Talk:John F. Kennedy High School (Richmond, California)

Untitled

Though I do agree that the class of 07 is the best (as I'm part of it), we have to keep this article neutral. 07 wut it do! NoItAl 07:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

needs work

this article really needs some work. i've formatted it a little. it looks like a lot of the content may have been taken from school literature and is not wikified. Richmondian (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

How can Kennedy have the most students of any high school in its district when Richmond has more students included in its API score than does Kennedy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.123.166 (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John F. Kennedy High School (Richmond, California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304145121/http://www.wccusd.net/Fiscal/School_closure/Alternate%20Proposals/Alternate_-_Mike_Peritz.pdf to http://www.wccusd.net/Fiscal/School_closure/Alternate%20Proposals/Alternate_-_Mike_Peritz.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wccusd.k12.ca.us/schools/sarc/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wccusd.k12.ca.us/schools/sarc/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926005743/http://www.wccusd.k12.ca.us/kennedy/ to http://www.wccusd.k12.ca.us/kennedy/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304145121/http://www.wccusd.net/Fiscal/School_closure/Alternate%20Proposals/Alternate_-_Mike_Peritz.pdf to http://www.wccusd.net/Fiscal/School_closure/Alternate%20Proposals/Alternate_-_Mike_Peritz.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of majority of article

The majority of this entry on Kennedy High School has been deleted, including almost all of its history. Unless someone else is already working on it, I would like to redo the article. It needs to be a full article. A great deal of the history can be referenced. JacDT (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC) JacDT (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacDT (talk • contribs) 23:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In going over the deletions from the previous and more thorough web page for Kennedy High School, it looks like they needed citations. I propose reinstating the web page from early last year, with the emphasis on finding citations for the statements. It was a good page, and described the school and its history well, if incompletely. JacDT (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I changed some of the wording in the history section to fit more of an encyclopedic tone. I think it still needs more of that. I also deleted several sentences that didn't have direct references. I've added a number of references. Right now they are at the beginning of the history section, which obviously isn't ideal. I would like to get them more inline to that section of the article.

I noticed that there was an oral history reference used in the original article. I suspect that is the source of some of the more subjective comments in the history section. The reference as given appears to fit the recommendations as described here on Wikipedia for using oral histories as a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikimedia_Strategy_2017/Cycle_3#A_more_complex_view_of_oral_history

The problem I have is it wasn't clear from the original article which sentences depended on the oral history. That makes it hard to add it as an inline reference. JacDT (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I tagged the section with a {{No footnotes}} tag. If you want some more reprieve you could tag the section with {{In use|section}}. But this is something that has to be resolved, because unsourced statements can't stay long. Debresser (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I will get those inline. I'll also get better descriptions of the experimental programs tried by the school, the modular flexible scheduling and the Richmond Voluntary Integration program. Papers have been written in depth on both aspects, in particular the desegregation debates, and that needs to be clarified. The controversy and unexpected success of the voluntary desegregation program during a time of historically (and locally) charged national debate on the subject were significant, and that doesn't really come through in the current Wikipedia article.

The one reference I don't know what to do with is the oral history. It looks like a lot of scholarship went into obtaining that history. Although I don't want to disrespect the scholarship of that work by leaving it out, it isn't clear to me how exactly how it applies to in the article. JacDT (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean when you say that there is an oral history relating to this page. The strategy discussion you linked to above refers to written academic publications interpreting oral histories as witnessed by academics. Which still means that there must be reliable, written references at some point along the road. If you mean to say that certain things were not written down by anybody, then they simply can't be used, as per standing Wikipedia policy regarding verifiability. If I understand everything correctly. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

It's this reference: "Narrative and Oral History analysis provided by Dr. Nicholas Zoffel, San Jose State University, Department of Communication Studies from interviews with inaugural teachers Ms. Dolly Felix, Mr. Michael Peritz, & Community Organizer, Mr. George Harris (Peritz, M., Felix, D., Harris, G., personal communication via. interview, December 29, 2008). Of scholarly note, the interview process follows guidelines for Narrative Analysis compiled in Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications"

I am not sure exactly what it means or where it came from, so that is why I'm not sure what to do with it. I've been looking at the original history when the page was first built, seeing if I can find who entered it and how it is documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacDT (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a use for that source. The other sources need to be inline. The tone of the history section is still promotional. I do not see a source that could even be reasonably used for a quote on the school achieving flagship status (what does that even mean?), much less saying it in Wikipedia's voice. You've added back a bunch of stuff I removed from the lede, without source. Athletics information belongs in the athletics section and the school's nickname is already in the infobox. The bibliographic information needs to be added to the references and those that are paywalled need to be quoted.

