 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
4/20: Schoolwide Action Plan, Version 64/14: School Board passes Superintendent's Science Lab Proposal2/17: 2/3 Board Recap2/10: Video of the 2/3 Board Meeting RE: Redesign1/11: BHS Science Department letter to Community1/15: Superintendent Huyett's Letter on BHS Science LabsAction Plan and Science Lab UpdateNew Proposal Submitted to SGC 12/3Community Input on Scheduling OptionsEssential documents re: ReDesignLink to trimester researchLetter from Peggy Scott re: redesign 3.2-I Berkeley High School Action Plan for Redesign The Board received a Dear Berkeley Families, Superintendent Pulls Agenda Item : Superintendent Huyett informed the PTSA yesterday that he would be pulling the "BHS Action Plan" from tonight's School Board agenda, and that it would not be brought back before the Board until January. The superintendent stated that he wanted to make sure the School Governance Council (SGC) members had enough time for everyone to understand and become comfortable with the new proposal before it headed to the School Board. The Action Plan's schedule to go before the School Board has slowed somewhat as the recommendation to eliminate zero and seventh period science labs is being evaluated by the District and the Berkeley High science teachers, and the question of who has jurisdiction in making such a decision is being determined. According to Superintendent Bill Huyett, the Action Plan is currently expected to go before the School Board as an agenda item at their February 3 rd meeting. There are other components of the Action Plan which have yet to be fully explained to the parent community (e.g. the concepts of houses, core systems, looping, common curriculum and pacing guides, and the impact on the plans for advisories), but the item that has drawn the most attention is the removal of before and after-school science labs.
Dear Teachers, Letter from Jim Slemp re: SGC voteDear folks,I am sure many of you have heard the results of Monday's School Governance Council meeting, but I thought I should get this out to you and discuss next steps. First of all, I would like to thank all of those people who worked so hard in such a committed manner on our Schedule Committee. Their efforts have really helped us in our process. I would also like to thank the members of School Governance Council for their commitment to an equity based stance and to wise, thoughtful decision making. At our meeting yesterday, after considering all of the issues, the Council decided to not move forward with a trimester schedule at this time. Some of the issues involved in this decision were: -Concerns about the reduction of individual class time. -Loss of Science labs. -A variety of implementation issues. -Concerns about our capacity to make these kinds of changes. -Questions about if this strategy as the best way to provide intervention to improve the equity gap. Several of you today have asked me if I was disappointed or hurt. On the contrary, I thought the discussion was helpful and I believe that any breakdown like this only provides the opportunity for a breakthrough in our work with all students. I am looking forward to the next steps in the process. I am asking School Governance Council to meet from 4 to 8 on Thursday, December 3 to continue our discussions and reach a decision. Some of the key issues that i will ask the group to discuss are: -Are we committed to our efforts to eliminate the equity gap? -Do we want to implement an advisory program? -Do we want to continue our current traditional 6 period day schedule? -Do we want an alternative schedule and if so, what schedule best meets the Board goals and the needs of our students? -How can we best balance the needs of all small learning communities? -How can we achieve a breakthrough in our efforts? My hope is that we end this meeting with a decision on a proposal to take to the School Board on December 9 for a Board decision on December 16. Again, I want to thank our School Governance Council for their hard work to make thoughtful decisions. I believe that where we are will allow us to, in an even more thoughtful way, move forward with a clearer focus toward a better decision for implementation next year. What a continuing joy it is to work with all of you. Jim Jim Slemp Principal Berkeley High School 1980 Allston Way Berkeley, CA 94704 510.644.6120 Essential documents RE: ReDesignParents, in case you feel the urge to review the documents that underlie the decisions on the schedule and advisory at BHS, here are what we understand to be those documents:
They consist of the school's original 2008 proposal, a summary of the resulting grant by the Dept of Education, the Superintendent's recommendations that went to the School Board last February about the redesign, and the Board's minutes in response. The formatting is easier to follow if you go to the District website and look at the originals at www.berkeley.net/board- meeting-information/ , but if you are short of time, this may be faster. Note that in the proposal, the discussion of advisory is on pp. 20 and 21. Page 22 asserts that "The adoption of Advisory will require a change to the school's master schedule." But the grant summary from the Department of Education does not reference changes to our master schedule, and thus it seems a fair interpretation that if we can provide advisory without a change to our master schedule, we are not compelled to change it. Summary of information from Thursday, Nov. 5, BHS Public Forum on Proposed SchedulesFor those who could not attend last Thursday's public forum and who want to know what we learned, here's my summary. Please note that I did my best to listen closely but this is definitely my own version of what some key points and questions were. If you were there and think I've made a mistake or omitted something important, please speak up and share your own version or correction. Because