Urban planning

Comment: Richmond Plunge holds lessons for Berkeley

August 18, 2010 6:00 am by Guest contributor

The newly re-opened pool at the Richmond Plunge in Point Richmond. Photo: Henrik Bull.

Berkeley resident Henrik Bull believes Berkeley could learn a lot from the process which led to the renovation and recent reopening of the Richmond Plunge in Point Richmond — in particular with regard to the plans for the Warm Pool at Berkeley High School’s Old Gymnasium.

The City of Berkeley could learn a lot from its neighbor to the north. On Saturday, August 15, the rebuilt Richmond Plunge reopened to the public after nine years of cooperative efforts by the City and dedicated citizen groups. It is touted as being “the greenest and healthiest indoor swimming pool in America”. The Richmond Municipal Natatorium, its official name, is certainly a triumph of historic preservation. The interior is now one of the most dramatic spaces in the Bay Area.

The original building was built in 1926, an era of civic pool construction all over the U.S. It had been badly damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and was finally closed in 2001 due to structural failure of its exterior walls. Originally it was considered to be too expensive to rehabilitate. Local citizens who had fond memories of swimming at the Plunge, formed the “Save the Richmond Plunge Trust” to investigate possibilities for financing. Working with Berkeley architect Todd Jersey, a design was developed that not only restored the original building, but also incorporated the latest technologies for energy conservation.

Detail of mural by John Wherle at the Richmond Plunge. Photo: Henrik Bull.

The final cost of the project was $7.5 million, which seems remarkable considering the high level of restoration and advanced technology that was needed.  Ventilation is natural with over 200 operating windows. Overhead radiant heaters warm the people rather than the huge volume of air. There is no smell of chlorine. An ultraviolet disinfectant system eliminates chloramines from the pool water.  The water in the huge, 60 x 160 foot (324,000 gallon) pool is heated by 3,600 square feel of solar hot-water panels on the main roof. In addition, 32 kilowatt of electricity is generated by the solar electric system on top of the upper clerestory roof.

The central pool space is flooded with daylight from both sides and from above.  The original steel trusses are like lacy sculptures. A marvelous mural by local artist John Wherle covers the entire end wall. All the tile work is new but is in the spirit of the 1920s. Many local artists and craftspeople made significant contributions to the project.

What lessons could Berkeley, a city which was recently forced due to budget constraints to close down one of its main public swimming pools, learn from the success of the Richmond Plunge? The first lesson might be the most difficult for Berkeley: work collaboratively with the city government. Funding for the Plunge came from individual donors, local businesses, state grants for historic preservation and a portion of a regional parks bond and city money.

The second lesson is that the greenest building is one that already exists. If the building had been torn down and a new swim center built, the cost would probably have been greater. A new building would not have the charm of the recycled Plunge building. Most important, demolition of buildings is enormously wasteful of energy and natural resources.

Exterior of the Richmond Plunge in Point Richmond. Photo: Henrik Bull.

Architecturally, the Richmond Plunge is quite similar to the Old Gymnasium at Berkeley High School, which was built in 1922 with additions in 1929 — and which I wrote about for Berkeleyside in January. The existing warm water pool at Berkeley High is a smaller version of the Plunge with exposed steel trusses and high windows bringing natural light to the entire space. An important difference is that the existing pool structure and the gymnasium building at Berkeley High are in much better condition than the Richmond Plunge was prior to its rehabilitation.

Unfortunately, it appears the Berkeley School Board has decided to demolish the Landmarked 385,000 square foot gymnasium and pool without investigating the rehabilitation alternative. Perhaps the spaces in the gymnasium building might not have seemed adaptable for classroom use. In any case, the school district’s architects have been commissioned to design a new building with 15 classrooms and a new gymnasium, as well as a separate stadium building with 2,200 seats and locker rooms, offices and miscellaneous spaces below. This stadium building is estimated to cost $10.4 million and is scheduled to be built before the classroom/gym building.

Concerned about the decision to demolish the Old Gym, a group of design professionals met at the High School to study the feasibility of accommodating the School Board’s proposed program within the existing building. Unfortunately, this group met only once. Some interesting ideas were generated in this session and a report presented to the School Board. Perhaps because the report did not come up with a single plan, the Board did not seem interested.

The warm pool at Berkeley High School is housed in the Old Gymnasium. Photo: Tracey Taylor.

As a member of that study group and a retired architect, I felt that a single unified plan could be developed. After working with the original plans I was pleased to determine that all the functions in the Board’s program would fit comfortably in the existing building. The classrooms would be in the existing second floor gym spaces with lofty ceilings and high windows. There would be a two story high gymnasium with spectator seating and a ground floor entry. The existing warm water pool, which was recently upgraded by the City of Berkeley, would be retained. Based on the cost of the completed work at the Richmond Plunge, the total cost of seismic work and upgrading the lockers and showers would be within the unused $3 million which Berkeley voters approved for this purpose in 2000.

Another $116.5 million bond issue which passed in 2000, Measure AA, focused on building new classrooms at Berkeley High. The money was spent but no classrooms were built. In this November election, Berkeley voters will face a bond issue for over $200 million for Berkeley High classrooms, a new gymnasium, and the “stadium” building.

If the bond issue does not pass in November, perhaps our School Board might reconsider their very un-green decision to throw away the Landmarked gymnasium and warm water pool building. The Richmond Plunge has proved that a truly green result can be achieved with a modest amount of money and a community focused effort.

Henrik Bull retired from the architecture firm Bull Stockwell Allen in 2007. His many designs include The Inn at Spanish Bay, Pebble Beach and the Bear Valley Visitors’ Center at Point Reyes National Seashore. His work has received numerous design awards and has been widely published internationally.

58 Comments

Print Friendly
Tagged , , , , ,
Newer Comments →

  • Pingback:   Comment: Richmond Plunge holds lessons for Berkeley – Berkeleyside (blog) by Gyms Fitness USA

  • laura menard

    Brilliant, how do we convince the school board to reconsider options?

    As I pointed out earlier, the tension and lack of creativity is similar to the Derby St field issues. Which was resolved with the option, Curvy Derby, which was never discussed till folks grew tired of the waste and drama.

  • Andrew

    I work a few minutes walk from the Plunge. It’s simply awesome. It’s somewhat ironic that Richmond, which is primarily known by the reputation of its iron triangle violence, was able to accomplish this, while idyllic, innovative, and frankly well-to-do Berkeley cannot.

    I have lived in Berkeley for over a decade and I just don’t see a lot of vision and imagination in this city that was once known for progressiveness and innovation.

    Measure AA – how was that much money spent and not a single classroom built? If that is true then I don’t see much confidence in November. An issue of trust.

  • JNG

    Awesome

    shows how much you can achieve with a little creativity

  • Diane

    I’m an architect – and I say “hear, hear!!!”

  • Maureen Burke

    Congrats to Richmond for bringing the Plunge back to life. And Andrew, it’s true that the $116 million in funds from Measure AA is all spent and there are now fewer classrooms at Berkeley High than before the Measure was passed in 2000. There has never been an audit of those funds, despite Nancy Riddle’s promise of yearly audits. There is a document called an attestation report that the school district is throwing around as proof that an audit was conducted on those funds. An attestation is not an audit.

    I hope voters consider this when the even larger school bond measure comes up for a vote this fall. By the way, it will bring our school district’s indebtedness up to half a billion dollars, when school districts of similar size have orders of magnitude less debt.

    I know this next bit of news is off-topic, but it is related to our school district and its use of our money. Tonight the school board will vote to fund a new administration position to be paid for primarily from our BSEP dollars. This position, titled Supervisor of Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Systems, will cost the district $63K to $80K. This post will be funded from the same pot of money that fully funded science labs at the high school. So our school district cut science lab funding in half and now wants to use that money to hire a Supervisor of Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Systems. My knickers are truly twisted over this. Every year the school board votes on dubious items in August, when they know no one is watching. I encourage people to let the school board hear their opinion on this diversion of funds from the classroom to administrative folly.

  • Andrew

    Supervisor of Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Systems

    What does that mean in plain speak?

    BTW when I was growing up we had teachers, coaches, a principle and a few other folks. No froo-froo job titles.

  • Mathew Parker

    The Berkeley school district let the building fall apart-it was a fait accompli to get more money and more modern facilities.
    The old pool and gym are actually pretty nice-the bones of it are. The tilework is nice, the outer shell is decent.
    Compared to the newer buildings which seem to have an aesthetic and a lifespan of a Las Vegas Casino.
    The older buildings at Berkeley High are pretty neat-the auditorium is unsurpassed for a school/community facility(it needs a clean up as well.)
    Why the school district is building crummy trailer rooms is beyond me–at the expense of a baseball diamond which was also deliberately “let go.”
    The High School also passively recruits out of city students. Presumably to get State and Federal per head bounties on 8000 bucks a kid. It’s basically a business need and not a “student” need to cram the property with more classrooms. Generally, the population of Berkeley has shrunk or remained steady-so the explosion of Classrooms is needed because of what..?
    If the School District was “green” they would maintain what they have-instead they let buildings degrade to a point where we have to replace them with brand new(but worse constructed) facilities. It’s basically blackmail.

  • Maureen Burke

    The selling point of Measure AA was to replace the classrooms at Berkeley High that were lost when the B Building burned down in an arson fire. The need for classrooms is real and we’ve paid for them once already.

  • EBGuy

    Generally, the population of Berkeley has shrunk or remained steady…
    This is from 2008, but I believe the trend continues as the northwest zone is experiencing a boom of incoming students. BAM is now shared between the NW & Central zones. This dislocates some Central zone students so Malcolm X is now shared between the Central and SE zones.
    Here’s what I was referring to as the general trend (circa 2008):
    District officials are projecting that around 720 students will be starting kindergarten this year, up from the 627 in 2007-08.

  • Amelia

    As a Berkeley resident from Europe, with two children in Berkeley schools, I always wonder why such a politically correct, socially progressive city of plentitude and multitude, brawn, money, and power is locked in gridlock and inertia when it comes to planning, reuse of buildings and getting things done. Is it corruption that causes plans to be waylaid, and buildings as beautiful and historical as Berkeley High’s Pool/Gymnasium go to waste? It is a proud and stalwart looking landmark, one that gives the city personality and character. I would love to see it saved and rehabbed like the Richmond Plunge. Berkeley residents I’m sure can rise to the challenge; perhaps we need Richmond to escrow and watch our funds!

  • Abigail S.

    I never comment in these types of forums, but have to chime in for several reasons:
    Regarding the Supervisor of Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Systems, which is irrelevant to the swimming pool article, by the way; but be that as it may …
    1. I see people on this thread are quick to judge the position, which I had not heard of heretofore, yet I see not one substantive argument against it here.
    2. The job title suggests it addresses the diversity in our district, so I find it interesting that, in spite of the fact that the monies for science labs come from an entirely different pot of money under Measure A than the monies allocated for this position under Measure A (which represents just a fraction of the funding for the position, incidentally), people here are quick to pit these two services against each other as if there is a financial zero sum game at play, which there is not. This brings us to #3 …
    3. The white privilege demonstrated by this conversation strongly implies to me a complete taking-for-granted of what BUSD provides the privileged with little-to-no awareness of what less privileged families don’t get from the same exact system. Based on the fact that this position might begin to address some of those discrepancies as part of a comprehensive approach, I feel concerned when I hear people rush to condemn it with no good explanation. I hear that science labs are important to people. But what about families whose children, with every potential that your and my children have, will never even graduate from BHS. If we raise the bar for children at the bottom, that will ultimately benefit all our children, and our society. Are there gaps in enrichment and education for the high achievers in BUSD? You bet! But with such a high rate of college goers to high level institutions, these kids are benefitting in multiple ways, as they should, despite diminishing resources. That’s far less true for the kids at the bottom.
    4. For argument’s sake, how many kids might benefit from the added science labs (provided the labs functioned as expected) versus the number of kids district-wide who might benefit from a position like this (provided it functioned as expected)? Are we saying here that only some people deserve to benefit from Measure A money versus a much, much larger number of underprivileged students? Because that’s how the conversation reads, even though the resources for these things aren’t even in direct competition with each other.
    5. The reason why our schools are adding positions beyond just “teachers, coaches, a principle and a few other folks,” (spelled “principal,” by the way), is because that structure fails entire swathes of people, especially in Berkeley.
    6. To the lay person who doesn’t look further, the title may sound like gobbledy-gook, but it has real meaning in education. Numerous citations and articles refer to culturally and linguistically responsive education. Here is one example from the National Center of Culturally Responsive Educational Systems: http://www.nccrest.org/publications/assessment.TOOL.formA.pdf?v_document_name=Assessment%20Tool%20form%20A
    7. SF Unified apparently has prioritized this approach: http://www.beyondthetalk.org/glossary/culturally-linguistically-responsive
    8. I’m not saying anyone should rush to endorse this position. What I am saying is that it is INappropriate to rush to condemn it. I will be interested to find out what the School Board decided, and if they have additional questions and concerns.
    9. The Board Packet (available to anyone on-line) contains the draft job description for anyone who is interested:

