance team will finally participate. I am also waiting to see BUSD take advantage of the county resources for school safety planning. Until my complaint was resolved Berkeley was the only district in the county that had never attended any Safe School training programs. I had implicitly stated in my complaint that the matter could be resolved by simply sending staff to attend the CDE training and use the excellent resources they make available. Gee how reasonable is that, I get it you would like to paint me and others are angry righteous complainers. Just stop, it won’t fly.

    As to the Planet coverage about the after school violence, I am the parent in the story, and the situation was far more problematic than described.
    The point I was making again is the ABSENT principal, it is a well known to BPD, city of Berkeley officials and the general community that Slemp is hands off with school safety and has refused to send supervision downtown at lunch or afterschool to the various hotspots. Last year the new Supt finally publicly stated at a 2×2 meeting that the ed code’s section duty to protect applies, and that the school should be sending supervisor or admin downtown during off campus lunch period. Also in the reporting take note, Ng and Keys are classified employees; they are not in a position of authority to make statements to the press on student status. Interesting that Keys the “lead” safety officer selected by Slemp to input student discipline and crime data into the records system states that he cannot determine if the teens were students. Hmmm……

    My utter lack of trust in Slemp is far more than personal as I have helped numerous parents whose kids were victims of serious crimes and the school staff failed miserably. Thomas based on your online enthusiastic interest in education I would have enjoyed your participation in those open public meetings where parents developed strategies to right these wrongs.

    as to the question of is it personal, absolutely, and I still pride myself on being one of the people who can make Slemp put his head in his hands and sweat. One of my sons was cheated a decent high school education and placed in a difficult position because of Slemp’s abdication for student safety. My kid is the stand up in the Express story Party 2 nite R U Goin, once labeled snitch he received dozens of threats, some from school computers, I provided all the evidence to Slemp who refused to take disciplinary action.

    see ya, gotta get back to the plaster repairs.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Ms. Menard,

    I appreciate your comments. I also think I don’t want to draw this particular thread between us out into an argument right here right now. That’s for a couple of reasons: I’m somewhat aware of some of the s-t that has come down on you and your family in recent years and what I’ve heard of happening to you folks just plain isn’t right, no matter what. And I can see how it would tend to “radicalize” a person on these political matters, even if I don’t entirely agree that that radicalization is the wise direction. Also, I’m somewhat aware of your substantial engagement in civic matters and fully believe that you are privy to a perspective that is only imperfectly reflected in the press, even if there some points here or there where I think your conclusions are bogus. Penultimately, I don’t think it’s critical that either of us “win” the debate, here and now, on points about which we disagree. Finally, I think the emerging discussion not just here but city-wide is making progress – so we can be a little bit relaxed about sorting out what differences we may have.

    All that said, I went back and reviewed what I could find about Slemp and the consent decree and so forth. I really don’t share your conclusions although I do think you have some important and valid criticisms among what you say. We’ll see.

    On the legal issues around the governance council, I still think you are fighting a purely technical and tactical battle of little substance and that the most likely outcome is that you help to waste a lot of time money in a court of equity where your technical correctness will be acknowledged but little else will change (and for valid reasons). I think you’re barking up the wrong tree, there.

    Lastly, I had the great pleasure today of attending a community meeting for the 2020 plan (thanks Deidre, even though you sent me to the wrong address and I had to bike back across town in a hurry! :-)

    I was really impressed not just with the agenda but also with the very skilled approach to that agenda.

    Were you there? (I’m not sure what you look like although I gather we live within a few blocks of one another.) What are your feelings about the 2020 plan and process?

    Regards,
    -t

    p.s.: hope the plaster went well.

  • laura menard

    Thomas in answer to your question,
    1. Couple of years ago I was responsible for insisting the Berkeley Alliance meetings comply with the brown act so agendas and minutes would posted for public review. That took two years of reminders to city attorney and city manager.
    2. BIRI recommendations are superior to 2020 recommendations,
    see report on Alliance website
    3.Selawsky and Issel comments during the joint session are the right place to start
    4. Nice to see Hemphill pressing the city to build data collection capacity
    (2×2 minutes), in particular a tool called the shared youth data archive, used for multi-agencies case management and program evaluation (I have been promoting this for over a decade after my husband built one of the first for SF)
    5. Truancy, AOD and neighborhood environmental prevention should get at least the same attention as UIA hyper focus on racism.

    Other than those starters Thomas why would you ask a damaged radical (your description) whose conclusions are “bogus” for an opinion?
    To speak for myself, I think it sad that you missed the importance of what I have actually accomplished.
    1. Both my kids are excellent examples of how to support youth resiliency, health and academic potential despite grave obstacles, the very model of what 2020 claims to be concerned about. They were raised in the targeted neighborhoods identified by city public health dept for health and academic disparities. We do check race or ethnicity boxes. We are individuals.
    2. Unlike most parents who have endured school administrative abuses/ failures so great as to cause children failure to thrive, I chose to work on the solutions to protect all kids from such injustices.
    3. I have demonstrated how not to suffer the provincial thinking that cripples Berkeley.
    4. I am not a “privileged white hill person” by any means. I am not a college grad. I graduated from a continuation program.
    5. I contributed enormously to environmental prevention in addressing the conditions which give rise to social disorder and crime in south Berkeley. Neighborhood is in fact a far more accurate predictor of academic achievement than race. My husband recently mapped Oakland kids for math proficiency, the results follow what national research tells us, property is a primary predicator of academic success.
    6. My husband builds the very tools for cities, counties, school districts that Berkeley continues to be incapable of accomplishing. Therefore during my years of youth services advocacy I had information which I shared with officials, some of which was incorporated in what is developing now.
    7. The district/city AOD committee is a result of my persistent advocacy.

    And contrary to your conclusion Thomas, we did succeed. But we still need a new administrator at BHS who does not spend 50% of his time visioning.

  • TL’s new friend

    Dear Thomas,

    Gadflying for fun and public appointment (or office) is a cherished tradition in Berkeley. The opportunities abound: rent board, the ZAB etc.. And once ensconced in the collegial atmosphere of these bodies you’ll find the necessity of presenting thoughtful opinion drops off considerably. However, here, in a forum featuring both equal access and many bright non-choir members, one must guard against (over) exposing one’s actual reasoning capacity.

  • laura menard

    I meant to write

    We do NOT check race/ethnicity boxes.

  • TL’s new friend

    Dear Thomas,

    A p.s. re: Style.

    “Penultimately”! – (from your last response to Ms. Menard) A thesaurus corrupts, an online thesaurus corrupts absolutely.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    You write: “2. BIRI recommendations are superior to 2020 recommendations,
    see report on Alliance website.”

    There is considerable overlap between, for example, the 2007 “Schools Mental Health Strategic Plan” and the 2020 vision. ULSS (Unversal Learning Supports System) is an element of the 2020 plan. It’s unclear to me that there is a contest here between competing plans.

    You write: “4. Nice to see Hemphill pressing the city to build data collection capacity (2×2 minutes), in particular a tool called the shared youth data archive, used for multi-agencies case management and program evaluation (I have been promoting this for over a decade after my husband built one of the first for SF)”

    I think you’ll therefore find it to be good news that expanding data collection capacity, as well as integrating collected data into ongoing strategic planning, is a key element of the 2020 vision. One nice aspect of how the 2020 process is run is that it concentrates first on organizing: bringing all stake-holder institutions and individuals to the table to help refine the vision, agree on priorities, and agree on multi-institution implementation strategies.

    The school board and other agencies are, of course, free to unilaterally begin implementing any part of the 2020 vision themselves, at any time. That is apparently happening in several areas. The 2020 process can improve the outcome of such efforts by helping to coordinate agencies and helping to solicit improvements to plans from diverse sources.

    (Ms. Hemphill was at the 2020 meeting, for what it is worth.)

    You write: “5. Truancy, AOD and neighborhood environmental prevention should get at least the same attention as UIA hyper focus on racism.”

    I suspect you will find that the best predictor for truancy, AOD troubles, and neighborhood environmental problems in Berkeley is… race. The 2020 vision is aiming to attack all three, in no small part by seeking a better understanding of and remedies for their systemic causes.

    You ask: “Other than those starters Thomas why would you ask a damaged radical (your description) whose conclusions are “bogus” for an opinion?”

    As I said: I think that some of your criticisms are valid and I believe you have a lot of knowledge of the history and the situation.

    Also, it’s a fine point, but I didn’t call you a “damaged radical”. I said that your position on some of these issues (e.g., “fire Slemp!”) is radicalized. And, well, they are (e.g., “fire Slemp!” is, in the current climate, a radical demand). Holding a radicalized position on some issues doesn’t make a person “a radical”. Similarly, I have no idea and make no claims as to whether or not you are a “damaged” person but we are all human and traumatic events can change our ways of thinking about some issues in ways that others are not automatically right to follow.

    You write: “I think it sad that you missed the importance of what I have actually accomplished.”

    I didn’t realize that we were here to talk about *you* but, ok, let’s see:

    “1. Both my kids are excellent examples of how to support youth resiliency, health and academic potential despite grave obstacles, the very model of what 2020 claims to be concerned about. They were raised in the targeted neighborhoods identified by city public health dept for health and academic disparities. We do check race or ethnicity boxes. We are individuals.”

    Congratulations on your kids successes!

    I have contemplated but can’t really figure out why you say “We do check race or ethnicity boxes. We are individuals.” The latter statement seems tautological. I gather that the former statement was intended to be somehow pointed but don’t see what the point might be.

    “2. Unlike most parents who have endured school administrative abuses/ failures so great as to cause children failure to thrive, I chose to work on the solutions to protect all kids from such injustices.”