Just a note...with this post, I'm going to be more or less ofline for a week (medical care). Please respect WP:NODEADLINE. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

John, thanks. That helps. Also, best wishes on your medical care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacDT (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I've gotten through about one third of the work the history section needs. I will do more tomorrow. I need to look up more references. John, thanks for being gracious about giving me more time with the WP:NODEADLINE. I appreciate it. And when you get back, we can talk about the notable alum section. I still don't agree with you about the references, but if you can give me an idea why you don't like the way they are presented, I'm sure we can figure out something that suits us both. Thanks -- Cat — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacDT (talk • contribs) 01:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Oral narrative

I found the first instance of the reference that became the oral narrative. It occurs on March 6, 2009, on this iteration of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Kennedy_High_School_(Richmond,_California)&oldid=275429735.

Over a number of subsequent edits, the reference is gradually fined-tuned into the one that is on the page now: "Narrative and Oral History analysis provided by Dr. Nicholas Zoffel, San Jose State University, Department of Communication Studies from interviews with inaugural teachers Ms. Dolly Felix, Mr. Michael Peritz, & Community Organizer, Mr. George Harris (Peritz, M., Felix, D., Harris, G., personal communication via. interview, December 29, 2008). Of scholarly note, the interview process follows guidelines for Narrative Analysis compiled in Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications"

As per our discussion, I will most likely delete that reference. Before I do, however, I'd like to try to contact the researcher who put it in to find out if they have documentation that can be used to make it a reference acceptable by Wikipedia. They are identified by their IP address rather than by a user name, so I'm not sure of the best way to proceed. Is there a recommended procedure for contacting the editor? I'm open to suggestions. JacDT (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This looks useful, if it can be applied to the current article: Wikipedia: Oral_history. JacDT (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think I will need the oral narrative. It looks like either that that narrative evolved into the masters thesis written by Adkisson at the Berkeley School of Journalism, or they independently verify the same information. Also, a lot of the information is in the Peritz Scenario 3 reference. So I'll delete that citation to the oral history.JacDT (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

SARC Report

Another question: The School Accountability Report Card (SARC) for 1980–1999 is no longer online, at least not that I have so far been able to find. It should be available in paper form from the county, but as far as I can see, it can't be linked to. It's a useful reference for the the article and its information doesn't stop being true because the web link no longer works, but at the same time, it isn't available. What is the common wisdom about dealing with such a link? Since I live on the East Coast, I don't have the option of going to Richmond, CA to find a hard copy and I don't know if it can be mailed or if they would give permission to post it online. JacDT (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

I've used the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#Alumni for this. It offers advice and/or opinions rather than formal Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it isn't considered to be thoroughly vetted by the community, but it is the most current essay.

It recommends a reference be given that indicates the alumni attended the school. The citation can appear either on the school page or the alumni page. If it appears on the alumni page, it doesn't need to be included in the school page. By that criteria, McKinley and Moore have references given in the article on the school, one to a FOX News article and another to a listing of statistics. Darden, Becker, and Asaro have references on their pages. The Becker reference is to article in the East Bay Times, and the Darden and Asaro references are each for a book with material written by the alum where they state that they attended Kennedy (I'm assuming that in the case of the Darden book, since I haven't yet found a statement to that effect in the text by going through the pages available on Amazon or elsewhere). The Barnes, Buffalo, and Farr pages state they went to Kennedy, but don't include a reference with that statement.

Finding online references for high school attendance, especially for older alumni, is difficult. For that reason, I don't object to including Barnes, Buffalo, and Farr in the list of notable alumni for Kennedy, as their pages, which have been vetted by Wiki editors, state that they went there. However, I do see that this is a potentially divisive subject. If it is a problem, I have no objection to doing a search for references to verify they attended the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacDT (talk • contribs) 06:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

One note: I'm uncomfortable discussing the notable alumni list because when I started to reinstate the deleted portions of the page, I found myself on the list. I don't feel comfortable discussing a section with me in it. Would you like me to request a third editor to discuss this section? JacDT (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Many alumni lists have no reference. I wouldn't worry too much about it, but if available, please add. What is more important is notability. If a person is not notable, their name will be removed. A name should either have an article on Wikipedia or a reference showing that the person is notable. Even then, entries often stand till notability is challenged. Debresser (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input.JacDT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Paywall