    Supervisor of Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Systems
    Essential Functions
    • Promote District-wide cultural and linguistic competence through mechanisms such as workshops, focus groups, and Professional Learning Communities
    • Develop and maintain systematic pathways for the retention, promotion, and professional
    development of employees of color
    • Provide opportunities and support systems for teachers and administrators of color as they join our educational system and ensure that they are successful and remain in our District to support our students
    • Identify career ladder options for students and employees of color
    • Work collaboratively with various District departments and agencies to develop a systematic
    response, support, and information system for families of students of color
    • Ensure non-English speaking families are supported in their primary language through
    interpretation/translation services
    • Develop accountability systems that address District-wide cultural competence
    • Collaborate with the District academic coaches to integrate culturally-responsive pedagogy into all training to transform instructional practices to meet the needs of students of color
    • Develop and coordinate the evaluation of the District’s culturally-responsive systems to monitor effectiveness and quality of services and use feedback from staff, families, and students to make necessary improvements
    • Provide training on educational and service-oriented strategies to District staff, students and families to support cultural and linguistic differences and to create environments where diversity is celebrated
    • Conduct audits of culturally-responsive systems implementation and work with other managers to improve systems to support students, families, teachers, administrators and other employees
    • Provide direct support to individual schools to create supportive and affirming cultural climates
    which provide educational opportunities for all students to achieve their full potential in ways that are culturally-appropriate and personally-affirming
    • Identify and respond to the cultural needs of students and their families to improve their academic experience
    • Develop and evaluate culturally-specific program proposals, goals, and objectives
    • Supervise staff as assigned

  • laura menard

    Abigail,

    if you reread the post you are referring to you will realize the confusion you state regarding Measure A, BSEP, and the politics at play.

    If you have any experience in BUSD you would know that questioning a new position intent, mission and service delivery capacity is CRITICAL, especially if you want to ensure educational equity not just more PC fluff.

  • Diane

    Yes, we are way off topic.

    But frankly, this is why the rest of the world is eating our lunch lately in science and education – and at a pace and trend that will only continue. The US is woefully deficient in science education at the moment across the board. Our population is science-ignorant. The fact that science labs are considered an optional item – and one to be discussed in the same breath as the funding for an administrative position (!) is embarrassing.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    But frankly, this is why the rest of the world is eating our lunch lately in science and education – and at a pace and trend that will only continue. The US is woefully deficient in science education at the moment across the board. Our population is science-ignorant.

    You sure about that? A lot of people repeat it endlessly. A lot of business leaders want there to be an over-supply of advanced-degree talent. But are you sure the US is actually doing particularly poorly in science education? See, e.g.:

    http://nces.ed.gov/timss/index.asp

  • Diane

    http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c1/c1h.htm

    “In 2006, the average mathematics score of U.S. students was lower than scores in 18 comparison nations (out of 24), and higher than those in 4 other countries—3 of them developing economies. The U.S. 90th percentile score in mathematics was similarly low relative to scores in other nations.”

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Diane:

    Same page you linked to says that:

    Per the TIMSS report (the one I linked to): US had improved (compared to itself) since 1995 in mathematics and stayed about the same in science.

    Fourth grade science compared to other countries went down in 2007 but eighth grade science compared to other countries went up that same year. Incidentally, a lot of the relative rank shuffling seems to have much to do with countries that historically tested very poorly now catching up – to about where we are, give or take a little.

    The tests and comparative studies are all over the map. So tell me again: how do you get to “why the rest of the world is eating our lunch lately in science and education – and at a pace and trend that will only continue”?

  • JNG

    Diane – you are absolutely right. The test scores show a continuing decline relative to the rest of the world. TL could be looking at a bus a few feet away bearing down on him at 60 mph on in the street and still be endlessly debating with you about whether he’s going to get flattened or not because, you never know a bolt of lightning might strike him first.

    TL: “A lot of business leaders want there to be an over-supply of advanced-degree talent” – talk about a load of bunk. Please let us know where this speculation comes from other than your conspiratorial imagination. Lord forbid we should too many technically educated people in this nation. We might accidentally raise the standard of living for all.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    JNG,

    That’s a poetic image, I guess – but you’ve got nothing particularly substantive to back it up. The actual measurements people have taken paint a distinctly ambiguous picture — certainly nothing like “the rest of the world is eating our lunch”.

    Some rapidly growing economies and other large economies are, of late,increasingly becoming the source of breakthrough innovations. This is easily understood as primarily the result of two factors: (1) more and more focused R&D investment capital and (2) there being a lot more people who don’t live in the US than who do.

    That is to say that, indeed – in some sense – a bus may well be bearing down on us. To extend your analogy, I’d say the debate is less about whether a bolt of lightening will strike and more about a choice between trying to (a) try to run faster than the bus is going to stay ahead of it v. (b) step to the curb. The utter panic you and Diane evince about science education sounds analogous to me like an exhortation to try to run ahead of the bus, faster than the bus, to avoid getting clobbered.

    Analogies aside, you ask:

    TL: “A lot of business leaders want there to be an over-supply of advanced-degree talent” – talk about a load of bunk. Please let us know where this speculation comes from other than your conspiratorial imagination.

    You can go look up, for example, what Bill Gates and similar types have to say in the political debates about H1 visas. They consistently ask congress to increase the quotas of such visas to be granted. They argue that this is necessary because of talent shortages and often point a finger of blame on US education. They actually use the H1 visa hires to depress wages for highly trained types. It’s a very widely understood and discussed phenomenon in the “high tech” world.

    Lord forbid we should too many technically educated people in this nation. We might accidentally raise the standard of living for all.

    We have quite a lot and no trouble borrowing some when we need them. What we lack, re a standard of living, is enough domestic manufacturing, sustainable agriculture, conservation efforts and so on — the kind of things that would lead to import replacement and export generation. A shortage of egg-heads is not the bottleneck, there. It’s problems in the financial markets, in the loyalty incentives (or their absence) of the wealthiest classes, in corruption in all corridors of power… that kind of thing.

    Part of the charm (to some) of a big mindless panic about science education is that if you spin it just right, well, pretty soon tax-payers will have spent hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to “fix the problem” that was never clearly laid out in the first place.

    You like science so much? Go apply it to the question of what we ought to be doing about science education. Bring it on. Poetry about buses and lightening doesn’t count.

  • JNG

    See, there you go again:

    So people who are actually in the real business, as opposed to just speculating about it on a message board, say there is a shortage. Any guess which one I find more credible?

    Back to my point about your wild speculation, finding intent and conspiracy at every corner. Sorry, just because you believe it doesn’t make it so.

  • JNG

    “The actual measurements people have taken paint a distinctly ambiguous picture”

    No, TL, they don’t – only you seem to have basic reading comprehension issues on this point – I suspect most reasonable people would have no trouble understanding the implications of the article.

  • Maureen Burke

    Latest test scores for BHS are here: http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2010/

    Of particular note, there is continued zero number of students proficient or above in IMP Math 3 (the math program of choice for the small schools), a decline to 22% proficient or above in Algebra II from 24% in 2009, a decline to 43% proficient or above in Biology from 51% in 2009, and a decline to 36% proficient or above in Chemistry from 37% in 2009. Academic decline continues and using BSEP funds to hire admin staff for a culturally/linguistically sensitive position instead of putting money in the classroom is not going to help struggling students master basic academic skills.

    I do apologize for veering this discussion off-track because Mr. Bull’s post is so informative, but I could not think of any other way to let people know about the upcoming school board meeting.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    JNG,

    On H1 Visas, numerous professional societies, academics, leading professionals, and some business leaders have all weighed in on how the shortage story is *at best* greatly exaggerated. If you take an hour or two to read up on it before insulting me you should have no trouble realizing you need not take my word on the issue at all: plenty of bright, powerful, even wealthy people have looked at it. As for why some of the big names would argue for H1 visa expansion – that’s complicated and interesting and depressing wages is only part of the answer – there are other geopolitical and security issues in play. It’s a fascinating topic and there’s a ton of material out there about it. All you need to do is actually dust off your open mind and go poke around a bit and read for yourself. Instead, you’d rather name call someone on berkeleyside.

    On the stats: did you actually look at the TIMSS report?

  • EBGuy

    using BSEP funds to hire admin staff
    Speaking of BSEP, I’ve been curious… will the new charter schools have access to BSEP funds or do they just receive an allocation from the state?

  • Maureen Burke

    No BSEP funds for charter schools. I hope prospective families realize this before signing up for REALM.

  • Andrew

    Can we all just going swimming now? A little exercise is good for everyone.

  • Abigail S.

    “if you reread the post you are referring to you will realize the confusion you state regarding Measure A, BSEP, and the politics at play.”

    With all due respect, that part of Maureen’s post is incorrect, which is why I posted my comment.

    “If you have any experience in BUSD you would know that questioning a new position intent, mission and service delivery capacity is CRITICAL, especially if you want to ensure educational equity not just more PC fluff.”

    I have been attending the P&O meetings (the committee which oversees how the district spends Measure A money) consistently for the past 3 years. I am not representing that committee, but I can pretty safely say the money for science labs is *site* money for BHS. The money for this position comes from *professional development* monies at the district level. Yes, both are Measure A funds, but these are TWO DIFFERENT pots of money under Measure A, decided through two completely different channels that have little to nothing to do with each other.

    I agree that questioning any new allocation of resources is essential – which is why I attend P&O and other meetings; and why I participated in the discussion about this very position on the P&O committee in June before it went to the School Board. After a reasonable period of discussion and questioning, the P&O ultimately gave it the green light.

  • Maureen Burke

    Abigail,

    Yes, science lab funding is site-specific to BHS and comes out of the “expanded class offerings” category. And the new position will apparently be funded from the equity grant submitted last spring under the district-wide “professional development” category. But it is also true that BSEP pays for both items, so it’s not inaccurate to depict these two issues as being funded from the same source, since in both cases it’s BSEP monies. I doubt whether these readers care about that parsing.

    Let’s not forget that BSEP stands for Berkeley Schools Excellence Project.

    Unfortunately, these two issues are intertwined. Here’s what the BDP had to say about the 12/13/09 school board meeting:

    http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-12-23/article/34330?headline=Charter-School-Proponents-Present-Plan-to-School-Board

    “The board then heard testimony on two matters:

    • The plan to eliminate science labs at Berkeley High in order to free up funds that will go to “equity grants” intended to close the school’s achievement gap between higher and lower achieving students….”

    BUSD tried to back away from this, but no amount of spinning would have changed the facts.

    I wish it were true that these issues were not connected. But they are. In fact, since you have been attending the BSEP P&O committee meetings, maybe you are aware of the proposed changes requested by the school district to the definition of “expanded class offerings” that would have made science labs ineligible for funding. This occurred during the same funding cycle as the equity grant that we now know is funding this administrative position.

    I certainly hope the P&O committee considered how this new admin position would possibly duplicate the ongoing “cultural sensitivity training” BUSD is already paying for to the tune of $1,000 a day for teacher coaching at the middle schools and the high school. Any basic due diligence would have covered this issue.

    Demanding that all resources go to the classroom when there’s a money shortage is not a stance of white privilege. Suggesting that all students would not benefit from strong academic programs is patronizing at best.

  • Abigail S.

    Right, this article seems to characterize the situation pretty well: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/24/local/la-me-berkeley-schools24-2010jan24

    Look, it’s misleading, inaccurate, and misrepresentative of the work of a lot of people, to suggest that a choice was made between BHS science labs and the Supervisor of Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Systems district position. To say so is simply not true. The article above explains how the decision-making process for science labs happened at the site level.

    “And the new position will apparently be funded from the equity grant submitted last spring under the district-wide ‘professional development’ category.”
    An equity grant? Professional Developmen” money under Measure A is strictly parcel tax money, not grant money. (Unless there is some grant you’re referring to that’s supplementing the Measure A money for this position??)

    “maybe you are aware of the proposed changes requested by the school district to the definition of ‘expanded class offerings’ that would have made science labs ineligible for funding.”
    The district can’t redefine “expanded course offerings,” which is written into the measure, nor would they. But I will look into this to try to understand what you’re talking about. Also, BHS science labs have been funded at the site level, never through the “expanded course offerings” portion of BSEP.

    “I certainly hope the P&O committee considered how this new admin position would possibly duplicate the ongoing ‘cultural sensitivity training’ BUSD is already paying for to the tune of $1,000 a day for teacher coaching at the middle schools and the high school. Any basic due diligence would have covered this issue.”

    I suggest you attend some P&O meetings. You will find that Berkeley voters could not wish for a more thorough, questioning, and capable committee. If anything, the P&O goes overboard in examining the practicality and need of proposals, to the mild frustration – and respect – of the district. Basic due diligence is what *I’m* requesting from those who represent the work of the P&O and how Measure A money is spent in BUSD.

    “Demanding that all resources go to the classroom when there’s a money shortage is not a stance of white privilege. Suggesting that all students would not benefit from strong academic programs is patronizing at best.”

    You are misrepresenting me. I never suggested that all students would not benefit from strong academic programs. Thankfully, most of our resources go to just that. A position like the Supervisor of Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Systems represents but a drop in the bucket of the entire budget. (I also suggest that anyone who cares about these issues actually reads the measure to see how resources *must* be allocated. Not all resources are allowed to go directly into the classroom, per se, and wisely so as there are various auxiliary supports required for the healthy functioning of our schools.) And all resources DO ultimately go to the classroom; the nature of living in a diverse community is that there are different views on how that will look. The real problem, though, is in Sacramento where the lifeline to our school districts is gradually being strangled off, leaving our communities to fight with each other over scraps instead of fighting the real threats to our children’s educations: politicians who want to divert resources from our public schools.

  • laura menard

    Having read the Tribune coverage on this “new” position (we have seen this job description many times before) and knowing the history, politics and incompetence in BUSD , I am even more hopeless about systems improvements in BUSD than ever.

