High School Officials Allegedly Cuts Science Program Because It Primarily Benefits White Students

Berkeley High School is in the midst of a difficult debate over the elimination of science labs and five science teachers to shift resources to help struggling students. Some have objected that the science courses primarily help white students and should be reduced to add greater “equity” for struggling and minority students.

The school board insists that it is merely trying to spread resources to benefit the more students and to create a “less stressful” environment.

What is curious is that the school’s data page shows that the student body is roughly 37% white, so that it would not be surprising to see a large number of white students in any class. Moreover, Mardi Sincular-Mertens, who has taught science at BHS for 24 years, said that there are twelve African-American males in her AP classes and that her four environmental science classes are 17.5 percent African American and 13.9 percent Latino.

It seems to me that cutting such science classes is a bizarre response given the efforts to train our students for the 21st Century world. Other countries are putting far greater emphasis on math and science and we are already seeing the impact of this educational gap. The minority community in particular is at risk of being underprepresented in the science field — the most promising careers in the decade to come.

The story also reminds us of the continued reduction of educational programs and the sale of public buildings and parks as the government continues to burn through billions of dollars in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, here. I have personally heard of science and other programs being cut out in my area due to a lack of funding as billions simply evaporate abroad, including continued allegations of corruption.

For the full story, click here.

81 thoughts on “High School Officials Allegedly Cuts Science Program Because It Primarily Benefits White Students”

  1. Bdaman:

    that article on arctic ice only seems to say that ice thickness varies across wide areas or that there are variations in ice thickness due to weather or sea conditions.

    The ice was generally 6-8′ thick if I read that article correctly and the sub was able to find thin patches to break through.

    I imagine the same is true today as well.

  2. Interesting

    Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick

    Ten times she is able to surface. Once, at the North Pole, where crewmen performed a mission of sentiment, scattering the ashes of polar explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins. In 1931, he was the first to attempt a submarine cruise to the Pole. Now, the Skate’s twelve-day three thousand mile voyage under the ice, shown in Defense Department films, demonstrates that missile-carrying nuclear subs could lurk under the Polar Ice Cap, safe from attack, to emerge at will, and fire off H-bomb missiles to any target on Earth.


  3. Scepticism seems to be on the rise, perhaps encouraged by the failure of the “warmist” consensus at Copenhagen and recent bitterly-cold weather. I appreciate the current weather conditions have little bearing on long-term climate trends and should not be used in the warmist v sceptics debate about global warming, though both sides can’t stop themselves when current weather would seem to bolster one side or the other.

    But if January turns out to be as cold or colder than December then the Met Office will have some explaining to do: after its forecast that we were in for a BBQ summer in 2009 (yes, I missed it too) if it can’t get its winter forecast broadly right, why should we believe its forecasts for 2020 or 2050?

    Meanwhile I pass on this advice from one US forecaster who thinks we’re in for a tough time: “bundle up, stock up and get ready.”


  4. Shakin’ for Bush is more like it.


    How does it feel to be totally exposed and discredited?

    Aren’t you ready to abandon this fake ID yet and assume yet another soon to be discredited fake ID from which to spew your propaganda?

    Surely you realize it’s a game of diminishing returns for the bdamonkey ID at this point.

    Then again, maybe not. Thinking isn’t your strong suit. So I’ll line it out for you:

    1) You showed yourself to be a bigot. End of that analysis.

    2) You backed a patently ridiculous distraction argument – poorly. (Birther)

    3) You parrot the Neocon line with dazzling unsubtly usually only seen when bovines invade china shops.

    4) You get mocked at every turn by just about everybody.

    Does any of that register as to causation of lack of effectiveness?

    I kinda doubt it, but in all fairness, I had to point it out.

  5. Oh I don’t care Mr. Buddah Pest, doesn’t bother me a bit.

    Just shakin the Bush boss, just shakin the Bush.

    Shakin it over here Boss, yessum Boss, use right boss,

    Whatever you say boss, just shakin the Bush

  6. Good thing for us, not everyone doesn’t understand what those e-mails actually are: colleagues in a scientific endeavor bitching about the ignorant.

    All you’ve done, once again, is show that you are incapable of putting evidence in context, McTroll.

    You do realize at this point you are just being screwed with by everyone here, correct? That alone should tell you that you’ve lost this argument with everyone except for Byron – and he’s not in your camp either, sport. He’s in the “I don’t have enough information” camp. That’s not exactly resounding support for your Big Oil backed status quo maintaining single and mangled data point arguments there, ace.

    Is it getting chilly out there by yourself, lil’ carbon-denier monkey?

    You know dancing will keep your core temperature up.

    Here . . . let us turn that crank for you some more.