John, in response to your comment upstream, I checked the article for references that are paywalled. I didn't find any in the history section. I did find one in the notable alumni section: the book In Contempt that is cited in the page you linked to as your reference for Christopher Darden. It gives the reference without an online link to text of the book, just the ISBN, which leaves the reader having to purchase the book or do their own search online. Since that was your input to the article, I'll let you take care of updating that reference. Although I didn't find a full copy of the book online, pages are available through various sites, so perhaps those can be referred to. (It's a a good book, by the way; I've enjoyed the excerpts I read online)

I don't know if the notes for the oral history are paywalled are not; I haven't yet found the original text. See the Oral Narrative section above for details. I'm currently checking the revisions to the reference that evolved in 2009 to see if I can find one with an editor with a current contact. It looks like a lot of work went into the obtaining the history, which could potentially be very useful, but without the actual text, my hands are tied. If I can get the text from the author, though, I may be able to use the recommendations given in Wikipedia:Oral_history to upload them. I'll continue working on that. JacDT (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Tone of article

In response to the comment above about the "Flagship" reference, I fixed that and included references to indicate that during its first decade or so, the school was considered among the best in the state of California.

I'm also rewriting the history section to use a tone and style more suitable to Wikipedia. I'm through a first draft of the first few paragraphs and will continue over the next few days. The article sounded promotional before because it wasn't referenced or phrased in a format expected for an encyclopedia. However, it actually underplayed the history, as can be seen by the treatises and book entries written about the school. What makes Kennedy notable is not its current state, but rather that it was once considered one of the best schools in one of the largest states, with programs that even many magnet schools didn't have, innovative education designs considered unique by many educators (in particular the college scheduling model), and a marked high rate of success among its alumni. This existed for an inner city school in the projects of the flats of Richmond, California. That in itself would make it notable, but another reason it has sparked scholarship is because in only a few decades it went from that status to being among the lowest percentages of schools listed in the state. The question of why, and how that happened, reflects on educational reform in general, which is why it's provoked so much scholarship. It's why the treatise from the Berkeley School of Journalism refers to it as the fall of Camelot. What I'm aiming for in the article is give an accurate account of the school and what makes it notable, using a style appropriate to the encyclopedia. The reason it's taking longer than usual is because I have to read all these articles and some longer works, some of which are rather dry, and that takes time. JacDT (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Jail for kids

The school was is nicknamed jail for kids because of it's initials and at one time violent kids it's in one of the old references we should include it somehow maybe during this period the school gained a nicknamed based on its initials jail for kids.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndołkah (talk • contribs)

I was thinking of putting that back in; it's pretty evocative of how the school evolved over the years. If I remember correctly, it was also called that because it has no windows on the outside. It was beautiful inside, with the open central quad where students congregated, but it looks like an ugly monolith from outside. both Adkisson and Pertiz refer to it in their articles, so it's true, we have good references. The reason I didn't include it is because I had several hundred details about the school I wanted to include and I'm concerned for the length of the article. I've left out a lot already, such as the FEAST program, which was pretty significant. It could also use more about athletics. The article was mostly deleted recently, I think for lack of references and the need to verify the notability of the school. I've addressed those aspects, but I'm still concerned about length. How important do you think including the jail for kids reference would be compared to other details?JacDT (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

With the last paragraph taken out (the update on Prop 13), that leaves more space in the article. And I think I can streamline it more. So adding back in that reference should work. In fact, the middle of the article needs to be restructured. I could use input on that. More in the next entry. JacDT (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has done an amazing job on improving the article. As someone from Richmond that attended that school for a terrifying 2 days in the mid 00s I will tell you the cynics called it a dropout factory and the students called it jail for kids specifically because from Cutting Boulevard it has no windows at all and what looks like a double fence with road between even if it's meant to keep the criminals out and the kids in it has an psychological effect of appearing as more of a inpatient institution or jail. So I feel strongly it should be worked in. And what was the FEAST program? WP:PAPER remember if you just executive summarize you can fit a little more in. Want me to get a picture of the place too?Ndołkah☆ (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! That all helps. And yes, getting a good picture of the school would be excellent. Perhaps two, that is, one of the main quad inside and one of the exterior. Any pictures we use need to be entered into the Wikimedia Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. The information about how to upload is here: Wikipedia:Uploading_images. JacDT (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

FEAST was was a restaurant built inside the school as part of a catering program. The teacher Mike Peritz ran the program, I believe. It offered a model of food service that was so successful, teachers came from all over, even from other states and countries, to learn from it. The students got their training by doing events outside of school, weddings, bar mitzvahs, church dinners, that sort of thing. Apparently the program was so successful that outside catering business complained about it. JacDT (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes let's include it, also the school had a huge turn around in violence and dropping out as a result of a particular principal, the source is the east bay express exposé on the matter in late 00s.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a link or the title for the article? Thanks JacDT (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I found this statement in the scenario 3 citation by Mike Peritz "Much of this improvement is credited to Mr. Julio Franco who served longer than any Kennedy principal, from 2001-2008." That was also in the previous incarnation of the article, before it was deleted. Is that what you meant? On an entertaining note, alamy has a picture of Mr. Franco here: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-principal-of-kennedy-high-school-julio-franco-on-the-richmond-calif-42265976.html JacDT (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember at this point.99.145.194.98 (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The collapse