    Again, congratulations. I’m sure it has been very hard, self-sacrificing work all the way. You are privileged to have had the education level, ability to make the time, money, and a cultural background that gave you some confidence operating among the “corridors of power”, so to speak. I gather than many parents who share such privilege don’t try to help in those ways so you have every reason to brag.

    “5. I contributed enormously to environmental prevention in addressing the conditions which give rise to social disorder and crime in south Berkeley. Neighborhood is in fact a far more accurate predictor of academic achievement than race. My husband recently mapped Oakland kids for math proficiency, the results follow what national research tells us, property is a primary predicator of academic success.”

    The 2020 folks report differently. They claim to have done correlation tests for a wide range of academic performance measurements and many other variables: race, location, and socio-economic class. Per them, in Berkeley, race consistently came out as the strongest predictor.

    Peer reviewed studies of Berkeley would be helpful, at this point.

    That said, environmental conditions are obviously a very large part of many problems. We can agree on at least that abstract point.

    “6. My husband builds the very tools for cities, counties, school districts that Berkeley continues to be incapable of accomplishing. Therefore during my years of youth services advocacy I had information which I shared with officials, some of which was incorporated in what is developing now.”

    That’s an interesting disclosure. I’m a software engineer. Is there a web site on which I can read about the systems of which you speak?

    “7. The district/city AOD committee is a result of my persistent advocacy. ”

    From the news reporting I had the impression that a much larger group of people did and led the work that led to the committee and formed its charter and initial agenda. Do I stand corrected? Were they all idle on the matter without your advocacy?

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Ms. Menard, two quick things:

    You write: “I meant [...] ‘We do NOT check race/ethnicity boxes.’”

    I still don’t see your point. I am guessing you are saying that you believe society should be rigorously “colorblind”? Or that the data about racial disparities in Berkeley are skewed?

    In any event, I am struck by the contrast in tone and approach between the 2020 meeting and your messages. They seem pretty skilled at building broad bases of support and bringing about cheerful and enthusiastic inter-agency cooperation. They also seem a lot less dogmatic about race than I think you think they are. Please consider digging in.

    One area that interests me to which it sounds like your husband could also contribute expertise would be reviewing and recomputing their number crunching. You have an interest in transparency. So one project might be to get 2020 to release its data sets, information about their provenance, and a detailed (mathematically formal) description of what kind of analyses they performed (and how the data was handled). As friendly skeptics, we could make sure that this data gets on the web. Highlight its gaps and areas where quality is in question. And double check their math and computations. We could also test alternative theories (such as location being the main predictor) against the same data.

  • TL’s new friend

    To those whose stomach’s turn reading such “Socratic Method for Dummies” inspired responses to Ms. Menard and other long time contributing members of our community , I suggest the following.

    1. Demand, via email to the school board, that the BHS SGC meetings be recorded and broadcast on our public access channel.

    2. Tivo the broadcasts and invite your neighborhood stakeholders over for refreshments and viewing.

    Only then will all of us be able to see such intriguing developments as the bum’s rush given to the superintendent and the two board members who attended the last SGC meeting in hopes of opening a dialogue between the two bodies. Only then will Slemp’s scowling, gum smacking arms folded, brilliant performance of contempt (for the board attendees) be fully appreciated. Hear for yourself the horror stories of when , years ago, the SGC had nearly been co-opted by “well funded and connected” (white?) parents. Marvel at the unity, the inevitable (yet purely coincidental) oneness of voice with which challenges are identified and remedies sought.

    If that doesn’t spur you to action, you deserve the results.

  • laura menard

    “There is considerable overlap between, for example, the 2007 “Schools Mental Health Strategic Plan” and the 2020 vision. ULSS (Universal Learning Supports System) is an element of the 2020 plan. It’s unclear to me that there is a contest here between competing plans.”

    Good question but a better question would be is how well the district is doing implementing this system. The answer is this year the program is not staffed when I checked a month ago.

    You see Thomas, Berkeley is great on buzz words compliant essay contests, grants and the like, lousy on system implementation or sustainability. The one constant so far is Berkeley rarely delivers, but is great is job creation.
    And yea, why did the school board cave to the city council political pressure to adopt the 2020 plan rather than follow the BIRI recommendations and actually implement BIRI first?

    Since you are new to all of this, check in with Alliance director about the process of convincing UIA that BIRI was useful.

    Jay works for RDA and prior to that the Oakland Forum, which is the model for the Alliance, town gown relationship. So I have seen this process from before it fully launched.

    There isn’t much you can explain to me about truancy or AOD prevention in Berkeley. The city’s AOD action plan uses our BAPAC prevention recommendations.

  • laura menard

    One nice aspect of how the 2020 process is run is that it concentrates first on organizing: bringing all stake-holder institutions and individuals to the table to help refine the vision, agree on priorities, and agree on multi-institution implementation strategies.

