Contention Over BSEP Fund Allocation, Committee Diversity

Issues of equity and a widening achievement gap have come to a head in recent months in meetings of the Berkeley Schools Excellence Project Committee (BSEP) to decide the 2010–2011 school year budget. The BSEP Committee has drawn criticism for a lack of diversity, as well as for what some see as a misguided decision making process. These accusations come at a time when a dwindling state budget necessitates difficult funding decisions and as such, many committee members contend that anger towards BSEP should be directed elsewhere.

The BSEP committee, technically an advisory body to the School Governance Council (SGC), is responsible for budgeting school discretionary funds from Measure A’s property taxes on Berkeley citizens. This funding is intended for “programs to enhance student learning” within the district. Each year, BSEP solicits proposals for programs that are then evaluated by factors such as their commitment to improve equity, the number and relative need of students served as well as overall cost.

Last September, BSEP received a total of 18 proposals. After quickly striking down two of these (funding for science labs and a corporate–sponsored NFL summer camp), the total costs of the remaining programs and positions came to $1.4 million. The committee, with about $726,000 to spend, began the process of choosing which of these would receive funding.

With many programs vying for funds, including Student Court and the Responsibility, Integrity, Strength and Empowerment (RISE) tutoring program, the choices made by the committee led to disappointment from groups who did not have their needs met. The BSEP budget proposed in March, which cut funding for Student Court and reduced instructional materials among other items, was rejected by the SGC for the first time in the 24 year history of the tax. BSEP reconvened to take into account SGC’s input, eventually refunding Student Court at the cost of the proposed Read 180 program and stipends for freshman coaches.

“When dealing with such a disparity in what can be and should be funded, there are always going to be severe consequences,” said Allen King, Berkeley High School parent and current co–chair of BSEP.
“We had to triage [the proposals] essentially. We knew the impact before the SGC even saw our budget. We’re cutting things that we shouldn’t have to be cutting.”

However, directors of these programs feel in some cases the full impact of each decision isn’t taken into account. David Luu, former director of Student Court, feels that the program was unfairly cut because it only directly addresses the seventy or so students given hearings each year. The program allows BHS students that have been suspended to participate in a mock trial with their peers to receive an alternative consequence such as community service or counseling.
“This program makes a statement that the school cares about and listens to its students. Its cultural implications are far reaching,” Luu said.

He argues that while this program clearly and directly addresses issues of equity, the small numbers of students involved and the fact that it is disciplinary makes BSEP reluctant to give it a high priority. He feels that the needs of these students are not visible enough to much of the BHS community. A similar story arose with the rejection of the new Read 180 program, designed to provide “reading intervention” for special education students whose reading skills are at or below a fourth grade level. With a high initial cost and relatively low number of students served—about thirty in the district—the program was not considered a high enough priority by the SGC.

“It’s hard when the population that you serve doesn’t have the social or political capital to be funded by the parents and the community,” said Ben Neumann, BHS Resource Specialist. He pointed out that the Read 180 program was proven to be successful in surveys by the US Department of Education. Like Luu, Neumman often works very hard to get support for the disadvantaged students when those involved in the decision making process often have no or limited contact with those in need.

Frustrations with BSEP’s decisions are often directed at the makeup of the committee itself. While the committee’s bylaws require that it be composed of five parents, staff and students, this year’s committee includes only two students and four staff, including Mr. Slemp, and more than five parents who must rotate their votes each meeting. Most of the parents on the committee are not employed full time and are parents of students in Academic Choice or Berkeley International High School. Many believe that these numbers are not an accurate representation of Berkeley High students, and cannot effectively meet the needs of all students.

“I would like to see [the committee] be more culturally diverse,” said Antonio Magaña, current BSEP co–chair alongside King and one of the two parents of color serving on the committee. However, he believes that there are logistic and cultural barriers that parents of color must overcome to serve in the decision making process, particularly the amount of time needed to attend meetings and read proposals. To him, BSEP is a process that requires tolerance and patience.

On the other hand, King argues that BSEP is doing all that it can in terms of outreach to the larger Berkeley community.
“We want to have everybody represented. But you can’t tell diversity only by color or socioeconomic status; you can see it through our debates and differing points of view.” King recently spoke at a meeting of Parents of Children of African Descent in Berkeley, encouraging parents to run for BSEP next year, and has done similar outreach to Latino organizations.
But whatever complaints exist about the committee itself, there is no escaping the fact that BSEP has to discontinue or decrease funding for some programs each year. The committee’s total grant for 2010–2011 was about $50,000 less than this year’s budget and recently more “hard money” positions such as college/career counselors and OCI administrators are requesting money from BSEP funds after being cut from the district budget. Yoneko Murillo, a Communication Arts and Sciences senior currently serving her second year on BSEP, is doubtful as to whether the committee can solve all the conflicts that this entails.

“If anything is going to change, it’s going to have to come from the capital, not Berkeley’s tax dollars,” Murillo said.
Slemp echoed her views, saying that too much infighting and arguing amongst BSEP is misleading. “The state of California does not fund K–12 to the level that it should,” stated Slemp. “We spend a lot of time fighting each other—our anger should be directed to Sacramento.”

Photos:

• BSEP (Chloe Holden)