I've been able to attend some of the scheduling committee meetings and other public forums, I may also have heard the information very differently than a parent hearing it for the first time. I filled in gaps based on what I'd learned at other times, but tried to indicate when I was doing so. The format for this forum was predominantly Jim Slemp answering parent and student questions. This meant that there was time for a lot of questions and answers, which was good. We also broke into small groups, some of which had members of the scheduling committee at our tables, and discussed the proposal. We were asked to write down what problems we saw in the proposals, what possibilities we saw in them, and what alternatives we might want to suggest. In my group, we shared ideas more than we focused on the writing, but it would be interesting to see what thoughts were written down. It is my understanding that the parent writings will be typed up in time for Monday's SGC meeting. Jim noted that after the SGC chooses a proposal on Monday, the proposal will before the School Board as a recommendation on Nov. 18 for decision on December 9. Jim began by reviewing the six goals that the committee used when evaluating designs. These were available as a handout that night. He said that the School Board had instructed the school to apply those goals when evaluating schedule options, and to create a plan that includes an advisory. He said that the committee had concluded that a trimester program was necessary to make time for advisory and to make headway towards achieving the Board's goals. He said the Board's approval of the school's plans last February was available in the office if anyone wanted to review it. Some information was just confused or still not available, and it showed in a fair bit of parent tension during and after the meeting. For example, parents asked for sample schedules showing how the trimesters could work in each of the Small Learning Communities [SLC's]. We were told that the lead teachers in each SLC were working on producing these but that they didn't have time to make them public now. Parents asked when we would be able to see a detailed proposal. Jim explained that the detailed proposal from last year was available in the office and parts of it are still relevant, and that this year's proposal would be fleshed out based on Monday's SGC meeting and so wouldn't be ready to show parents until it goes to the Board. Note, therefore, that the main time for informed parent comment will be when the proposal is before the School Board. Jim said that the committee had studied only California schools because state education code differences made other states' programs much less relevant. This made sense, but he then said that the committee had studied several International Baccalaureate high schools on trimester systems in California. A BIHS parent asked what schools those were. [The next day, an IB committee member confirmed that they had not found IB programs using trimesters in California but had studied one in Oregon.] As to BIHS and IB program requirements, there was discussion to the effect that in some IB trimester schools, the SL and HL courses of junior and senior years are taught as 5 trimesters spanning the two years. A number of parents at different points during the meeting asked about what data leads the committee to believe that longer class periods (70 minutes instead of 55), fewer courses at a time (5 instead of 6) and/or advisory are likely to raise student performance and help close the achievement gap. Jim was careful to point out that changing to a trimester program by itself does not address the gap, but rather, it creates a schedule in which there are more possibilities for addressing the gap because there's more flexibility in courses due to having fifteen trimester course slots per student each year instead of the current twelve semester slots. The extra time can be used for advisory and to extend the normal time of an academic course for students who need the extra time, whether to bring a student up to grade level or to better cover AP and HL material. When a parent expressed the need for a data presentation, Jim said Rebecca Cheung was working on one for the School Board. [Note: my impression from the subsequent schedule committee meeting is that Rebecca Cheung is preparing to speak on such topics as FTE's, funding, and changes in instructional and teaching minutes but not on data supporting the value of these proposed changes.] He suggested parents look at the US Dept of Education website at the link for "high school reform that works." He said the relevant research is thousands of pages long and parents need to look it up rather than expecting the school to summarize it. A student mentioned a study he'd found that supported semesters as the preferred way to organize a schedule. Jim said that there were all kinds of data out there, including data that supports this change. He indicated that the committee was influenced by the increasing popularity of trimesters and the number of high schools switching to the trimester model. Apparently Dublin is switching to trimesters this fall. He noted that Grenada HS experienced a bump up in math scores when they went to trimesters, but neither he nor any one else mentioned that Grenada had been on a block schedule before switching to trimesters so their change in scores is not relevant to a potential change coming from a semester system. [I base that information on research by another BHS parent on the Grenada website.] A parent who teaches college on a trimester schedule noted that it's very intense because so much material must be covered so quickly. She wondered how the students who are already struggling would handle the intensity. Jim noted that the increasing popularity of trimesters in high schools indicates that they're having a different experience. Some of the most intense parent