    If only this was true……..

  • Charles Bryant

    I’d like to thank Wanda Brown for raising an important point regarding the failure of leadership at BHS. She wrote:

    “I went to the public meetings last year where parents were supposed to be able to say what they thought about the high school redesign. Let me tell you, I have never been treated so badly in my entire life and I was told I couldn’t talk.”

    Welcome to the club, Wanda.

    Having been involved in the earlier AHA math controversy at the start of the school year, in which AHA had offered math options to incoming freshmen, who signed up for courses in the 8th grade, and when school started, all those students who elected a math option other than IMP, were told there would no math options available for AHA students, who didn’t test into advanced courses. despite a full range of math course offerings available at BHS.

    Most all the other parents involved in this controversy and I encountered a brick wall when trying to discuss this “bait and switch” tactic with the administration. Each and every one us were treated by the BHS administration in a condescending and dismissive manner. Many were told that the administration knew what was best for our students, and if we thought otherwise, we were somehow misguided, uninformed and/or opposed to equity in education. It is these very tactics of pitting one group against the other, parents against parents, teachers against teachers, small schools against the larger school, that is hindering improvement to the educational programs and opportunities at BHS.

    I think the recent statement by Mr. Slemp, as reported in the Planet, speaks volumes about how the current administration operates at BHS. He said, in effect, that he could do whatever he wanted to do as far as scheduling and academic programs were concerned and that he didn’t need the Board’s or anyone else’s permission to do so. He says he will present any proposed changes to the Board and others as a courtesy.

    I honestly believe that every single parent, teacher, and community member wants the best educational opportunities available for every kid and all would like to see the achievement gap closed. We may not all agree on every aspect of how we may accomplish these task, but by acknowledging that we all have the same concerns, inviting broader community and parent input, and providing a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of existing programs, I think we can move incrementally in the right direction without widespread changes.

    This toxic culture of divisiveness, dismissing out of hand all other views, which don’t conform to theirs, and the failure to treat parents, teachers and community members with the proper respect, evolves from the top down. BHS will never make progress on these important issues without new leadership; one that can support an open, inclusive process that unites people and build a true consensus on the best way to improve education at BHS. We need new leadership that believes in treating all parents, teachers and community members as if they matter.

    Slemp, it’s time to move on, and let BHS get back on track and move forward.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Ms. Menard:

    You write: “If only this was true…”

    At this point, you are accusing a heck of a lot of people and signatory instutions, from many parts of society here, of conspiring in what would be a an easily exposed lie. You’re accusing everyone from Max Anderson to the Dean of Admissions (I forget the precise title) at Cal. You’re accusing some BHS teachers. You’re accusing Hemphill. The list goes on.

    You also comment, rather perplexingly, that the 2020 program is not “staffed” by BUSD. That appears to betray a deep misunderstanding of what’s going on.

    You also comment about why City council rejected BIRI recommendations and accepted 2020. Given that the Berkeley Aliance seems to promote the more comprehensive 2020 plan, I think you are wasting your time.

    You mention that BAPAC recommendations were incorporated into the Alcohol / Drug committee work but this hardly makes the committee “the result of your advocacy”.

    I think I don’t trust the people working 2020 uncritically. I think I don’t trust you uncritically. I think their outreach is really exemplary. I think your outreach is looking a bit tattered around the edges. I think that on substantive matters you and they aren’t that far apart and are both on plausibly good tracks.

    Mrs. Robinson, to turn the old quote around, I think we’d like to seduce you.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Bryant writes: “I think the recent statement by Mr. Slemp, as reported in the Planet, speaks volumes about how the current administration operates at BHS. He said, in effect, that he could do whatever he wanted to do as far as scheduling and academic programs were concerned and that he didn’t need the Board’s or anyone else’s permission to do so. He says he will present any proposed changes to the Board and others as a courtesy.”

    Slemp’s statement would appear to be a factual statement about the legal structure and a political statement about his modes of communication. If you want to criticize the “powers of the principal”, what legislative changes do you propose?

  • TL’s new friend

    Comedienne Wanda Sykes does a sharp bit in in her new HBO special. She asks: “Why are they spending time and money trying to find out what Michael Jackson died of…We KNOW what he died of. He died of Michael Jackson! And he had a long time.”

    Likewise, Berkeley is sick from Berkeley. We’ve had it a long time:

    Since the encrusted entitled were allowed to wrap themselves in the mantle past glories, (yet without the stature they keep tripping on it, ending up saying sorry to the Marines, tree sitting and now the science labs.)

    Since the city’s been run by a a few hundred who’ve leveraged Berkeley’s intellectual and moral credibility into substantial and sustainable publicly funded incomes.

    Since our renown tolerance devolved into listless resignation over social expectations so low only bloody murder is a actionable offense these days. (Two years and a million bucks to pass a law that says we really ,really, mean those other laws about not crapping in the street, public drunkenness and extorting money form passers by?!)