I need to restructure the middle sections about what happened to cause such a dramatic change in the school. It wasn't just Prop 13, though that had a substantial effect, and it wasn't just the bankruptcy. A lot else was going on, including court cases, the loss of industry, social upheaval, and more. I need to find a way to put that into a middle section of the article without it going on too long.

Adkisson sums it up in the following quote: "The storm of dark events that enshrouded the city of Richmond and its unified school district from 1988 to 1993 is almost unbelievable, in retrospect. Economic and social epidemics struck locally, just as the school district was about to undergo its greatest crisis since the city quintupled in population during World War II. ... Richmond was emblematic of trends occurring in urban communities across the country, as the manufacturing sector collapsed and crack cocaine worked insidiously through the inner cities. The result would be a Kennedy High School that was unrecognizable to previous graduates and teachers." (Addison, William Knowles, Kennedy High School: The Fall of an Educational Camelot, Berkeley Journalism, UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, 2018).

I could give that quote, and I might, but it seems vague. If I add specifics, they need to be succinct, not only for what Adkisson refers to but also the the court case(s) that preceded Prop 13 and impacted the district's finances. I have some ideas for condensing, and I'll continue to think on them, but I'd prefer not to reduce it all to a list of woes crammed into one sentence. I welcome suggestions. JacDT (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the original wording of this article draws from the "Mike Peritz Proposal, Creating Scenario 3" reference that appears in the citations. If I can restructure the middle section, I can use the Peritz material for the renewal section.JacDT (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here is my suggestion for restructuring the middle sections. I think the second and third section should be combined into one called the "Decline of the district." It would consist of a chronological presentation of what led to the decline, including (but not necessarily limited to)

1) The three Serrano v. Priest California Supreme Court decisions regarding the financing in state public schools and how they backfired in communities like Richmond, increasing their tax burden.

2) Proposition 13 (play death knoll). That is already pretty much done.

3) The financial woes of the district and the unprecedented bankruptcy.

4) The perfect storm of disasters quote I gave above from Adkisson

5) The severe drop in industrial jobs in the region as companies closed, went out of business, or moved, which battered the already bruised Richmond middle class economy.

6) The rise of drugs and gangs, jail for kids, etc.

7) Anything else I've forgotten.

That would be followed by the "Renewal" section. Right now, it's a couple of sentences with a long list of references. I'm thinking of putting in more sentences to describe briefly the programs instead of just citing them. Also, the Peritz Scenario 3 paper has some good material.

Comments welcome and invited. JacDT (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The thing is like this. The article is about the school. It would therefore be inappropriate to make this about the decline of the district. Any mention of that should be done as summarily as possible. It would be best, from the point of view of building an encyclopedia, to add a section about the decline of the district to West Contra Costa Unified School District, and then link to it as follows: decline of the district. Debresser (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Those are good points. I will confine the discussions to the effect on Kennedy. For example, the Serrano v. Priest rulings were meant to help schools that received less tax dollars, and in some places they worked according to their intent. However, for other schools, the rulings actually ended up causing a greater burden, which negatively affected low income schools. From the sources I'm reading, it looks like Kennedy was one of those schools. It also made it easier for Proposition 13 to pass, which added another blow to schools like Kennedy. I will concentrate only on how these affected Kennedy, and keep it brief. Also, I'll try to come up with a better title for that section, one that is less wide. Perhaps "The decline."

The West Contra Costa Unified School District article does indeed need a lot of work. A section like you suggest would be an excellent addition. The challenge there is to keep the article balanced, that is, not concentrate only on the negative aspects of a struggling district. The positive aspects need also to be addressed, or I suspect the article wouldn't present as neutral. A lot of history has gone into the struggles of the district, and the more I read about Kennedy, the more I realize what a cluster-frack has hit the entire district over the last thirty years. It's no wonder people write articles and books about it. Wikipedia is an invaluable public resource, so such an expansion really needs to be done in depth. That would be a big project, though, and require a lot more research than for just one school. I have the editing, writing, and academic background to do it, but I don't know if I have the time. However, I do have some of the research already done. I will put it on the list of potential projects. JacDT (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)