    Like my neighbor, an former BUSD teacher, I will not give the schools a YES vote on any measure, that includes buildings, enrichment, or maintenance.

    BSEP has funded parent advocates to work individually and specifically with black and Hispanic parents for years. The two positions are salaried at a higher rate than key district level administrative positions in special education and student services.

    Before BUSD hires this director, a report reviewing budget, mission and outcomes of the Family and Community Relations office should be undertaken, at least for appearance sake.

  • Mathew Parker

    Public School was never designed to create excellence. It’s an artifact of the British industrial age when commoners were too “dumb” to work at factories. The British East India Company et Al. decided that the government needed to fund a public education system to make sure the drones were capable of the basics.
    No matter how much money you throw at public education, it has no pedigree in creating excellence. It’s mandate by design is to make worker bees.
    So, the LAB issue is a perfect example of how public education has to mediocrize all students to some standard level of government mandated competence.
    Berkeley High used to be able to pride itself in providing college-type courses to advanced students. OH WELL…
    Linguistics Directors, moving money from LAB classes just emphasizes that the BUSD has no clue how to provide value for the dollar. Throwing 210 million at new buildings, positions will not compensate for poor staff and bad parenting of children.
    I won’t vote for this at all. It’s just a big dumb slush fund with directionless spending and no accounting for the money spent. It’s just going to plug up holes in the pension obligations and budget

  • Merry Selk

    TWO NEW ‘GREEN’ ALBANY POOLS will open next summer (a small, warm indoor pool, and a larger outdoor competition pool) with a full schedule of classes, lap swim hours and family swims! A citizens committee reviewed ‘green’ options, and made a list of recommendations that will save money and make swimming as healthy as possible.

    Find Albany’s pool sustainability and green recommendations here:

    http://ausdk12.enschool.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=92423&type=d&pREC_ID=173280

    Albany pool construction starts this fall – in a $10 million project approved by the State Architect, and financed by a bond issue supported by over 70% of citizens. For details about the Albany Pool and its development, see

    http://ausdk12.enschool.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=92446&type=d

  • EBGuy

    No BSEP funds for charter schools.
    Technically, this is good for Berkeley Unified as it means the BSEP funds are distributed over a smaller number of students (BSEP funding per student increases). By the same token, out of district students attending Berkeley dilute BSEP funding per student. Practically speaking, though, there are other dynamics at play as the system is ‘optimized’ for administrative overhead (fixed cost) and a certain size student body (which generates per head funding from the state)….

    I will not give the schools a YES vote on any measure, that includes buildings, enrichment, or maintenance.
    Laura (or anyone else for that matter), do you think there is a single issue at the schools in need of reform that could be tied to the two upcoming school funding measures. Quite frankly, I’ve got kids going into the system, so I’m likely to vote yes on the measures, but I wouldn’t be against demanding some sort of reform for my vote. Only two issues come to my mind immediately (probably because they’ve both been discussed on Berkeleyside recently): closing the HS campus and involving the DA in chronic truancy cases as SF does. I’m not sure closing the campus is even practical, but it does seem that voters have the right to know the nature of the campus that will be built with public funds. Off the top of my head (again, from recent Berkeleyside discussions), closing the campus would:
    1. Help with off campus substance abuse (double the national rate).
    2. Bring more students into the chronically underfunded lunch program. As a side effect, healthier alternatives should result in a more attentive student body.
    Not sure either of these would get me out of my armchair, but something to think about. New residents that have bought into the school system over the past decade (read: homeowners) have, in all likely hood, paid over a half million dollars for the privilege. They may not stand for the usual shenanigans….

  • Pat M.

    Its a shame our school system couldn’t use Mr. Bull’s great ideas. And its a shame I really wanted my son to take science labs. Now he can’t do that and I learn about this expensive job that I’ll be paying for, its like pouring salt in the wound. I don’t care about how the different pots of money go where, because the reality is that I lost something for my kid and now I’m paying for something that sure sounds like not exactly necesary. All I see is a really big bill that is killing me to pay for and I wonder how can our school system ask us for even more money when they don’t seem to be managing what they have now in a very smart way. The school people should really have thought about this before taking away something people in middle school looked forward to for their kids and then paying for this new job. I’m another person who won’t vote for more money for schools until I get more confidence in them. Too much dropping the ball.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    EBGuy:

    Suggestions / pointers…

    Closed campus: Here you have a really hard problem. Ok, sure, there will be resistance from students, parents, and downtown merchants but that is small potatoes. The big problem you’ve got is the bell schedule of the high school vs. the “bandwidth” of th cafeteria. You would basically need to re-arrange the class schedule – in a big way – so that students would have staggered lunch periods yet still be able to take all the courses they need to take. (I’m going to draw an additional inference of that down below but, let’s look at truancy which leads to the same inference.)

    Truancy: You say you want to bring in the DA. I don’t think we even get to the point of debating that vs. other enforcement responses because the problem is farther upstream than that. Everything I’ve read and heard suggests that a lot of truancy problems are *not measured*. Attendance isn’t reliably taken, etc. There are many reasons why that might be so but I’ll call out two likely suspects (in my view): (1) If your truancy rate is too high, your funding goes down — avoiding measuring truancy with care protects funding sources that are keyed to the number of non-truant students; (2) processing attendance records and truancy cases takes up administrative time which, at BHS, appears to be stretched thin.

    From both of those issues, my main inference is the same: kill the small schools, streamline the catalog, revise the bell schedule — in other words, fix the foundation first before touching up the fine details built upon it. I think the small schools bloat the catalog and create administrative inefficiencies to such a degree that the school is nearly paralyzed by quietly competing factions. Kill the small schools, at least in their present form.

  • Abigail S.

    Merry, thank you for the info on the Albany pools! Between the Richmond Plunge and the upcoming pools in Albany, this is great news for people (especially with disabilities) who have been relying on the Berkeley Warm Pool and are seeking other options.

  • Maureen Burke

    Abigail,

    Thank you for correcting me on which pot of money the new BUSD admin position will be funded from. You are right–it’s not the equity grants referenced in the BDP article.

    However, BSEP money is finite and the ultimate source of funding for these various activities. Even with separate funding streams, expenditures in one area affect those in another. Most school districts in the nation are wisely cutting, not adding, administrative positions in this time of fiscal crisis. And it really hurts to see academic instructional time cut and a new administrative position funded, no matter which money pot is used within BSEP categories for specific programs or positions.

  • Abigail S.

    Hi Maureen,

    There is no way the money for this new admin position displaced academic instructional time. The money allocated for “Professional Development” is not allowed to be spent on academic instructional time, period. If the district did so, that would be breaking the law and violating what the voters put in place when they voted for Measure A.

    Measure A covers a wide array of categories that include admin, academic instruction, counseling, arts, materials, data analysis, family outreach, etc., etc. Those categories are clearly defined from one another and are in no way interchangeable. Again, that would be illegal, and would go against what the voters put in place. The charge of the P&O committee is to ensure these lines don’t get blurred, and it takes its job VERY seriously.

    Again, I find it troubling that when the word “equity” is involved, people’s alarm bells go off and incorrect assumptions are made, yet all along there have been other initiatives related to other needs funded within the Professional Development category that the same people didn’t notice.

    And yes, other districts are wisely cutting admin because they don’t have BSEP!! That’s why our district is so fortunate. BSEP is why our schools (relative to other districts) and property values are so decent. Where others have had to cut, we have been able to maintain. Bottom line … no additional money was spent for the admin position referenced above. It’s all within budget for that category.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    For convenience, here is ballot text to which Abigail refers. I present this by way of a strong argument that Abigail is right. I’ll separately post a strong argument that Maureen might be right.

    http://www.berkeley.net/uploads/bsep/Meas_A_2006finalmeasure.pdf

    That document begins with the Board of Education that put the measure on the ballot. Exhibit A (attached) is the short summary of the ballot item. Exhibit B (attached, beginning on page 7 of the PDF) is the full ballot measure.

    Section 2: “Available Revenues raised by this Measure are to be allocated to the following purposes and shall be deposited in restricted accounts for these purposes: [.....] * Professional development and educational program evaluation … 9%”

    Second 3(C) defines that restricted use: “Professional Development Educational Program Evaluation, and Technology for Schools: Nine percent (9%) of the Available Revenues of this Measure shall be dedicated to providing professional development for the District’s teachers and staff, to assessing the effectiveness of the District’s educational programs for improving student achievement, and to providing and maintaining computers and technology in schools. All costs attendant to providing these services are permissible.”

    Second 6(A) defines “Available Revenes”: “‘Available Revenues’ shall mean the amount of money provided by this Measure after deduction of authorized collection charges by the county or city for collection of the tax and two percent (2%) of Special Tax revenues for public information, translation services for District families and support of the Planning and Oversight Committee.”

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Here, though, is how Maureen might be right (even while Abigail is not wrong):

    The 2006 ballot measure divides the revenues up into three piles: A, B, and C. Pile A is for smaller class sizes, expanded course offerings, and school counseling services. Pile B is for programs to enhance student learning and 41% of of pile B (itself 25% of the entire revenue) goes to per-school discretionary funds. Pile C is for professional development, program evaluation, and technology.

    It is quite true that no “Pile C” money could possibly be used to, say, hire back a science teacher. So, spending the “Pile C” money this way violates no law.

    Here is the catch: at least parts of “Pile B” money can be spent on “Pile C” purposes. There is considerable discretion over some of that money.

    As an example, it would be possible to use “Pile B” money to support, say, equity grants for staff development in support of the 2020 vision goals. “Pile C” money could also pay for that. Of course, that same “Pile B” money can fund science labs.

    So in Maureen’s analysis, the original “Slemp Plan” played this shell game:

    Goal: to spend more on “Pile C” purposes than BSEP provides.

    Step 1: divide the “Pile C” purposes into two parts: “Stuff that only pile C can pay for,” and “stuff that piles B or C can pay for”.

    Step 2: cut ideologically undesired or politically vulnerable stuff from the current Pile B budget, and redirect that to “stuff that pile B or C can pay for”.

    Step 3: exhaust the pile C money on “stuff that only pile C an pay for”.

    Now, if step 2 were unlawful (it’s not) then there would not have been talk of cutting the science labs. On the other hand, we’d essentially be trying to micro-manage the schools from the ballot box.

    In any event: Maureen has a legitimate point.

    Moving forward, the game is not over even though the labs are kinda-sorta restored. Here is the revised shell game:

    Step 1: Use up the Pile C money on stuff that only pile C can pay for.

    Step 2: Neglect the extended period labs and hope they quickly fail in ways that make them easier to cut later. Then spend that money on stuff that pile B or pile C can pay for.

    Note that in the revised shell game, step 1 is necessary so that when you re-raise the needs in the “stuff that pile B or C can pay for” category, you can also say “look, see — there’s no Pile C money available so Pile B has to pay for it”.

    (I’m not sure I buy the conspiracy theory that the compromise science labs are being set up to fail, though – so I’m not convinced this second, revised shell game is what is really afoot.)

  • Pat M.

    A couple of things. First, every time I hear about white privilege, I know it means a bunch of white people are deciding what’s best for me and my children. And every time I hear the word equity it means classes will get even worse. So I ask the school district to get serious about getting real classes that will actually teach my kids and forget about all this political correctness. My children will not get anything out of a supervisor of culturally whatever but they will get a future if we quit dumbing down all the classes at every school. Or how about giving us a summer school a real one, instead of lame babysitting? My son failed two classes and the summer school was a joke. Can anybody believe some supervisor of culture would be better for someone like my son instead of a solid summer school class so he could catch up? Second, I don’t know about any conspiracy theories about the science labs, but I can tell you what happened to my family. There was an information night at middle school for kids going to berkeley high and I went with my oldest son. The counselors from the high school said there wouldn’t be any labs and we couldn’t sign up. There was no way to do it and a lot of people there were pretty mad. Last thing, I can’t believe we never heard about Albany getting a warm pool when all the Berkeley people were yelling about how they would die without a warm pool. Why didn’t those people backing spending a ton of money on a warm pool let us know there would be one next door? If they didn’t know about Albany’s pool then they were stupid and if they did know about it, then they were liars for not telling us about it. I can’t believe the way things work in this town. I had less aggravation in Louisiana.

  • Abigail S.

    @Pat – I hear how you must feel. My understanding is that the position comes directly out of the goals set forth by 2020 Vision work which was done in numerous meetings through a long and arduous process, and comprised of participation from a racially diverse group of people as opposed to a group of white people deciding what’s best for everyone else. If you have questions about that, I recommend contacting these people: http://www.berkeleyalliance.org/cms2/viewpage.php?domain_id=35&menu_id=788

    Also, this position is just one of many strategies going into effect to improve student learning in as many ways as possible. I can’t comment on the science labs because I am not a parent at BHS.

    @Thomas … I agree with part of your analysis, but not all. Though again, I’m not at BHS so don’t know all the ins and outs of the Sci Lab funding. But I do know that Group A money covers 3 things: Class size reduction, Expanded course offerings, and counseling at the middle school level. Group B money is divided into 3 categories in addition to site discretionary funds: Libraries, Visual and Performing Arts, and Parent Outreach. Group C money is allocated to 3 things: Professional Development, assessing student test scores, computers and technology. None of these things can cover Science Labs. However, I misspoke early in this thread in thinking Science Labs was funded by site discretionary funds. Maureen was correct in stating Expanded Course Offerings money from Group A was used, at least in part. I would have to look up how much of the Science labs were funded by this money, and what that category is now funding. I will try to do so later.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Abigail,

    Your criticism of my analysis doesn’t change much.