    Since the city government started hating on the University. How frightening a meritocracy must be to our sacred cows – the continual moving forward, the questioning of commonly held beliefs, the disorienting desire for results. Admit it or not, without UC there’d be no here here. No grand movements, no national profile, no money, just Chez Pannisse in the heart of South Albany.

    This outrage over the BHS science labs is the first encouraging sign in a long time that Berkeley may yet recover from Berkeley.

  • TL’s new friend

    correction, that’s “…in the mantle OF past glories.”

  • TL’s new friend

    correction, that’s “He died of Michael Jackson! And he had IT a long time.”

  • Maureen Burke

    Ms. Hemphill, president of the Berkeley School Board, writes above:
    “For me, the focus of this discussion is that the current practice of having science labs only conducted during zero and 7th period (before and after the mandated school day) is out of compliance with standard pedagogy, national practice, and possibly even the California Education Code. This is a SEPARATE issue than the discussion around how best to address the achievement gap and the two should never have been intertwined.”

    Here’s what the BUSD Superintendent says:

    “To require students to come to school before or after school, as part of your required courses during school, just doesn’t seem very equitable to many of us,” Huyett said.

    http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/education&id=7200914

    As a former PR hack, here’s some advice, BUSD–get your stories straight before you go public.

  • laura menard

    Right on TL’s new friend,

    Consider the millions the city has been spent for over two decades avoiding the abatement of the infamous drug house that is FINALLY being boarded up this morning. The city has a major operation going on as I write. And what did it take to get the city to do its primary job (public safety) we had to go to the grand jury to force accountability.

    In SF community groups concerned about AA and Latino drop out rates went to the grand jury back in the mid ’90s. The resulting report identified racial paternalism as the primary reason why both the school and city agencies were unwilling to enforce truancy laws. The current prosecution by the DA for educational neglect by parents is the first honest action to close the “parent gap”.

    TL ask the 2020 folks why their report still has a placeholder for a truancy prevention plan.

    As to being seduced, I don’t do Kumbaya, especially with group whose leadership is hostile to families who have actually experiences REAL not perceived discrimination in our schools. UIA leader Michael Miller wrote me a couple of years ago one sentence “I don’t care what concerns you”.

    TL I have been trying not to react to your smug condescension, but dude you really are clueless.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    “[my] new friend”,

    There is *some* truth to what you say.

    For example, there would very possibly have been no City of Berkeley at all were it not for the school that became Cal. Perhaps we would be living in Oakland, or Richmond, or the City of Oceanside, or Ashby City.

    I would also one-up you and say that, were it not for Cal, we would not have Chez Panisse at all (or Peet’s, or Goines, or Ginsberg, or Telegraph-as-we-know-it, or….

    Were it not for Cal, I wonder if Ronald Reagan could ever have been elected president! (Where would he have gotten his social conservative creds with no place to which to send the national guard?)

    For that matter, without Cal, perhaps we would be living in a Japanese, Chinese, Russian, or German occupied territory!

    This is a fun game!

    And, yes, the vast conspiracy in favor of street-crapping is a constant and annoying presence at nearly any public civic gathering. I began to recognize how out of control it was that time when at a neighborhood earthquake preparedness meeting some snaggletoothed greying old hippy – a renter, mind you, not even a home owner – stood amidst the discussions of water barrels and first aid kits to say “Yes, yes, all of that is well and good but how does any of it advance, even one iota, our fundamental right to crap in the streets?” He punctuated his remarks with a personal demonstration sending three ladies and two gentlemen to their feinting couches before a heroic marine leaped into action and selflessly threw the first teenager upon whom he could lay hands atop the ordinance, to smother the blast.

    Which brings me to my serious point (my gosh, I actually almost have one):

    Let’s stipulate, although it is oversimplified, that Berkeley has long suffered from a case of being Berkeley – so to speak.

    The question arises as to the best treatment plan. Is there any hope for the patient? Perhaps purely paliative care terminating in assisted suicide is the most humane course? Or perhaps there is hope for a full recovery?

    Here is my question for you – my perhaps, how did you put it, nauseatingly Socratic Method for Dummies question:

    Is the best treatment here to aggravate by lampooning the wounds of stereotyping and polarization that divide local political discourse, all the while pointing to a variety of “social conservative” talking points as the prima facie One True Way? Or, might (in their dying breaths) those crazy lefties have a bit of point that the way forward is by establishing social mores and practices for conducting a friendly, inclusive civic discussion in which the name calling you illustrate isn’t at all prohibited, it just doesn’t get much rewarded – only frankly discussed and then set aside.