questioning related to concerns that the complexities of scheduling trimester courses would almost certainly result in students having different teachers for each trimester of some courses, undercutting both curricular continuity [and teacher accountability?] and especially, reducing personalization. Jim did not dispute this. The complexities of allowing for multiple versions and repeats of basic courses, along with the need to spread some courses between fall and spring trimesters, skipping the winter, make some changes in teachers inevitable. A teacher pointed out that this could mean a student who had a bad teacher for part of a course would have a better one for the other part. Parents asked whether we couldn't add advisory without having to try the trimester schedule as well. Jim said we needed a new schedule in order to make time for advisory. A parent asked whether advisories would have fewer students than regular classes. Jim explained that under the Gold option they would but under the Red option advisories would be the same size as other classes unless counselors and administrators were helping to teach them. A parent asked what the SGC would use as the basis for choosing among the options. Jim said their choice will be driven by the need to meet the Board's goals. A parent asked if there was equal representation between parents and teachers on the SGC. Jim said no, there wasn't, but that the SGC was following its own by-laws on how it is constituted this year and that the Board was looking at that question. [Note: at the high school level, students are supposed to take half the parent slots, as in fact occurs on the BHS SGC]. A parent asked about the Jazz Lab Bands I and II. She was concerned about how those could work with trimesters. Jim acknowledged that students would have one less choice of course at any one time [5 vs. 6] and that this might be an issue for the Lab Bands, but I didn't understand the issue she was raising well enough to do justice to her question or his answer. Science labs were discussed in connection with funding, because the extra cost of having teachers for the additional courses offered in a trimester program would be paid for by ending the 0 and 7 period science labs. Jim said that no other high school in California [perhaps he meant no other public HS?] teaches science with extra labs outside of normal class hours the way we do, and that we are nonetheless below the county average CST scores in science and have too many kids getting D's and F's and our science labs have the lowest attendance of all our courses. Further, he said the [National? Missed it] Science Foundation recommends that labs be taught within the regular class time, as they would be under the trimester proposals. This connects with the discussion about instructional time per course. He noted that there'd be roughly 15% less instructional time for each course, but that something about teaching in 70 minute blocks or in a trimester organization seems to work because scores don't go down when schools switch to trimesters. A parent asked about the money aspect of this. Jim explained that a U.S. Department of Education Small Learning Communities grant has provided BHS the money to cover the planning for this proposal. He explained that BayCES has been paid over the past three years to advise the school and that teachers have been able to meet and work on SLC planning issues, all paid for by the grant. [It's my understanding that the grant commits us to implementing advisory. I can't remember if that was discussed directly in the forum] I think that pretty much sums it up. Margit Roos-Collins November 10, 2009 Announcing a new website for BHS Redesign Issues and InfoA new site, BHSRedesign (http://groups.google.com/group/bhsredesign), has been created as an online resource for sharing ideas, information, and issues about Berkeley High School's redesign planning process. The site is a Google Group, and is open to BHS parents, teachers, students, administrators, BUSD board members, and interested community members. Anyone can view documents and discussion items on the site, but you must sign up as a member if you wish to post documents or participate in discussions. To sign up: (Please note: this forum was created by BHS parents and is not part of the BHS PTSA) 11/10: Community Input RE: schedule proposalPTSA Position Paper on Final BHS Redesign ProposalAs Submitted to the School Board for the 2-11-09 Board Meeting The Redesign Proposal has gone through many revisions since the original plan was presented to the public in November. What follows is an explanation of the PTSA position on the various components of the final revised proposal as submitted by the BHS School Governance Council to the School Board for consideration, followed by the PTSA's recommendation. Once again, in formulating our position, members of the PTSA Board have had conversations with School Board members, outside educational professionals, community leaders, the BFT, district personnel, members of the Design Committee, members of the School Governance Council (SGC), BHS teachers and parents representing every community within Berkeley. Before outlining its position, the PTSA would like to reaffirm its commitment to being an active partner in educating all segments of the parent community to the realities of what many of our students are experiencing, and the need to make significant changes on an ongoing basis. The PTSA fully supports the District in its effort to address the achievement gap through yearly assessments and evaluations, and affirms the willingness to consider and make significant changes moving forward. ADDRESSING THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSAL Recommendations For: Professional Development for Teachers: The PTSA strongly endorses the establishment of weekly professional development on weekly late start Mondays in the fall of 2009. By then, the Design Team hopefully will have developed and presented a strong advisory curriculum that the Board and the community can support. These weekly sessions can be used to provide staff development for advisories, sensitivity training, techniques for personalizing the educational experience of students, and whatever other program components eventually may be approved in the future. [ For some examples of simple techniques that yield great results in addressing the achievement gap, please see the most recent education article in yesterday's edition of the Sunday New York Times, which can be found online at -- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/ 02/08/opinion/08nisbett.html?_ r=1&ref=opinion .] Advisories: The PTSA board is enthusiastic about the concept of advisories and the goals they could achieve. Although advisories by themselves may not significantly impact the achievement gap, they generally are part of a package of elements that work together to do so. If a solid curriculum is approved before the end of the current school year, the PTSA would endorse a plan to implement advisories in the fall of 2010. The current timeline of implementation for this coming fall is not seen as realistic. The PTSA is presently ready to endorse only the two weekly 30-minute curriculum sessions proposed by the current plan. The community access period, which has now been assimilated into a full period advisory, is still far too vague to support. [The advisories constitute a 3.7% decrease in subject class instructional time, but no drop in overall instructional time.] Increased Personalization: Going almost hand-in-hand in importance with professional development is the need for increased personalization for all students. The research is very clear that the more strategies that are implemented which increase the personal experience of the students, the greater academic performance is positively impacted. The impact on students at the bottom of the achievement gap is extremely significant. The two cornerstones of such a move would be (1) advisories and (2) significant staff training in the area of sensitivity to students' individual circumstances. Research indicates that students at the low end of the performance curve show significant academic improvement (as well as improvement in behavior, attitude, attendance, and other factors that contribute to student success) when supported by strong personal relationships with adults at their school. The PTSA wholeheartedly endorses the development of these strategies. Recommendations Against: Block Scheduling As Proposed: The school has proposed changing to an 8-period, 4x2 alternating block schedule, to be implemented in the fall of 2009. This proposal would result in a 23% reduction in instructional time for each subject class, a 33% reduction in honors science classes, and a 46% reduction in AP and IB science classes. The schedule also would include several hours a week of a reconstructed Community Access Period during the non-curricular part of the Advisory period. For most students this would be a study hall or sustained silent reading period. This reading and study time would be counted towards students' overall instructional time. 23% Reduction In Instructional Time For Subject Classes: The PTSA opposes the 23% reduction in instructional time completely. There appears to be no literature supporting that this sort of drastic reduction in student instructional time would have any positive impact in reducing the achievement gap. There has evidently been supportive talk within the Design Committee of this approach following the Japanese or Singapore model, but these models include 30 more school days per year than California mandates and involve a student body with very different backgrounds and needs from our own. We have found no literature, nor have we been given any information from the BHS administration that would support such a move. In fact, much of the literature supports a move to fewer classes at a time (i.e., a 4x4 block on a trimester system) and increasing the amount of instructional time in each subject as one of the most beneficial ways to impact the achievement gap. Many teachers have expressed strong opposition to this level of reduction in instructional time as well. [ Block scheduling and the reduction in instructional time are two separate issues .] 46% Reduction In Instructional Time For AP/IB Science Classes: The revised proposal would eliminate zero and seventh periods, thereby eliminating science labs altogether. The result is a 46% reduction in instructional time for those classes, effectively decimating the Berkeley High science program. At a time when our new President has called for an increased commitment to math and science, this would be a significant move in the wrong direction. Of additional concern is a statement made by the Principal in conversation after the first public forum addressing the original Redesign Proposal, stating that the large reduction in instructional time was the only way to get teachers to agree to advisories and block scheduling. If this is an accurate assessment, then this is a completely unacceptable reason for making this decision. Ultimately, all decisions should be made with regard to the best interests of our students. This was clearly not a student-based decision and the PTSA cannot support any move forward that includes such a drastic and unsupported reduction in the core educational product. No Recommendation For or Against: Block Scheduling In Concept: The Principal has stated in conversations at public forums that there is not a strong consensus in the data one way or another as to the benefits of a standard schedule versus block scheduling. Stated advantages are fewer daily transitions; less start-up and finish time needed in class; the possibility of more involved, in-depth in-class projects; and possible easier homework management for students. Several teachers have pointed out that if they are going to touch base with more of their students on a daily basis, it is much easier to accomplish that in 90 to 100 minutes than in 55 minutes. One of the disadvantages is that teachers who are currently struggling to fill 55 minutes of class time will struggle even more to fill 90 minutes. A more significant disadvantage is that a considerable amount of research shows that students at the bottom of the achievement gap often suffer from lower attention spans. This would certainly be an issue with longer blocks of instructional time. Extensive teacher training would have to take place to ensure that the time is used productively. The PTSA is open to, but would like to see justification supported by research, together with a much broader public discussion, before endorsing such a drastic change in schedule. [ As an interesting side note, one of Berkeley High's teachers polled all of his students who have experienced block scheduling at King Middle School, and 92% responded that they prefer the current six period per day schedule .] Community Access Time: What started out as the Student Support & Community Access Period (SSCAP), constituting an entire period of its own in the proposed 8-period block schedule, has now been incorporated as a part of a full period advisory (and supervised by the advisor). The hour or so following the 30 minutes of advisory curriculum has been presented as sustained silent reading or study hall - it no longer seems to be long enough to accommodate internships or taking college classes at Berkeley City College. This time has been promoted as a time where students who are struggling could have time to access on-site tutoring, counseling or access other teachers in a sort of "office hour". Significance has been placed on the fact that this would now be structured into the schedule, as opposed to before or after school, or during lunch. For some students this would certainly be beneficial, but the PTSA is concerned with how this period would end up being used by the majority of students - including those that are struggling academically. There is plenty of literature that suggests that what struggling students need is more structure, not less. This period has the potential to become very unstructured, and would have to be worked out to a much more detailed level before meriting consideration. A 7 th Small School: The PTSA has no strong feelings about the ultimate development of a 7 th small school on the Berkeley High Campus. We do highly recommend that the existing small schools be allowed to fully develop and implement their current programs before layering in an additional school, with its inherent set of challenges. Before establishing a 7 th small school, evidence should be presented that the existing small schools have a positive impact on the achievement gap (if that is the driving goal of establishing the 7 th small school.)[ It should be noted that the Gates Foundation is moving away from supporting the small school movement due to a lack of supporting evidence that they are improving student achievement. They are turning more and more to supporting charter schools. It may be worth the District evaluating the literature on this .] Areas of Concern: Lack of Details: In speaking with everyone from district staff to educational consultants, we have consistently heard that although many of the basic concepts of what is being presented are correct, the success will be in the details and very few details have been presented. The curriculum for the advisories needs to be developed before the potential can be assessed. The same holds for the non-curricular part of the advisories (the old Community Access Period). Without going into extensive detail, the PTSA feels that, almost across the board, the development of what is being proposed is in its infancy and needs much further attention. Unrealistic Timeline: Most of the components of the proposal (advisories, block scheduling and Community Access) do not have adequate time for development, planning and training before implementation. As one example, with the advisory curriculum not scheduled to be ready to present to the BUSD School Board until April 2009 (much less passed), it would leave almost no time for adequate training for staff. This concept is equally controversial among the BHS student body, and the school only gets one chance at a first impression. If all BHS advisors are not completely prepared to succeed on day one, the students will dismiss the advisories as a waste of time, and convincing them otherwise will prove very difficult. In the same vein, there needs to be considerable training done if we are going to have all teachers fully trained to be successful teaching in an extended time format. If any of the components are going to be successfully implemented, they will first have to be carefully planned with adequate training provided. We have also gotten feedback from a number of systems analysts who have highly recommended implementing one component at a time, so that baselines can be established against which future evaluations of success can be measured. MISSING COMPONENTS Stronger Teacher Evaluation Process: As mentioned above in the segment on professional development, the research is fairly conclusive that the most important contributor to student success is the talent level of the teachers; not just the talent needed to impart information and knowledge, but the talent to make strong personal connections with students. Although professional development is an important component of achieving a talented teaching staff, even more important is the inherent talent level of the teachers involved in the development process. The interpersonal skills needed to make strong personal connections with at-risk students who are failing academically are skills that are generally not taught, but are inherent in the make-up of the individual. Good