    According to you, “Pile A” money funds the labs. According to the ballot measure “Pile A” is “Smaller Class Sizes, Expanded Course Offerings, and School Counseling Services”

    The measure restricts “Pile A” spending this way:

    iv. The revenues dedicated to these purposes may be spent for all costs attendant to them, including operational and
    professional development costs, and other costs associated
    with the opening or maintaining of classrooms to reduce class
    sizes.

    So, check the keywords there: “attendant”, “operational”, “professional development”, etc…..

    “Pile C” is there for professional development and can’t be spent on anything else.

    With considerable discretion, “Pile A” money can be spent on “Pile C” purposes — so long as it can be loosely tied to class size issues.

    Slemp’s plan, as you’ve now clarified it, was to take “Pile A” money spent on staff positions away, reduce staff size, and set up “equity grants” which would include professional development.

    Such a use of “Pile A” money is easier to justify if all of the “Pile C” money is already dedicated.

    It is in that sense that Maureen has (in my opinion) a valid point that just because the “Supervisor of Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Systems” is funded out of “Pile C”, that does not lead to the conclusion it isn’t competing for dollars with other things such as the science labs.

  • Abigail S.

    According to the School Board packet in regards to the “Supervisor of Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Systems”: “The position will be multi-funded with Measure A *Professional Development* funds and Title I, Title II and Title III funds.” That’s “Pile C” money plus federal funds. If it were funded with “Pile A” money, it would have mentioned either Class Size Reduction money or Expanded Course Offerings money. So while I can’t speak for anything Slemp did at BHS with the Expanded Course Offerings money in terms of setting up equity grants, etc. (though I get a glimpse of it from these board minutes: http://www.berkeley.net/uploads/school_board/2010spring/04-14-10_minutes.pdf ), the School Board information seems quite clear that this new district level position did not compete for “Pile A” money in any way, and was funded solely by “Pile C” money. I would need evidence to believe otherwise.

    Here is a link to the proposals presented to the P&O under Professional Development money by Neil Smith at the end of April. “Support for Culturally Responsive Schools,” as it was dubbed at the time, is one of several initiatives listed (none of which, aside from that one, has been targeted as questionable by anyone here, by the way).
    http://www.berkeley.net/uploads/bsep/planning_oversight/2009-10/P-O_Packet_04-27-10.pdf

    Here is the proposal put forth by Mr. Huyett in early April for the use of “Pile A” monies for SY 10-11. No mention of anything relating to a district-level admin position:
    http://www.berkeley.net/uploads/bsep/planning_oversight/2009-10/P-O_Packet_04-07-10.pdf

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Abigail,

    Just to be clear, I’m not arguing that the Supervisor of Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Systems position is a good thing or a bad thing. I’m sure I don’t know. Only that it isn’t crazy to think it competes for funding with, e.g., the extended period science labs.

    Do you agree that Slemp’s original plan involved spending some “Pile B” money (site funds) on forms of professional development and program evaluation that could have, in theory, been paid out of “Pile C”? That’s my recollection and understanding.

    So picture the Huyett plan for “Pile A” that you linked to (class size reduction funds), Slemp’s plan for BHS Pile B (site funds), and the current Pile C plan (program assessment and professional development).

    What changes if we don’t create the new Supervisor position?

    Pile C money is freed up and some of Slemp’s expenses can be moved over to Pile C, perhaps saving a science lab.

    Or, alternatively, some of Slemp’s expenses can be moved over to Pile C, some Pile A over-runs (Huyett’s plan dips into the reserve) can be moved to Pile B. Protecting Pile A’s reserves that way helps to save and expand class rooms and course offerings in the future.

    Now, sure, Slemp’s plan per se is no longer quite what we’re looking at but the above illustrates how the new Supervisor position does compete with teaching positions.

  • laura menard

    This director’s position is an extension of GLAD training provided in teacher education schools. Essentially it is yet another particularist solution to a problem that is not fully understood or defined based on solid data analysis, but has been used to leverage a particularism agenda, without any evidence of academic value. It could be argued that this is just another solution in search of a problem.

    Abigail’s description of the 2020 process reads as if it was lifted from one of the Alliance’s buzz word compliant grant (essay) contests.

    And yes the current director of the Alliance has met with me a few times for discussions about institutional service delivery failures in Berkeley and the status of AOD youth prevention.

    Here is a link to public intellectual and conservation commentator George Will’s most recent essay, August 29, 2010,
    “Social Woes in Black and White” which includes startling yet not surprising analysis about various key factors involved in the multi-generational problem called the achievement gap. Hard to argue against this perspective, but I look forward to any debate.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2010/08/29/social_woes_in_black_and_white_240574.html

    Despite my critical perspective, I hope most of the readers recognize what a true optimist looks like, people willing to hold a mirror up and challenge the status quo.

    I share Pat’s frustration about summer school and the utter lack of interventions when kids are failing. This is an easy fix, and the lack of progress in Berkeley implementing summer school solutions should make the district ashamed.

    My best friend put together a simple, affordable and brilliant solution based on best practice for K-6 summer school for a neighboring district when she was the summer school principal. Staff had to make minor concessions based on what kids need, not adults. The district backed up the requirement for teachers to be hired they had to attend a training session in differential instruction, and use curriculum designed to close gaps in instructions. DUH!

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    Laura,

    Here is a link to public intellectual and conservation commentator George Will’s most recent essay, August 29, 2010, “Social Woes in Black and White” which includes startling yet not surprising analysis about various key factors involved in the multi-generational problem called the achievement gap. Hard to argue against this perspective, but I look forward to any debate.

    George Will builds his column around the work of Paul E. Barton and Richard J. Coley.
    The research in question happened in two parts. I’ll oversimplify but roughly like this: First, they said “What have earlier studies told us about external factors and how they correlate to low achievement?” They made a list of 16 factors. For example, poor academic achievement correlates with high teacher absenteeism. It correlates with poor nutrition. That kind of thing. They made a list of 16 factors that matter but Will is talking about the “top 5″.
    The study then asked: “Well, we know that there are achievement gaps along lines of race, income, and so forth. Do those factors (like poor nutrition and high teacher absenteeism) also correlate with race, income and so forth?” What do you know, they do.
    This is actually a fairly boring study in this sense: Had they reached any other conclusion – then a lot of earlier sociological studies would have been invalidated.
    The problems start when Will uses the word “explains” as in “the gap is explained by these factors”. The problem gets worse when Will draws bogus social policy conclusions based on his abuse of the word “explains”.
    Here’s the fact, per Coley: If you’re a black teenager, it’s more likely that your teacher will be absent tomorrow than if you are not a black teenager. Does that mean that being black causes one’s teachers to be absent? Does that mean that having an absent teacher causes one to be black? Well, of course not — that’s silly, right?
    There’s a more subtle point though. By the same line of reasoning, does high teacher absenteeism cause low achievement? Or vice versa? Or are they both best understood as caused by some third thing? All we know is that they are correlated. Just as we know that absent teachers don’t cause a person to be black, we don’t know that teacher absenteeism is “the problem” that causes low achievement. Indeed, it could be the other way around, no? Or they might both be caused by some third thing.
    This matters in relation to Will’s policy conclusions. Will remarks, and do I detect some resignation here?