    If the proposal to alter the science lab schedule goes down, I hope it goes down for good reasons and not simply as a defeat of one set of political rivals by another. This is one of those times when the cliched admonishment applies: “Think of the children! Won’t someone please think of the children?!” It is by no means obvious that the reduction in science hours or moving of labs to regular periods is especially harmful to even a single BHS student. It seems quite plausible that the redirection of resources can benefit quite a few students. In an enlightened discourse, as contrasted with a snarky stand-up routine, we ought to be examining carefully how true those appearances are. When we resort to attacking old enemies, engaging in ad hominem, cracking rude jokes — I don’t think we’re good examples of enlightenment thinkers, do you?

    And hey, while I’ve got you, I’ll reiterate an idea I’ve mentioned before but that I still think could have legs. I’ll state it differently this time:

    Education and college prep doesn’t have to and is probably better if it does not come entirely from the high school. High school kids are transitioning to emancipation and adulthood. High school is a good age to start kicking them out of the system, at least a little, and getting them out into the “real world”.

    And here in Berkeley we are, as you rightly point out, highly privileged to have one of the best educated populations going and one of the most resource-rich environments.

    Let’s tap those folks up on the campus hills and ask them a favor, and let’s see what we can get going among ourselves: Let’s start some science clubs. Let’s work on expanding internship opportunities. Let’s take a hard look at the science book collection at the public library. That kind of thing. And we can do this for other fields as well, not just science. Those kinds of things are also a long-standing Berkeley tradition – perhaps the most rational response to the current situation is to double-down on them.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Ms. Menard,

    You write: “TL I have been trying not to react to your smug condescension, but dude you really are clueless.”

    I’m sorry I rub you the wrong way. I do think you are a bit quick on the trigger with that kind of dismissal of not only me, but many other people.

    You write: “Consider the millions the city has been spent for over two decades avoiding the abatement of the infamous drug house that is FINALLY being boarded up this morning. The city has a major operation going on as I write. And what did it take to get the city to do its primary job (public safety) we had to go to the grand jury to force accountability.”

    As nearly as I can tell, looking beyond your Hectoring, the painful length of that process has quite a lot to do with the US Constitution. Let us suppose that, years ago, the City had unilaterally acted and seized the property and boarded it up. How many millions do you suppose that would have cost the City in defensive lawsuits? And, even now, we have arrived at just about the least desirable viable outcome: a new addition to the blight problem in our neighborhood and further polarization along racial lines. Congratulations on your victory.

    You write: “In SF community groups concerned about AA and Latino drop out rates went to the grand jury back in the mid ’90s. The resulting report identified racial paternalism as the primary reason why both the school and city agencies were unwilling to enforce truancy laws. The current prosecution by the DA for educational neglect by parents is the first honest action to close the “parent gap”.”

    You are awfully fast and loose with accusations about other people’s honesty and awfully fast to reach for state-sanctioned violence as the primary cure to social ills. You’re also awfully selective about what evidence you cite.

    In Pittsburgh, PA there’s a private school specifically targeted at at-risk youths. So successful that there are several extensions of the program, one (as I understand) in Bay View / Hunter’s Point. Their solution to problems like truancy and lack of parental involvement is individualized attention and culturally sensitive nagging. Here, check it out: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/bill_strickland_makes_change_with_a_slide_show.html

    You write: “TL ask the 2020 folks why their report still has a placeholder for a truancy prevention plan.”

    I suppose that a part of the reason is that you aren’t digging in and engaging with them in a friendly way, using your energy to work that issue.

    “As to being seduced, I don’t do Kumbaya, especially with group whose leadership is hostile to families who have actually experiences REAL not perceived discrimination in our schools. UIA leader Michael Miller wrote me a couple of years ago one sentence “I don’t care what concerns you”.”

    That was wrong of him and it would be a shame if that turned you off the entire project.

  • laura menard

    TL writes “And, even now, we have arrived at just about the least desirable viable outcome: a new addition to the blight problem in our neighborhood and further polarization along racial lines.”

    Loose with facts, huh?

    TL you live on the east side of Shattuck, this is not your neighborhood.

    Results, we can breathe easier knowing that the parents living adjacent this drug house can allow their kids to play in their yards without the fear of gunfire or needles. Not to mention Longfellow kids will have a safer neighborhood to walk home through.

    BUSD reforms for chronic truancy K-8 now include a referral to the DA. This is seen as a positive reform by the school board, not state sanction violence as you suggest.

    Your conclusion about the US constitution, lawsuits etc are pure nonsense.

  • Charles Bryant

    Re: TL comment on Slemp

    I assumed that what Slemp said is true, but whether that is true or not, such statements just make parents, teachers and other community members feel like they don’t matter, and all of the work and effort they have put forth in public meetings, etc., is meaningless and a waste of time. That is a generally an inappropriate way to deal with people in most situations, at least to my thinking.. People want to be involved and want to feel like they are at least being listened to and that their comments receive due consideration. People deserve answers to legitimate questions instead of being simply dismissed and condescended to. It has more to do with showing a basic level of respect for other peoples and their opinions, questions and comments, not the fact of whether or not the so called leadership at BHS is allowed to do whatever they want.

