http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/berkeley-science-labs-compromise/Content?oid=1586785

Parents threatened to file again when obstructionist Slemp refused to comply with SB 187 Safe Schools requirements. He even went so far as to order school security to remove parents from campus and block attendance to open meetings. Slemp was directed to apologize and abide by the Brown Act, but the tactics he used to undermine process have not changed, as demonstrated again at last week Safety committee meeting.

For at least two years Slemp refused to allow district staff responsible for administering CHKS ( hired with state grant funds) onto campus. CHKS is student survey Lance reporting results regarding alcohol use during Spirit week.

Fortunately the science labs controversy illuminated the corruption of site council process. For over a decade I have been wondering what kind of horrific catastrophe would force the board to action regarding the failures of school safety practices. Last night public comments by classified union rep were a good indication, reports of violence by special ed students against their instruction aides is being ignored by district officials. Again I experience a horrific irony; I have been reporting criminal activity on my block, including personal threats of violence by a home school special ed student. Both the city and schools agencies have been derelict in their duties.

Safe school planning requirements include:
Attendance
Truancy intervention programs
School crime
Discipline
Disaster preparedness

School climate and culture are central to a positive supportive learning environment and attendance is critical to achievement. I know that BUSD K-12 principals have been discussing this and agree that best practice placing school climate reform front and center. Yet they are stuck, unable to provide leadership forward because in Berkeley racial and cultural relativism is an art form.

Last night was an information item so no action was intended, however plenty of action did occur. The discussion was full of irony, and for those of us who fought the initial dismantling of lab science years ago when the board voted to divide the comprehensive program into small schools, it was particularly outrageous to hear CAS small school admin explain that the intended goals of advisory could be best met during core classes. This is what I argued many, many times and cited numerous models from other school districts who have demonstrated how to accomplish these goals without a parcel tax or dismantling lab science. Hemphill railed against the inequity that leaves regular science classes without a lab period. Yet that is exactly what the small school advocates who supported her election argued for and agreed to originally.

The Supt suggested the AVID intervention program could be considered as an elective resource period for under proficient kids, DUH! We suggested AVID numerous times knowing full well the program’s record of success.

While last night’s meeting seemed to suggest the board is finally providing oversight for BHS education it was also more evidence that the any NEW school tax measure will be a hard sell.

If you need any $$ assistance in bringing this fight, please feel free to Twitter me: JNGross