    Public policies can have little purchase on these five [best predictors of underachievement among the 16 studied by Barton], and least of all on the fifth[, single parent households].

    See what he did there? His first beig mistake is that he suggested that to cure underachievement we must cure these, it’s five causes. Only, those aren’t established as causes. They’re established as correlates of both underachievement and certain racial and class categories.
    His second big mistake is in assuming that no social policy can have impact on such thing as his “five factors”. He says it so fancy he thinks it must be true “Public policies can have little purchase on these five factors, let alone the fifth.”
    Let’s just go over those five factors and examine Will’s claim there. This is independent of any rush to judgment about whether or not these policies are desirable — it’s only to challenge Will’s throwing up his arms and saying “why there’s nothing we can do!”. The five factors:
    “the number of days students are absent from school”: Ms. Menard, you yourself seem to believe that this factor is changeable by social policy. Whether your approaches or others are best aside, it is clear from many examples that social policy can and does have a huge impact on this factor. Will’s resignation here is strange.
    “:the number of hours students spend watching television”: I’ll cede that this one factor is something it is very hard for social policy to address at all directly.
    “the number of pages read for homework: This would seem to be a quintessential example of something trivially fixed by social policy – particularly at the school policy level.
    the quantity and quality of reading material in the students’ homes: Why, I bet that using the tools of social policy, we could radically accelerate the arrival of “Kindle”-style book readers that are about as cheap the calculators many students are required to buy, accept, or borrow.
    This one is the kicker, though, and illustrates just how much Will is goofing around with stats and dubious “science” — much the most important, the presence of two parents in the home: Earlier in the article, Will argues (or borrows the argument) that the very high incarceration rate of young black men is one of the causes of single-parent (mostly single-mother) households among black folks. By his own reasoning, examining and adjusting our social policies to reduce that incarceration rate – such as by decriminalizing certain non-violent drug crimes – should help reduce that “factor”.
    In summary, Will misleading presents the Barton research, badly abusing statistics, and then goes on to make absurd claims about the reach of social policy.
    There ain’t nothin’ right about his article.

  • laura menard

    George Will is hardly alone in the last 40 years identifying the broken condition of the black family as a significant factor in social outcomes.

    It is not worth responding to the rest of your diatribe, which is the typical manipulation and convoluted reasoning who enjoy so much leaving the original statement nearly unrecognizable.

    As for truancy abatement program outcomes, he is right, while important for social norming that attendance is required to pass a class, truancy reduction programs especially for high school age students are not very effective in reducing failure. That does not change the importance of maintaining proper attendance practices and fully engaging families as partners in knowing where their kids are.

    After reading your distinction between “shooting” and “shots fired”, I knew for certain I was correct to never take you seriously.

  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    George Will is hardly alone in the last 40 years identifying the broken condition of the black family as a significant factor in social outcomes.

    You really don’t seem to get correlation v. causation.

    As for truancy abatement program outcomes, he is right, while important for social norming that attendance is required to pass a class, truancy reduction programs especially for high school age students are not very effective in reducing failure

    That’s not what he says. Read it again, more carefully.

    After reading your distinction between “shooting” and “shots fired”, I knew for certain I was correct to never take you seriously.

    The convention of making that distinction is not universal but is quite common and quite helpful. When you hear (on the news, on a police scanner, etc.) “there was a shooting” you naturally ask “who got shot?” — when you hear “there were shots fired” you naturally ask “was anyone hit?”.
    You take seriously whomever or whatever you like but you don’t get to make up math for yourself and you don’t get to make up non-standard meanings for English phrases. The day you learn to drop the casual yet incessant and often badly off the mark insults of everyone you dislike will, I would bet, profoundly improve your effectiveness regarding your political agendas.

  • Abigail S.

    “I’m not arguing that the Supervisor of Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Systems position is a good thing or a bad thing. I’m sure I don’t know.”

    I appreciate that and second it, and will respond to your other point below. To address other people’s comments, all I know is that this position doesn’t come out of the blue … there has been a long and arduous process involving a diverse array of people who met continuously to identify core issues within BUSD, to develop a vision to address those issues, and from that vision, to support the district in putting forth concrete actions in response to a history of relative inaction. There were also multiple opportunities for the public to participate and weigh in on that vision. Whether the district can pull it off in terms of effectiveness with this position and other actions remains to be seen, as with anything new. Time will tell. But most people I know who have been very cynical about the district’s performance over many years in the past actually feel more optimistic about this current wave of coordinated effort for a number of reasons. So I feel encouraged by that, though there will always be nay-sayers. And I understand that comes from years and years of disappointment. I can’t fault anyone for being skeptical. The other source of frustration, I’m guessing, is that we even need a position like this (which I understand is debatable for some). Ideally ALL resources would go more directly towards academics and enrichment. But the fact is, there are issues of racial bias that affect learning in our district. Teachers and admin in BUSD are predominantly white teaching a very diverse student body. The results of multiple factors leading to an achievement gap are evident in the data. The need for addressing racial bias amongst teachers and in the district’s hiring practices is an issue that has been raised by many people in our communities of color. Consider BOCA and United in Action. In my view, the district is actually responding. I think it’s important to give them a fair shake as long as academics remains a priority … which of course is part of the 2020 vision as well. Bottom line, I think there is a need for this position, and that’s unfortunate for many reasons. It implies not all kids have been getting what they need, and it means money to (hopefully) fix it. Ideally this position can be phased out some day because we don’t need it any more … and not because our district has become so gentrified (though with the direction Berkeley is moving, that’s sadly highly possible.)

    “Do you agree that Slemp’s original plan involved spending some “Pile B” money (site funds) on forms of professional development and program evaluation that could have, in theory, been paid out of “Pile C”? That’s my recollection and understanding.”

    I follow your logic, but if Slemp was funding professional development and program evaluation solely at the site level – exclusively at BHS – then no, I don’t agree. I think that’s an inappropriate use of “Professional Development” funds and should be discouraged. Though because it’s not expressly forbidden, you make a good point which is helping me understand some of the finer points of how things can get shuffled. Measure A’s “Professional Development” money, in my view, should be funding programs on a larger scale than at one particular site. By that reasoning, I have much more of a problem with the Professional Development (Pile C) money going to “BHS Teacher Leaders” which I feel should be funded through the site’s discretionary funds.

    You should attend the Superintendent’s Budget Advisory Committee, or consider joining the P&O.

Newer Comments →