professional development can enhance the overall skills of any teacher, but the inherent interpersonal skill of the individual teacher is the overriding factor for success in reaching students who are at-risk. Based on conversations with people in the District and in the BFT, Berkeley High could be much more proactive in establishing a stronger teacher evaluation process, including the use of Peer Assessment Reviews (PAR), which are showing to be quite successful in its use at the K-8 level in Berkeley. A strong teacher evaluation process is critical to the development of a strong and talented staff. It is extremely important to have an administration that works hard to constantly evaluate its teachers, remove weak and underperforming teachers, establishes ways to increase the retention of high-performing teachers and is aggressively looking to hire talented new teachers. The school specifically needs to make the hiring of more teachers of color a high priority. As a bonus, there is no financial impact in developing such a process. Input and Involvement From Struggling Students & Their Families: An examination of the design process shows a committee that has worked together in almost total secrecy, with the involvement of only one parent who was hand-picked by the administration. There was no representation of parents whose children were the ones the recommendations were designed to help. At the second public forum, on Tuesday, December 2 nd , the question was raised as to what efforts had been made to solicit input from the communities the Design Proposal was most intended to impact (that is, the students themselves), and the response from the principal was that until that evening, there hadn't been anything. Struggling students and their families should be the first participants (or among the first participants) in the public process. Adequate Public Process: The Design Committee's recommendations were reached with a significant lack of parent input that the PTSA finds disappointing and potentially fractious for the community as a whole. The limited informational process has also caused a significant and unnecessary backlash among parents . If the proposal is passed, the lack of a cohesive parent response has the potential to undermine the committee's recommendations as it moves forward. If not passed, the resulting anger, feelings of powerlessness and animosity that would be felt by many parents could make it very hard to build momentum and buy-in for the next effort. The PTSA feels very strongly that a new process needs to be implemented if we are to move forward as an informed and united community. The proposal was first brought to public attention in November at an SGC meeting, presented to the BUSD School Board the following evening, with two public forums quickly sandwiched around the Thanksgiving Holiday before going back to the SGC for a vote at its very next meeting in December. Despite assurances to several parents who meet monthly with the principal that the administration would send a letter to every BHS household, announcing the meetings and explaining the basics of what was being proposed, nothing was mailed. It was also agreed that a community-wide phone message would be sent to all BHS families in English and Spanish, which did not take place before either public forum. The forums were announced as being only one hour in length (eventually compromised to an hour-and-a-half) and once there, its participants were told that the approximately 15 to 20 minutes of questions were for "clarification only" and that there would be "no discussion." Over the past several months, there have been numerous revisions to the Redesign Plan without once there being any notice or indication of it to the public by the BHS administration. All information has come through the PTSA. The entire approach towards involving the public has been to limit their access to information and input. It was almost inevitable in the process used that there would be a strong backlash and that the debate would become political and emotional instead of educational and student-based. Unifying The Parent Community: Berkeley's parents generally have very big hearts. When no effort is made to inform the parent community of just how badly Berkeley High is failing many students and what can be done to address the problem, most families, regardless of background, are going to look at the proposal in terms of their own children, without a proper context to establish an informed position. We have spoken to many families in both the Hispanic and African-American community and their feelings and responses to the plan are very similar to the rest of Berkeley's families. We strongly feel that if an inclusive and respectful public process is established moving forward, that a significant majority of the Berkeley High parent community will support meaningful change, if not necessarily the one currently presented by the Design Team. This was evidenced in the public information forum on Wednesday, February 4 th , which was co-hosted by the District and BHS PTSA. After an hour of information given by the District on the achievement gap and an hour of information through an open question and answer period, over 80% of a large group of parents who had concerns about the SGC proposal nevertheless indicated through a straw poll vote that they could be comfortable supporting a position such as the one presented below, and would be willing to consider significant changes to the Berkeley High program in the future given supporting evidence for those moves. Most all parents favor addressing the achievement gap in a strong way. It was extremely encouraging for the future of Berkeley High to see such a large group of parents, so open to change. PTSA RECOMMENDATION FOR BERKELEY HIGH REDESIGN The PTSA recommends that the School Board approve the following:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||