San Benito High School board members met Jan. 31 to continue discussion of the “a-g” graduation requirements. Brought forward by the administrative team at a Jan.10 meeting, there is some concern that a-g requirements could limit a student’s ability to take elective or support classes.
The team, made up of made up of Principal Adrian Ramirez, Assistant Principal Claire Grissom, Assistant Principal Jeremy Dirks, Assistant Principal Elaine Klauer, Director of Educational Services Cindi Krokower and Director of Special Education Paulette Cobb, presented the board with what they identified as consequences and resolutions to the graduation requirement situation.
Ramirez started the presentation by pointing out that while there are seven other academic priorities, the team came to a consensus that the a-g graduation requirements were the most important.
“We had started on a path several years ago of looking into this because we saw a need for there to be an equitable access to college, college courses, courses that have rigor and being able to prepare our students for life after high school,” Ramirez said “…what we do know is the research is telling us that the academic skills necessary for a student who wants to be successful in the vocational industry is at the same level of what a student is required to be successful in their first year of college.”
Krokower said there are two major areas of difference between the Class of 2020 graduates — this year’s freshman class — and past graduates.
“Those two major differences are in the area of mathematics and in the area of language other than English (LOTE) or world languages. So in the past we did require three years of mathematics but only through an attempt of geometry. Now, the new requirements are looking to go through Algebra II and instead of one year of a language we’re now looking at two years of the same language,” she said.
Krokower added that 90 percent of students were already taking math courses that went beyond geometry and 80 percent were already taking their second year of a language course.
Grissom continued the presentation by citing the importance of scheduling for a sophomore following the a-g requirements. “So right off the bat when we take a look at scheduling students, we notice sophomore year, if we’re doing a-g, we have English, math, science, LOTE, P.E., and social science and I noticed right away that we don’t have any room for electives, we don’t have any room for support courses,” she said.
Grissom concluded that “Hollister places great value on the CPP (College Career Pathway) option,” citing the new CTE building which the district is building with $20 million in bond funds.
She reminded the board that the high school graduates 96.9 percent of its students, but only 43 percent of those students are on an a-g path.
According to the 2011-2015 United States Census Bureau, 72.6 percent of people living in Hollister have a high school education, while 14.4 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Krokower continued the presentation saying that prior to August 2016, students were required to take two years of P.E. and they needed to pass the physical fitness test and the Fitnessgram. However, if they passed the Fitnessgram their freshmen year, they didn’t have to go directly in P.E. their sophomore year and could instead take it their junior or senior year or they could take advantage of one of the waivers that the education code allowed — such as having participation in sport count for P.E. credit.
“However, in August of 2016 it was brought forward to the board to adopt a fixed, two-year requirement meaning students must take physical education their freshman and sophomore year. By being fixed into that sophomore year P.E., that really limits students’ choices (for other classes) during their sophomore year,” she said.
Krokower recommended that the board reinstate the two-year P.E. requirement, the “one prior to August 2016,” allowing students more flexibility in their schedule.
Assistant Principal Elaine Klauer also recommended working with the bell schedule committee to determine other alternatives for students who need support classes.
Grissom also presented about the current College Career Pathway in which students have to “opt-in” by the end of their freshmen year. She recommended the board extend the “opt-in” window until the end of the sophomore year and keep the three-year pathway completion.
P.E. Division Chair Brian DeCarli said during public comment that the P.E. department had some concerns. “As a department, collectively, we oppose going down to a one year…We would like as a department to go back, if it’s possible, to have two years of P.E. regardless, not keep to that freshmen/sophomore. Obesity rates in the county are at 24 percent, so basically a quarter of the population. The obesity rate is increasing, it’s not decreasing. Having these students, young men and women, understand more about all those health components is really important.”
An SBHS student also spoke up saying she was in her third year of P.E and plays a sport but has not been able to pass the physical fitness exam. “I think it important for students to have their second year of P.E.,” she said.
During discussion, trustee Juan Robledo said, “I kind of like the idea of one year of P.E. with the waivers but I could see how it could impact P.E. I don’t think its going to impact in terms of layoffs, I think the opposite is going to happen. If we go with the two years plus the junior and senior year for those who don’t pass the test, I really see your department growing.”
Ramirez responded, “Looking at the numbers, we don’t really see the current enrollment really changing much. Our focus is to give the student the opportunity that sophomore year. There’s other areas, that Ms. Grissom pointed out, there’s other recommendations that we need to tackle in order to really open up the space. We want to reiterate to the board that it’s not just about P.E. There’s other pieces of the puzzle that we need to work out.”
Trustee Patty Nehme asked DeCarli if he cared when the students took P.E. as long as two years were required.
DeCarli said, “Our department wants two years of P.E.: freshman year and then give us another year at some point.”
Nehme then asked if students who do multiple sports get a waiver.
Ramirez said that the previous board approved a multi-sports waiver but then there was advocacy for those students who were in color guard and band to also be excused from the requirement. “What we realized as an administrative team is … how do you justify drawing the line and so the recommendation was brought forward by the P.E. department to do without waivers because it was hard to determine where to draw the line,” he said.
Nehme said she didn’t agree, adding, “If you’re active, doesn’t matter how you’re active. If you set the parameters and then that’s where it stands and that’s how it is.”
Grissom said that from an academic standpoint, if a student was not playing a sport but needed an academic support class then a waiver would be a great option to have.
While no action was taken at the meeting and pre-scheduling of students for the 2017-2018 school year is near completion, the board is expected to vote on a plan at its Feb.14 meeting.
Watch the video of the meeting below: