BHS PTSA Position Paper On BHS Design Committee Recommendations

Submitted to the BHS SGC -- December 8, 2008 

The PTSA Board fully supports the BHS administration’s statement that the achievement gap needs to be addressed and that it is unacceptable to do nothing.  The data on the differences in student achievement at Berkeley High are shocking and should upset every parent in the BHS community into taking action.  The PTSA is hereby committing itself to becoming 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.

In stating our position, we find it difficult to take an absolute position when there are so many gray areas in what is being proposed, and we hope that the members of the BHS School Governance Council will take an equally measured approach to what is being recommended by the Design Committee.  What follows is a point-by-point breakdown of the major components of the proposal, the areas of major concern, the inadequate public process and our recommendation for moving forward with the greatest chance of success – success in how we best work to reduce the achievement gap, and success in how we can best move forward to ensure a cohesive and unified parent community in this process.

In formulating our position, members of the PTSA board have had conversations with School Board members, outside educational consultants (including a consultant with experience working for BayCES and another who is on the educational transition team for Obama), community leaders, members of the BFT, district personnel, members of the Design Committee, and parents representing every community within Berkeley.

ADDRESSING THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSAL

The PTSA board is very enthusiastic about the potential of many of the components of the Design Committee recommendations, but at the same time, we also have strong concerns about much of what has been presented.

Strongest Recommendations:

Advisories:  The PTSA board is very enthusiastic about the idea of advisories and the goals they could achieve.  Although we need to see more supporting research presented, we have enough of a sense of its potential to endorse a move in this direction.  However, as outstanding as an advisory system can be, it can be a complete waste of time as well.  It will only be as successful as the quality of the curriculum and the quality of the teacher training that will support it.  The PTSA is not ready to endorse the concept before seeing the curriculum plan.  [The advisories constitute a 3.7% decrease in subject class instructional time, but no drop in overall instructional time.]

Professional Development for Teachers:   The PTSA is unanimous in its support for increasing staff development to a meaningful level.  There appears to be a strong consensus in the research that the single most important aspect of academic performance for students at all levels is the talent level of the teacher in front of them.  We understand, from speaking with members of the Design Committee, that the proposed professional development is to occur every Wednesday morning on weekly late start days.  The PTSA would strongly support starting a new schedule with weekly (as opposed to monthly) late start Wednesdays as soon as the appropriate curriculums and training programs have been developed and approved.  Implementation of such a schedule would result in an overall reduction of only 4.3% from student instructional time -- a trade-off the PTSA sees as being in the best interests of Berkeley High’s students.

Increased Personalization:   Going almost hand-in-hand in importance with professional training 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 and attitude) when supported by strong personal relationships with adults at their school.  The PTSA wholeheartedly endorses the development of these strategies.

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 SSCAPs, with considerably more concern for the potential downside.  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.

25% Reduction In Instructional Time For Subject Classes:   The PTSA opposes this aspect of the proposal flat out.  There appears to be no literature supporting this sort of drastic reduction in student instructional time.  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 frankly reckless move.  If this is any way seen as tying into staff development, the professional development of our teachers cannot be subsidized by the our children’s education.  Many teachers have expressed strong opposition to this level of reduction in instructional time as well.  It is necessary to point out that block scheduling and the reduction in instructional time are two separate issues.

Of additional concern is a statement made by the Principal in conversation after the first public forum, 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.

Student Support & Community Access Period (SSCAP):   This concept appears to be part of the justification given for the 25% reduction in instructional time.  According to one educational consultant we spoke with, this approach runs counter to what Dr. Pedro Noguera has determined to be in the best interest of low-performing students – that students at the low end of the academic performance curve need increased structure, not more flexibility.  Furthermore, this concept is so minimally sketched out as to be frightening in its potential for failure.  With 700 to 800 students outside of class at any given time during the schedule, and the reality of kids getting lost in the time of a five-minute transition as support for the move to block scheduling, we do not see how potential 100 minute transition times are going to succeed.  There are also huge scheduling issues.  For example, a child who would like to take a class at Berkeley Community College who has a second period SSCAP would be available for that class from 10 to 11:30 AM on Monday, 10:30 to 12:00 noon on Wednesday, 10 to 11:30 AM again on Friday, and then not available on Monday, Wednesday and Friday the following week, but on Tuesday and Thursday from 10:30 to 12 noon.  The schedule is completely incompatible. Without seeing a completely developed plan for these periods including supervision, fully resolved scheduling issues and a complete explanation of the literature which would justify such a move, the PTSA cannot support this concept.

Block Scheduling:   The Principal has stated in conversations at the 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 less 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.  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. The PTSA would like to see justification supported by research, together with a much broader public discussion, before endorsing such a drastic change in schedule.

Unrealistic Timeline:   Most of the components of the proposal (advisories, block scheduling and SSCAP) 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.

Increased Teacher Prep Time:   There appear to be a lot of indications that teacher burn-out is a significant issue, not only for Berkeley High, but for education nationwide.  Although the PTSA by no means is supportive of a 25% reduction in subject class instructional time as a way of addressing this issue, we would be open to looking at some increase of teacher prep time as a way of supporting some of the goals of the Design Committee.  The inclusion of two school-wide 30-minute prep periods is something the PTSA Board feels could be worth considering.  Once again, a more developed plan would need to be presented by the Design Committee before the PTSA could consider endorsing it. [This would constitute a 3.7% reduction in instructional time.]  As presented in the Design Committee recommendations, the PTSA absolutely can not endorse this.

A 7th Small School:   The PTSA has no strong feelings about the ultimate development of a 7th 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.

A Major Missing Component:

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 the development is being given to.  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 skills 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. As a bonus, there is no financial impact in developing such a process.

THE ISSUE OF INADEQUATE 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 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.

A quick examination of the design process shows a committee that has worked together in total secrecy with the involvement of only one parent, who was hand-picked by the administration.  There was no representation of parents whose kids were the ones the recommendations were designed to help. At the second public forum, on Tuesday, December 2nd, 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, and the response from the principal was that until that evening, there hadn’t been anything.

The proposal was first brought to public attention three weeks ago at an SGC meeting, presented to the BHSD School Board the following evening, two public forums quickly sandwiched around the Thanksgiving Holiday before going back to the SGC for a vote at its very next meeting.  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-side 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.”  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.

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 it, most families, regardless of background, are going to look at the proposal in terms of their own children and 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, that a significant majority of the Berkeley High parent community will support a proposal for meaningful change, if not necessarily the one currently presented by the Design Team.

In all parts of our community, there has been a complete failure of public process from start to finish.

PRINCIPAL’S REQUEST FOR ALTERNATE APPROACHES

At each of the two public forums, the principal requested parents to submit their own plans for addressing the achievement gap if they did not agree with the recommendations of the Design Committee.  Although the PTSA does not want to put the cart before the horse by proposing its own recommendations without a proper public process, it is worth looking at an example of what sort of positive options could result from a more measured approach.  It is not endorsed by the PTSA, but rather stands as an example of what might come out of a more comprehensive process, while also addressing concerns and goals on both sides of the debate.

If approved components are ready staff trainings, the PTSA would endorse the establishment of weekly professional development on weekly late start Wednesdays in the fall of 2009.  By then, the Design Team should have developed and presented a strong advisory curriculum that everyone is enthusiastic about.  These weekly sessions can be used to give a year’s worth of staff development for advisories, sensitivity training and whatever other program components may eventually have been approved in the public process.

Subsequent to establishing Wednesday professional development session, in an approach the PTSA could see supporting, the school could also use those Wednesdays to experiment with block scheduling on an alternating A/B plan – periods one, two and three on one Wednesday and periods four, five and six the next.  The school would thereby have a way of evaluating and giving feedback to teachers on their use of the extended time while only impacting one day a week.  If is also ultimately determined that some extra teacher prep time is valuable enough, Wednesdays could also end with a school-wide half hour prep period.  This could then also be a time when students can start to become accustomed to visiting teachers with whom they need extra time.

In the fall of 2010, advisories could be implemented with block scheduling expanded to Tuesdays and Thursdays (if it is determined to be the preferred way).  Teacher prep time could now be changed from once a week for 30 minutes on Wednesday to twice a week for thirty minutes on Tuesdays and Thursdays – again school-wide at the end of the day.  There then would be two 30-minute periods a week where students could have some flex options as well.  Mondays and Fridays could continue to have six periods or could be converted to block scheduling if that is the preferred option.  The total reduction in student instructional time would be 11.7% for subject classes and only 8% overall when including advisories.  Teachers would have an additional 60 minutes per week of prep time and around 90 minutes per week of professional development.  The advisories and professional development could be exactly as currently recommended and the goals of the overall effort would be very significantly addressed without the extraordinary reduction in instructional time recommended by the current proposal.  This approach would also layer in changes with the ability to evaluate each component as they are implemented, instead of doing everything at once and then finding it difficult to determine which results come from what program component.

But as mentioned above, any program development would need to be the product of the process.

PTSA RECOMMENDATION FOR MOVING FORWARD

If the School Governance Council is limited to either an acceptance or a rejection of the Design Committee’s recommendations, the PTSA strongly urges the members of the SGC to reject the proposal as presented for the reasons given above.  But we feel equally strongly that the most productive approach is to take a third option.

The BHS PTSA would like to recommend that the members of the School Governance Committee not vote to accept nor to outright reject the recommendations from the BHS Design Committee.  Instead, we propose that the SGC move to make a commitment to establish a more meaningful, inclusive and transparent public process which involves all parts of the BHS community every step of the way and to postpone voting on individual components until they are fully developed and have been properly introduced to understood by the community.  We feel very confident that if the community understands the achievement gap data, hears from appropriate District educators, math teachers, science teachers, arts teachers, AP teachers, teachers steeped in experience with at-risk students, hear the personal stories from parents of at-risk children as to what some of these components can do for their children, and hears from outside educational consultants, the Design Committee will build a strong and cohesive consensus among parents of all backgrounds for some form of most of the components being it has proposed.  The recommendations we have heard the most are “open up” and “slow down.”

The next step the PTSA would endorse is the establishment of weekly professional development on weekly late start Wednesdays in the fall of 2009.  By then, the Design Team should have developed and presented a strong advisory curriculum that everyone can enthusiastically support.  These weekly sessions can be used to give a year’s worth of staff development for advisories, sensitivity training and whatever other program components may eventually have been approved in the public process.  The weekly late start days would have to be evaluated and approved on a yearly basis as to their effectiveness.

If the School Governance Council chooses to pursue the PTSA recommendation or a similar third option, the PTSA is fully committed to working in strong partnership with the Design Committee, the Berkeley High School administration, the District and the teaching staff in taking a leadership role in the effort to build a strong consensus for change in all of the communities that make up Berkeley High.  To do nothing, is unacceptable.