Berkeley High May Cut Out Science Labs

[ccharles000]

Berkeley High School is considering a controversial proposal to eliminate science labs and the five science teachers who teach them to free up more resources to help struggling students.

The proposal to put the science-lab cuts on the table was approved recently by Berkeley High's School Governance Council, a body of teachers, parents, and students who oversee a plan to change the structure of the high school to address Berkeley's dismal racial achievement gap, where white students are doing far better than the state average while black and Latino students are doing worse.

Paul Gibson, an alternate parent representative on the School Governance Council, said that information presented at council meetings suggests that the science labs were largely classes for white students. He said the decision to consider cutting the labs in order to redirect resources to underperforming students was virtually unanimous.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/berkeley-high-may-cut-out-science-labs/Content?oid=1536705

[dkf]

1. Wow, just wow.

Whatever happened to striving for excellence?

[Book Lover]

2. Yet another inaccurate headline designed to tear down Berkeley

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2009/12/11/endangered-science-at-bhs/

"The most contentious aspect of the new schedule is the elimination of before- and after-school time for science labs."

Under the proposal, lab time will be moved into the school day, not removed from the curriculum. But that doesn't angry up the blood, now does it? I'm not saying this is a good idea, but let's understand what the actual proposal is, and not be satisfied with subpar reporting.

[LisaL]

3. Did you read your own link?

The science teachers wrote an open letter to the community because they are against this.

[Book Lover]

4. Did I say the science teachers were happy about this?

The point is that no one is proposing that science labs be done away with altogether, which is what the headline in the OP's article states.

[Occulus]

5. Whoa, wait, back up

I had a similar need for early and late hour activity when I was in high school.

I was a music student, a very accomplished one. I was in the Michigan Regional Honors Choir three times and the State Honors Choir twice, sat as first chair oboist at the Michigan Youth Arts Festival one year, and played piano in our high school's jazz band. I'd been teaching myself piano from 6th or 7th grade; by the time I graduated, I was playing portions of Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" despite having had not one single piano lesson (not that I didn't ask for lessons, but that's another story altogether).

Those accomplishments I listed above were only the ones that to a degree depended on before- and after-school time and effort, both on my part and on my instructors' parts. Without early and late rehearsals being available (0th and 7th hour, respectively) except during the actual school day, I would never have performed in any of the honors choirs, or any rehearsals after school, because my school day was almost always completely full. The only way I could possibly do what I wanted to do within my sphere of interest was to either get to school an hour early or stay an hour late. Very often, I would also come back later in the evening to rehearse some more, for jazz band or marching band or the annual musical.

I get where the science teachers and the students interested in science are coming from on a very visceral level. If I had been locked out of the room (literally!), early or late, I would have been locked out of true accomplishment for my ability level. If they so badly feel the need to help the students who have fallen behind, they need a quiet, out-of-the-way place that isn't even potentially disruptive to anything currently going on. That isn't the science lab.

They certainly don't need to usurp the science labs specifically. Something bugs me about this, and knowing it's a science lab being affected while not knowing the makeup of the board/panel/council that made the decision has something to do with it.

[Hannah Bell]

6. schwartzenegger budget cuts + no child left behind = science cuts.

so put the blame where it belongs.

science isn't tested.

nclb = every student must pass the tests or eventually the school is taken over.

[Igel]

7. Odd.

First, this state of affairs--having a racial gap in one school--isn't unusual. It undercuts fairly directly the proposition that poor school funding is a major factor in poor student performance. It's the same in the local school district: Even in the same school, with the same teachers, same buildings, same courses, there's still a large difference in performance, one that also doesn't vary with percentages minorities/majorities (in other words, minority white or minority minority, you get the same kinds of gaps). Yet people still say we need to increase funding because minority schools get less funding and that's the reason for lower achievement levels by some groups. Perhaps that argument holds between districts, but it's ultimately an argument from correlation.

Second, it's trite to point out that there are two ways to reduce a performance gap. Note that absolute performance wasn't discussed--it's increased slightly, but for both white and non-white cohorts (as if "non-white" were a really useful way to subaggregate test scores).

Third, it's mildly amusing that they're basing their decision to cut academic classes partly on racial concerns. Imagine if it were found that a series of courses were mostly populated by black students, and that was a reason for cutting them. Lack of diversity, after all. One could argue that this isn't what's being said because, well, it makes the mixed panel do things for ostensibly racist or at least racialist grounds--and while for some that's fine, as long as the right group is the target, for many others that's still anathema. But note that the environmental science course's significant minority enrollment is offered as a counterargument, a counterargument that only makes sense if race wasn't at least perceived by educated people "on the ground" as a large part of the rationale.

[LisaL]

9. Yes, unless minority students weren't allowed into science

labs (which obviously isn't the case), what kind of justification is it to cut the labs?
I think it's offensive to use the justification they appear to be using to cut the labs.

[Nikki Stone1]

8. I heard from a friend of mine that something similar is happening in San Diego

Maybe Nadin could fill us in if she's around.