    (Insert calliope music here)

  7. Thats the way to contribute Mr. Sunspot, still waiting on your anal-ysis on The Cloud Mystery documentary.

    What, scared it will go against your way of thinking. Scared to know you might find out your wrong. What are you scared of?

    You already figured it out that I was right about it being a shell game. Open your mind Mr. Sunspot. Don’t be afraid of the light,it will make you brighter. you can see better when you have it.

  8. BTW, a new study indicates that C02 levels are at their highest in 2.1 million years:

    Then according to the Alarmist we should have warmed significantly. If that’s the case then CO2 is higher now than the Medeival Warm Period when the Vikings settled. Greenland had no ice, what it did have was cattle and crops. The Vikings grew grapes in New Foundland, the Tudor Kings grew citrus in England.

    But then came the Little Ice Age and changed all of that. Greenland is not green and the Thames River use to freeze completely over.

    So what if I am right, what if I’m wrong, what if we are all right, as in being O.K. Well who’s to say.

    I will say this, the number of skeptics are increasing, the damage to the global warmist/alarmist is done.

    If you want to accomplish a goal, hiding the decline, fudging data, avoiding questions and debates and trying to suppress other ideas that don’t agree with yours won’t work.

  9. The only myth here is that you have any credibility, bdaPetTroll.

    The beauty of the monkey as it dances to the calliope is that it is so enraptured by the crazy music that it doesn’t realize people are laughing at it and not with it.

    Poor monkey.

    But as long as you want to dance, there will be people willing to laugh.

    Come on Mr. Bigoted Birther-pants! Earn that banana!

    Show us that big brain of yours.

    Do that lil’ dance of yours for us again.

  10. lottakatz

    If you want to say we as a people are polluting the earth, which we are, and we need to do a better job of protecting it, which we should, thats great. But what they have done is created a myth of global warming to try and achieve that goal and at the same time profit from the myth.

  11. Bdaman, here’s the bottom line for a lot of us that no longer even bother to read about the debate anymore: So what if your right? What’s the downside of weaning ourselves off oil and shifting to a significantly more green energy technology? In the long run maybe nothing regarding climate change. Or, in the long run maybe we mitigate the damage we have done and that will continue to ripple through the climate for decades even if we stopped being an oil based economy tomorrow. BTW, a new study indicates that C02 levels are at their highest in 2.1 million years:


  12. Rafflaw thanks I will, you keep ignoring the actual factual data and continue to rely on the hockey stick.

  13. maverratick, here’s one where Phil Jones admits that the warming only equates to 10-20% of the grids. I believe this is the same Phil Jones who said we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty we cant.

    From: Phil Jones
    To: rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, “Michael E. Mann” ,tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Subject: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
    Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:49:22 +0000
    Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu,drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

    Even with the instrumental record,
    the early and late
    20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between
    10-20% of grid boxes.
    Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something –
    even if this is just
    to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the
    skeptics will use
    this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years
    if it goes

    I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more
    to do with it until they
    rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the
    editorial board, but papers
    get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.


  14. Byron,

    What did you think was “fishy”

    I hear a lot about the “hide the trend” language or whatever the guy said as he was trying to isolate some nonlinear component. Everyone jumped on it: “He’s trying to hide it from US.”

    I hear there was grumbling in the emails but who isn’t grumbling with all these trolls around?

  15. raff,

    Personally I’m just waiting for him to go back to his desperation tactic of being a hate monger instead of a ignorance monger or fascist apologist. Those do seem to be his three settings. Which means he should run for office. If he’s going to the trouble of proving he’s American . . .

    Palin/bdaman (R) 2012 – Stupidity you can believe in!

    And no matter who runs against that ticket, their slogan could be – Vote! Or die laughing.

  16. Bdaman,
    You are over the top. Keep ignoring the science. I know the Republicants and neocons don’t believe in science, but the rest of the world does. By the way, I want to see your long form birth certificate to prove you were really born.

  17. Gyges:

    I don’t actually know what to believe about global warming. I was actually starting to think there was something to it until the CRU email business. I downloaded the emails and read quite a few, I even posted that initially it looked like a tempest in a tea pot. I kept reading and digging into the science and now think that there are some major questions that need to be answered.
    I am not a climate scientist but this looks fishy to me.

    I don’t know why Bdaman throws up all that stuff but if he has a point I think it is that there is a good deal of information to the contrary. Which I think is the point, lets look into it and really do some good science. A few years is not going to make our break our atmosphere or wipe out life on earth. If honest science says there is a problem then roll up our sleeves and get to solving.

    If life is that fragile it would not have lasted for the last 600 million years since the first simple animals.

Comments are closed.