    Some leaders build consensus and a broader sense of community, while others create division and promote animosity. My only point is which do want running our schools?

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Ms. Menard: “TL you live on the east side of Shattuck, this is not your neighborhood.”

    Ms. Menard, I live on Dohr St ‘twixt Ashby and Russel. This very much is my neighborhood.

    “Loose with facts, huh?”

    Speak for yourself?

    “Results, we can breathe easier knowing that the parents living adjacent this drug house can allow their kids to play in their yards without the fear of gunfire or needles.”

    Not really. Unfortunately.

    “Not to mention Longfellow kids will have a safer neighborhood to walk home through.”

    Indeed. My strategy for helping with that is this: I happen to get up damn early because of my wife’s job and the fact that I’m the one who normally makes breakfast. So I like to spend some early hours time just standing on the street, sneaking a smoke in front of our no-smoking apt. and keep eyes on the street. I’m frequently joined by various parents and grandparents. And no, it doesn’t work perfectly but it does do some good.

    “BUSD reforms for chronic truancy K-8 now include a referral to the DA. This is seen as a positive reform by the school board, not state sanction violence as you suggest.”

    I’m sure that all the people on the front line would agree that interventions that prevent the problem from escalating to that point are even more desirable. I agree with you without reservation that referral to the DA (and, ideally, CPS and the mental health services) is a very fine back-stop.

    “Your conclusion about the US constitution, lawsuits etc are pure nonsense.”

    Well, you are simply mistaken. Would you really like to review Constitutionally mandated property, privacy, and due process rights? I’m willing but I think it would be a bit tedious and unfair for Berkeleyside comment threads on the BHS topic so I would prefer e-mail for that.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Charles Bryant writes: “I assumed that what Slemp said is true, but whether that is true or not, such statements just make parents, teachers and other community members feel like they don’t matter, [....]”

    This, I agree with. I think that in his capacity as an effective politician and as a leader who makes the best of what his constituency has to offer, in these matters, Slemp has performed remarkably poorly. As I put it in another forum (a more “national forum” where I was explaining the situation to fellow computer geeks): part of the problem is that the principal might well be a [political] idiot.

    Basically, I agree with your entire comment, even though I think the principal’s “Action Plan” sounds like at least a good first approximation of a good plan.

    From my perspective, it’s frustrating that the possible virtues of the action plan are getting buried under Slemp’s poor politicing.

  • Peter Rose

    Mr. Lord,

    You have dominated this blog, not with the high quality of your debating skills, prose, or information shared, but with the volume of your posts. Please think about the fact that you have created more posts than anyone else on this blog and yet it’s obvious you have never stepped foot onto local school grounds. Please think about why you compulsively comment on a topic about which you have no direct experience–in fact, you might self-reflect on why you seem to be so interested in every little thing that happens on this blog.

    Unlike you, I don’t have time to step outside and watch the street in the morning. I don’t have time to compulsively respond to every comment on this blog, as you seem to be doing, or even read every comment . And yet you are posting on other blogs as well as this one concerning our local education issues???

    You have diminished the quality of this blog and I resent it. I don’t have time to scroll through a lot of useless pontificating. You confused test scores with budget data in your attempt to defend your belief that resources have been distributed in a lop-sided way to privileged students. You questioned the maturity of a recent graduate who characterized himself as struggling and argued with him over the accuracy of his self-assessment. What a waste of time for readers of this blog! You showed complete ignorance over qualification requirements for AP classes at BHS–you probably didn’t even know that BHS pays AP test fees for kids who can’t afford them and offers free tutoring for kids who need help. You interpreted the state ed code in a goofy way and accused the person who posted the actual statute as interpreting it. It calls for one community member for every school representative. If you can’t figure out why this type of balance is important, then you have not understood how conservative ideologues in Kansas and Delaware replaced evolution theory with creationism in their public schools. And you sure don’t understand how FTEs are unequally distributed to small schools at the expense of most of the kids at the high school. That’s the real measure of resource allocation, by the way.

    Enough. Either practice basic blog etiquette or be a blowhard elsewhere. You’re taking advantage of a captive audience of people seeking information on what in the world is happening at Berkeley High, since the information is not forthcoming from the administrators.

  • TL’s new friend

    TL,

    I honestly assumed you would see that I was over you, not to you. I apologize for over estimating you. It’s a mistake I’ll try not to repeat, and will urge others to do the same.

    I was writing to Ms. Menard, Mr. Bryant and others like them, offering my appreciation for their efforts and marveling at their remarkable restraint.

  • TL’s new friend

    TL

    correction: “…I was WRITING over you, not to you…”. I’m sure this is difficult to follow, even without missing words.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Peter Rose,

    “You have dominated this blog,”

    Mostly just these threads on this one topic. Also, “dominated” isn’t quite the right adjective.

    But, let me tell you a couple of quick stories:

    Just a small number of days ago I stumbled outside in the A.M. only to find, at the foot my driveway, a Berkeley police officer (part of a gaggle of 12 or so) aiming a rifle with deadly intent and a finger on the trigger. There was one sobbing arrestee already in custodeee.

    A few days later, but two blocks away, there was a quite serious gun-fight. Shut down traffic on Ashby and San Pablo. Never got any attention from “the press”.

    Perhaps a month or two ago a neighbor a block over suspected prowlers in the middle of the night and took to firing warning shots in the air. It actually took quite a few minutes for 911 to even pick up the phone because so many neighbors were calling all at once.

    Several months ago I wound up playing with a neighbor kid (a pre-schooler or perhaps first grade kid) who was thrilled to show off to me his skills at counting and simple arithmetic. He made some comments about not being very happy about the prospect of going home and eventually took a nap, leaning against me. His single-parent was later taken away to a psych ward.

    A lot of the brothers around here are fine, upstanding guys who respect their elders and are, as we say, hella protective of the little kids but at the same time there is a lot of outside pressure on the ‘hood that makes for some pretty damn uncomfortable choices.

    In spite of all that there are a lot of families that I don’t want to dwell upon, because I don’t want to over-expose or jinx them, who are doing a hell of a good job at raising their kids and just generally getting by.

    Against all that present circumstance, I have a hell of an educational background. I came from what counted as the wrong side of the tracks back when and got pretty damn far. I have a pretty extensive experience among both very good and very bad teachers and schools. I do have a dog in this fight.

    You write: “Please think about why you compulsively comment on a topic about which you have no direct experience–in fact,”

    Well, see, it’s actually because I do have direct experience-in-fact.

    Brother, if what you are coming here for is validation of your pre-concieved opinions then, surely, I’m detracting from that. I can’t help you there.

    “And yet you are posting on other blogs as well as this one concerning our local education issues???”

    Just one. The “other blog” is a forum for aspiring entrepreneurs / computer geeks. The high-tech industry leading nerds of tomorrow discuss and sort through a lot of national news (and many other topics) there. Berkeley’s science lab controversy showed up there and I contributed some perspective.

    “You confused test scores with budget data in your attempt to defend your belief that resources have been distributed in a lop-sided way to privileged students.”

    Cite, please? I don’t think that I did but I’m also not sure to what exactly you refer.

    “You questioned the maturity of a recent graduate who characterized himself as struggling and argued with him over the accuracy of his self-assessment.”

    Again, cite please? I think I recall the discussion to which you refer but I’m wondering what in particular irked you. Are you surprised at the questioning of the maturity of a recent grad?

    “You showed complete ignorance over qualification requirements for AP classes at BHS”

    No, I don’t think I did. I think I showed partial ignorance (just like you) and also questioned the extent of BHS’ extent of obligation to provide AP prep in the regular curriculum. My comments are based on having taken some AP tests and passing them, and on my experiences with good and bad educators.

    “You interpreted the state ed code in a goofy way and accused the person who posted the actual statute as interpreting it.”

    You mean where I pointed out that “parity” in the relevant statutes does not equate with “equal numbers of council members” and where I pointed out that there is additionally an important and relevant distinction between substantive and purely technical violations of parity?

    “And you sure don’t understand how FTEs are unequally distributed to small schools at the expense of most of the kids at the high school. That’s the real measure of resource allocation, by the way.”

    One of the things I do understand about small schools – just a minor anecdote, not any absolute refutation – is that the Gate’s foundation is one example of an org that solidly (and with lots of money) backed the idea, then measured the outcomes, then backed off the idea because the outcomes sucked.

    I’m inclined to think that individual teacher performance is way more important. I think in many matters Bill Gates is a complete jerk and some social matters I strongly disagree with him but on this one, he has me convinced. He’s not an idiot, by far, and he is will positioned and well intentioned. Check it out: http://blog.ted.com/2009/02/bill_gates_talk.php

    “Enough. Either practice basic blog etiquette or be a blowhard elsewhere. You’re taking advantage of a captive audience of people seeking information on what in the world is happening at Berkeley High, since the information is not forthcoming from the administrators.”

    Yes and no. I basically agree with you, really, but… Berkeley is a Small Town, so to speak. We should stand-down on all sides all at once. Failing that, I’ll continue to *try*, and I’m sure *imperfectly*, to elevate and sustain a peaceful disagreement.

    My suggestion, if you remain completely pissed off about and uninterested in my comments here — encourage our kind Berkeleyside overlords to improve their “Recent Comments” feature (those links on the right side of the page) to make it easier to see all comments in reverse temporal order and to make it easy to filter out, say, all comments from that jerk “TL”.

    You know?

    -t

  • Pingback: Next on the BHS agenda: meeting superintendent – Berkeleyside

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →