S1: Hey , San Diego , it's time for KPBS roundtable. I'm Andrew Bracken. Today we hear about proposed changes to San Diego's Adu bonus program and how they could prevent housing construction in the city's wealthiest neighborhoods. We hear more about the changes and how they fit into questions over equity in city neighborhoods.
S2: 25% of those areas would be cut off from the Adu bonus program under the mayor's proposal. So a pretty disproportionate impact on these areas of extreme wealth and privilege.
S1: Then San Diego Unified has loosened graduation requirements. What does it mean for high schoolers access to California's colleges ? That's ahead on KPBS roundtable. For decades , the single family home has dominated San Diego's housing landscape , but in recent years , the Adu , or accessory dwelling unit has become a bigger piece of the city's housing picture. Accessory dwelling units , granny flats , however you call them , they were designed to fill a need for more affordable housing. The San Diego City Council will soon vote on changes to a program that encourages property owners to build ADUs. KPBS Metro reporter Andrew Bowen took a closer look at the proposed changes , and argues they will actually block housing in the whitest , wealthiest neighborhoods of San Diego. So , Andrew , San Diego's Adu program has been around for about over five years now at this point. Can you walk us through how it currently works ? Yeah.
S2: So under state law , any homeowner can build at least two accessory dwelling units. One is an Adu , the other is a junior Adu , although the difference isn't all that important. The city program , however , allows that same homeowner to build two more ADUs for a total of four. One of those units , however , has to come with affordable rent restrictions on the property's deed. So if you agree to set aside a portion of these ADUs as affordable housing , you can build even more. If a property is within a roughly a miles walk of a public transit stop. A homeowner can build even more accessory dwelling units than the four that are sort of the baseline. So exactly how many you can build depends on a lot of different factors. How big is the lot ? So how much , you know , land do you have to build on ? What is the height limit ? What are the other zoning restrictions ? Ultimately , you know , this this program is is meant to build more infill housing. So areas that are already developed , they already have water and sewer pipelines were not building out in the backcountry. We're building in the existing neighborhoods in ways that are perhaps , or at least supposed to be less impactful on the surrounding community.
S1:
S2: We didn't really hear much about it for a couple of years , but it's really taken off in the last couple of years. Most of the projects that are permitted through this program are between 4 and 10 accessory dwelling units. If you live in a very dense neighborhood with a lot of multifamily housing , a 4 to 10 unit project sounds pretty small. However , if you live in a very low density neighborhood where there has been no development on your street for the past 40 or 50 years , a ten unit project feels massive. So , you know , understandably , a lot of homeowners and residents of different neighborhoods across the city have been really shocked and displeased by the amount of development that this program has created. And there are also a handful of outliers. So while the majority of the projects are these , you know , 4 to 10 unit projects , there are some that are many more than that. I saw one project that had 17 ADUs , and it's on a cul de sac on a canyon. So , you know , some some concerns around fire safety and evacuations , things like that. These projects really have sparked a backlash from neighborhoods that the city is , is now catching up to. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. I mean , talk a little bit more about this backlash. I think , you know , earlier we were talking about it and you mentioned it's sort of like this simmering issue. You mentioned some of the sort of special cases that we'll talk more about , but it has gotten a lot of attention over , you know , since its inception , hasn't it ? Yeah.
S2: So , you know , several years ago there was a group that was formed called neighbors for a Better San Diego. They have been really leading the opposition to this program from the start , speaking out against it at various city council meetings throughout the years. And , um , as you know , as more projects have been getting approved in the last couple of years , their numbers have been growing And we've seen more neighborhood level groups forming as well. So an anti-AIDS coalition in Encanto or in University City or in Claremont. So , you know , it really has risen to a level that the city policymakers can't just ignore.
S1: And you mentioned Encanto there. And that kind of leads sort of to the next step here. Earlier this year , this issue called footnote seven really took hold and kind of brought this issue back to the forefront. Can you remind us what that was about and how it ultimately led to calls to really , like , abandon the city's Adu program , ultimately , didn't it ? Yeah.
S2: So footnote seven was a footnote that in the city's land development Code , and without going into too much detail , it basically zoned for much higher density in Encanto and Southeast San Diego in a kind of shady way. So usually when you make a change of that magnitude , it comes after extensive public outreach and engagement. You meet with community groups , you talk through these things , you know , in an open forum. This time , however , with this footnote , it was tucked in in a footnote , you know , which is already a little bit sort of like this isn't that big a deal. It was it was a footnote , and it was packaged in with dozens of other very technical changes to city code. So it was very easy to miss. And the communities of Encanto and Southeast San Diego saw a couple of projects that were being permitted through this footnote. And they noticed , well , this really far exceeds the kind of density that's envisioned in our community plan. They were understandably very upset about that. So they ultimately convinced the city , okay , we're going to repeal this footnote. It wasn't done with proper modern planning practices. Let's just get rid of it. At that same meeting , many of the folks in public comment also spoke up against the Adu bonus program. These are totally separate sections of the municipal code , separate programs , but they produce similar outcomes. So while the footnote produced higher density , you know , in these certain neighborhoods of southeast San Diego and Encanto , the Adu bonus program is doing that in many other neighborhoods as well. And so the council member from district four , uh , Henry Foster , made a motion to both repeal footnote seven and to call for the repeal of the Adu bonus program. This really took a lot of of folks who were watching this issue by surprise , because the Adu bonus program wasn't even on the agenda that day. And yet , here he is calling for it to be repealed. So it kind of kicked off this big reform effort that's been going on over the past several months. And now the mayor is trying to kind of take charge and say , all right , these are the changes we're okay with making to the program. City council. You know , take it or leave it.
S1:
S2: I'm not aware of any other city that allows additional ADUs beyond what the state law allows. There was , however , some analysis done by Circulate San Diego , which is a policy think tank , and they found that the per capita Adu production in San Diego is actually lower than a lot of our peers , lower than Los Angeles , they say , and lower than some of our neighbors like la mesa and Encinitas. So while the program is receiving a lot of controversy , uh , despite , you know , one's ability to fit more ADUs onto a single property , uh , the data suggests that there are still several barriers to ADUs actually getting permitted and built. And that could have to do with approval timelines. It could have to do with fees. Not entirely clear. But , you know , despite this program , ADUs in San Diego aren't necessarily like the main thing that is producing housing.
S1: So now San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria is proposing , you know , multiple changes to the city's Adu program here in your , you know , recent story , you looked into the effects of some of these changes that they're likely to have. Tell us more about what you were looking into here. Yeah.
S2: Yeah. So some of these changes are pretty technical and very specific. So for example , outside of what's called a transit priority area , Adu projects would have new parking requirements , whereas currently they have none. Uh , properties in wildfire hazard areas have to have a street with at least two evacuation routes. Uh , they're also contemplating new fees on ADUs that are built through this bonus program in order to , uh , come up with a relatively simple analysis that we could be really , really confident in and draw conclusions from. We wanted to to focus our efforts specifically on the areas where the mayor is proposing to end the Adu bonus program. So , you know , some of these areas may not be accessible to the bonus program anymore , because those parking requirements , those fees , those , you know , evacuation route requirements are going to make the program impossible to use anyway. But leaving that possibility open that there's maybe there are some projects that could work there. We wanted to look at is the program still in effect here or is the program categorically prohibited ? And then we wanted to look at those areas where the program is proposed to be removed , and check the demographics of those areas. So if the genesis of this effort to reform the Adu program is concern for low income neighborhoods like Encanto that are perhaps less able to absorb big increases in density. I thought it was worth asking , you know , if that's what this reform would actually do , is it taking care of those lower income neighborhoods and protecting them from big increases in in housing that they feel they can't handle.
S1: Basically , ADUs would not really be allowed to the same one. Can can you break that down a little bit more for us ? Yeah.
S2: So to be clear , the state law allows two ADUs on any property , regardless of the city's zoning. So that won't change. But what would change is those two extra ADUs , and potentially even more that you can use through this local bonus program. So we made a map of the areas proposed for exclusion from the Adu bonus program. And these are areas that are zoned for very low density. And we compared that map to the state's opportunity map. So this is something the state updates every year. They collect lots of different data from various sources on household income. Home values. Student achievement. Environmental pollution. And they take all this data and they classify neighborhoods as low resource , moderate resource , high resource or highest resource. So there are four different levels you can have. And what we found is that of those areas that are zoned for very low density , where this bonus program will no longer apply. 87% of those areas are high or highest resource. So these are the neighborhoods with the best schools , with the cleanest air , with the most access to economic opportunity. And most people would agree , I think , that those are the areas where we should be building more housing , because the folks who would live in that housing will have greater access to economic opportunity. But this policy change , in fact , would reduce the opportunities to build housing in those very high opportunity neighborhoods.
S1: I mean , you know , in this going through this data that you look through , I mean , were you ultimately surprised by your findings.
S2: So cities , including San Diego over the past century , have used zoning laws to put rich people in these neighborhoods and poor people in those neighborhoods. And when zoning prohibits all types of housing except for mansions built on large lots , you know , with lots of bedrooms and in areas , you know , where every other house on the street is a mansion , you're going to get neighborhoods full of mansions , because that's what the zoning allows for. And now the city planning department is proposing to change the Adu bonus program based on the zoning that was adopted over the past century. And because there I think are racism is essentially baked into a lot of that zoning to begin with , it's not all that surprising to me that the outcome would be , you know , when you when you , when you have racism baked into the zoning , that using that zoning as a basis for changing other policies can exacerbate racial segregation ? Yeah.
S1: So a real through line here to the history of some of these areas , of how they were originally set up and the zoning rules that go back , like you said , decades at this point. So , Andrew , your story , you know , you rely on maps to kind of help illustrate what you found here. What data went into those. And then you've talked a little bit about it. And how did it help you tell the story of really these kind of lasting inequities in some of these neighborhoods in our city ? Yeah.
S2: So all of this was built on publicly available data , but it still required a lot of work to analyze and figure out , you know , this map overlaid onto that map , how much of these areas , you know , a have both of these things that are true. So my colleague Michael Wayne did a lot of this work. He's a fantastic data analyst and and created some really striking visuals. And I want to talk about one of those in particular , which is the map of racially concentrated areas of affluence. So this is a map that the state created in 2022. And it's really part of the state's efforts to encourage cities to undo those racist policies that exacerbated housing segregation over the past century. So racially concentrated areas of affluence are those where they have a very high percentage of residents of a single race , and where the wealth and income of those residents is very high. So , in short , racially concentrated areas of affluence are the whitest and wealthiest neighborhoods of all of California. And these are a concern for policymakers who want to see integrated neighborhoods. So if we can agree that racial segregation is bad when you're concentrating poverty , you know , we can , I think , also agree that it's it's bad when we concentrate wealth. Policymakers generally want to build integrated neighborhoods where the rich and the poor share the same public resources like roads , schools , parks. We want people to be living together and and , you know , working together to solve problems. And so while racially concentrated areas of affluence make up a very tiny fraction of San Diego as a whole , 25% of those areas would be cut off from the edu bonus program under the mayor's proposal. So a pretty disproportionate impact on these areas of extreme wealth and privilege. And , you know , that was a finding that actually did surprise me. I you know , I thought that there would be some correlation there , but I wasn't quite sure the extent. And seeing that figure of 25% really put a mark on it for me.
S1: Adding on to what you're saying here. Also , the maps really show that disparity quite cleanly in your story. So you can view Andrew's story@kpbs.org to check out those maps and really see that.
S2: So even if it's true that these these changes might limit housing opportunities in the most desirable neighborhoods , the city has also been increasing housing opportunities in many of those same neighborhoods through other means. So they pointed to some recent community plan updates that they've done , for example , in Hillcrest and University City areas with pretty good resources. And , uh , and , you know , at least compared to other neighborhoods. And so , you know , they say that the city says that while , you know , this bonus program is is a part of the city's overall housing picture and the overall efforts to build a more equitable city , there are a lot of other things that they're doing and that , you know , this , These changes to this bonus program should be seen in that context.
S1:
S2: Um , and and they thanked me for doing a level of analysis that the city of San Diego hasn't done and hasn't presented in any of the public meetings on this. I've also gotten some criticism for this story , and I welcome that. So neighbors for a better San Diego , I mentioned this group that's opposed to the Adu bonus program. I quoted them in my story saying that they feel this analysis overstates the impact of these areas where the Adu bonus program would be totally eliminated. And that really the bigger story is the the opportunity to build extra ADUs if you're within a certain distance of public transit. They say that's actually leading to more production of ad use in lower and moderate resource neighborhoods , because those are the ones that are closer to public transit generally. And , you know , regardless of the opportunity to build housing in these wealthy and white neighborhoods that might exist through this program , not a whole lot of it is actually happening. You know , as a journalist , you always want to tell the most complete story possible , knowing that no single story is going to be 100% complete. So so I tried to include as many perspectives in this story as possible. You know , there are many angles to the Adu bonus program and to these proposed reforms that we've covered in past stories. There will be many angles that we'll cover in future stories. And I hope that , you know , when you look at our totality of coverage , that that you get a clear picture of , of what these changes would actually do.
S1: So this is going to the City council for a vote. Do we know , you know , what the next step is for the proposal. but also the possibility for changes to it. You know , based on this reporting or just , you know , based on responses to to what you're laying out here. Yeah.
S2: Yeah. I've been told that the the meeting is scheduled for June 16th. So , you know , that's the date I'm looking at on my calendar for when to cover when this will actually reach a vote. Uh , and yeah , there has been some effort from the city council to change the mayor's proposal. There was a committee hearing a couple of weeks ago where they they made some recommended changes. Ultimately , you know , it's it's nine members of the city council. They need five to agree to any kind of change. And if the mayor wanted to veto something , they would need six votes to override that veto. I think the mayor is interested in working with the council on this , because the desire for changes to the program really came from the council , so I wouldn't expect a whole lot of really , um , you know , combative , uh , policymaking between those two bodies , or rather between the mayor and the city council. Um , but yeah , we'll see. I mean , this could be a very long hearing. They could get very , very specific in how they want to make these changes. So , you know , buckle up.
S1: Well , Andrew , thanks for kind of laying out how things are today. And we'll follow up with you once we know more next month. Yeah.
S2: Yeah. Thank you Andrew.
S1: I've been speaking with Andrew Bowen , KPBS Metro reporter. Coming up. Over a decade ago , San Diego Unified School District increased graduation requirements for high schoolers. But those rules are now being loosened. We hear what's behind the changes. That's ahead on round table. You're listening to KPBS roundtable. I'm Andrew Bracken. So believe it or not , summer's here , at least for a lot of San Diego kids. Thursday marked the end of the school year for the San Diego Unified School District , and for seniors graduating from high school in California's second largest district. It's a time of celebration and a time for many to start looking ahead to college. But new rules watering down grad requirements could prevent some from getting there. Here to talk more is Jacob McWhinney. He covers education for the Voice of San Diego and has a new story all about this. So Jacob , your story begins back in 2011 when the district moved to change graduating requirements. Make them a little more stringent.
S3: You wouldn't necessarily think a district would want to make it harder to graduate , because graduation rates , especially for high schoolers , are kind of a key metric used to judge how well high schools or. Districts as a whole are serving their students. You know , the more students graduate high school , the better job a district is doing. Or at least that's how the logic goes. So making it harder to graduate and potentially bringing down that graduation rate could make high schools or a district as a whole really look bad. In this case , though , San Diego Unified raised their graduation requirements to ensure every student who graduated was basically on the same level when it came to whether or not they were able to get to college straight out of high school.
S1: And really , this this change was kind of led to a push towards more equity and access to college. Can you talk more about how that piece fits in here ? Sure.
S3: Yeah. So I mean , that's exactly right. Um , when San Diego Unified voted to adopt these , uh , more stringent graduation requirements back in 2011 , uh , they were basically aligning their high school graduation requirements with what are called the A through G requirements. Those are basically the group of classes that are required to ensure that you can at least even access California's public four year universities. And at that time , thousands of San Diego Unified high schoolers were graduating each year without those classes , without the classes necessary to ensure that they could be accepted into a public four year university. That meant they may have to attend community college classes after high school instead of going straight to a four year university , which isn't a terrible thing , but the more barriers , the more difficult it is for kids to get to college , the less likely they will. So the more rigorous standards the board voted in in 2011 and that were adopted in 2015 meant that , you know , every student was on that level. And that was that was super important because like pretty much everything in our society and certainly in education , the most marginalized students are often hit the hardest by inequities. So while it's true that there were thousands who were graduating without those needed classes , a disproportionate amount of them were black students were brown , students were poor students. And so by making that graduation standard rigorous and across the whole district , they were ensuring that there weren't barriers for these students that didn't exist for maybe wider , wealthier students who had not only greater access to these classes , but potentially a better sort of base of understanding of exactly what was needed to move on to that next level. Right.
S1: Right. So now kind of fast forward to this year. San Diego schools are saying , you know what , let's never mind all that. We're going to roll some of these standards back. Talk about why that change happened and what the because this is also in being labeled a kind of equity issue as well.
S3: It's very interesting because back in 2011 when the board voted this in , one board member , one former board member specifically said , this is an equity initiative and this new initiative is also being labeled an equity initiative. Now , I will say they aren't exactly saying never mind. Right. The district district officials are keeping the decade old kind of A through G requirement as the main pathway. What they did with this vote back in January , and then kind of further clarified in a board meeting last month , is they approved a new graduation pathway that will be available to a certain subset of students. This pathway requires kids to take kind of fewer college preparatory classes. It also , this is basically being done in the hopes that this will allow more kids to graduate. While San Diego , Unified's graduation rate has has risen in recent years , it's kind of plateaued at late 80s , 80 percentage , you know , range. And so the hope is that this new graduation pathway will be sort of a ladder to allow that those kids who still aren't graduating , the opportunity to leave high school with a diploma. But , you know , again , this graduation pathway that doesn't exactly align with the AG requirements will likely mean that some seniors will once again be graduating high school without the courses necessary to be accepted into a four year university straight out of high school.
S1:
S3: They laid out very , very specifically exactly who this was meant for. It was meant for , in their words , the 11.8% of students who weren't graduating. Um , and you know , this , again , is supposed to be a ladder or maybe , you know , a side door , if you want to be a little less charitable to ensure that those kids may have an opportunity. According to the district's own language , staff will , quote , identify eligible students focusing on students who are off track to graduate on time with their peers. So this will specifically be targeted at kids who may not be kind of on the road to graduation as it stands right now. And it will be rolled over , rolled out over a period of of , you know , a year or two in phases. But again , focusing on kids who are maybe not on track to graduate currently.
S1: I mean , I think what this kind of leads to question for me is really the the role of college for high school students. And , you know , we're kind of talking about all students in one bucket here. But , you know , we've talked a little bit about this , you know , kind of the shifting picture of college. And I don't know how college might be seen as , you know , right. For some students right out of high school. But for others it may not be. I'm curious if you know how that fits into some of what the district's goal is here.
S3: I mean , I think that what is happening more and more often , and you can see it with the increasing number of kids who are taking dual enrollment classes , you can see it with the increased emphasis on things like career and technical education. Um , educators are now understanding that the kind of myopic focus on getting kids ready for college right out of high school that we've had for decades at this point may not have been the right one. Um , there is not a one size fits all approach to education , and that means that there probably should be some flexibility , right ? Maybe a kid wants to go straight into a career after high school , and there are plenty of careers where kids don't necessarily need to go to college to build a really good life for themselves. There are apprenticeship programs. There are trade programs , um , that I think for a long time have been a little bit stigmatized again because of this myopic view of of the need for college. And we're kind of now at this moment where society is really and people my age , to be frank , are really grappling with the reality that there are lots of us who are saddled with college debt and may not necessarily have the prospects that they were. They were they were guaranteed when they when they decided to go into that debt. I think there are a lot of kids who feel that when it came to college , they were sold a false bill of goods. And so increasing this flexibility may be good. I think the one thing that we really need to be paying attention to is ensuring that , you know , the opportunity to go still exists for for all of these kids. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. And kind of like you were saying with your own story , you took a little time before finding your way to college. So we don't want kids to necessarily paint themselves into a corner or be kind of put in these positions where it may be more difficult to access that education , you know , if they choose to do so sooner or later.
S3: And we know there are lots of problems with how difficult the transfer process can be from community colleges to four years. We know again that with every barrier you may throw up to getting to a four year university , that might that might make a kid coming from high school just less likely , especially if it's a kid coming from a marginalized community. So all of these things , we have to be really , really hyper aware , and we have to be able to hold , hold these multiple thoughts in our head at one time.
S1: So kind of , you know , going back to this change here.
S3: It's not that San Diego Unified did it without discussion at board meetings. They did. They discussed it for quite a long time. It was that it kind of flew under the radar for a lot of folks. You know , this was the first story that was written about it , which is kind of a shame on me because even I didn't notice it. And I covered this stuff for a living. Um , and so that being said , I don't think that there are a lot of folks who are who. Who really have reflected about this. At the first board meeting when this was voted on in January. There were a lot of public commenters who were in support of this. A lot of them were educators at San Diego Unified. And they did say very clearly that they think that this opportunity will increase the ability for kids to graduate , which , again , could be a very good thing , because we know that , you know , a high school diploma opens up a lot of doors for kids. You have greater earning potential , you have a lot more job opportunities. And so this could be a change that is is super beneficial as long as it's , you know , monitored for for potential pitfalls.
S1: So , you know , there was some criticism raised around , you know , this alternative pathway and kind of defining that.
S3: So when the board first voted on this back in January , board member San Diego Unified board member Shana Hazen actually voted against adopting it. That was an extremely rare occurrence. This is a board that votes almost always unanimously. There may be a handful of non unanimous votes in the past like five years. And so that was that was in and of itself , I think a an indication of just how kind of momentous this decision was and just how much in need of , of , of , you know , scrutiny. The decision was Jason's concerns mostly revolved around guardrails. Right. The original language included basically had no details , just that a pathway would be created for students to potentially pursue a different graduation pathway than the standard eight through G one. Her worry was that without guardrails , this new pathway could basically replicate the old kind of inequitable graduation outcomes that we saw a decade plus ago , before the A through G pathway was was adopted , meaning that this pathway , this new pathway that doesn't necessarily guarantee that kids have the classes they need to get into college right out of high school could end up being comprised disproportionately of black and brown students , disproportionately of poor students. And we could basically be have have deja vu all over again. Um , even Interim Superintendent Fabio Regula during that meeting echoed those those concerns and said that there really needed to be guardrails. There really needed to be attention paid to this. And at a meeting last month , there was a more robust , uh , presentation brought or at least a more robust plan brought forward that did include some guardrails and a pledge to kind of monitor this situation for , uh , kind of inequitable outcomes were they to arise.
S1:
S3: These the change a decade ago and this new change are being discussed as equity initiatives really bring to for the fact that we're having a whole new understanding , we're having conversations about what equity means in this kind of modern era. And I think that there are lots of districts that are having these conversations , whether it's around grading standards , whether it's around graduation requirements. You know , a lot of what is happening now would not be happening if the pandemic hadn't taken place. And during the pandemic , we had a lot of , of , uh , examples of districts changing graduation requirements. For example , San Diego Unified , again , like many other districts , uh , decreased the GPA requirement from 2.0 to 1.75 temporarily during the pandemic to ensure that , you know , kids could graduate on time. They also , uh , issued a whole bunch of what are called graduation Waivers that meant that kids didn't. If they missed a class , they could potentially graduate without that required class. And so I think that that that there is a really large conversation happening about what we expect of kids , what kids can accomplish realistically , and what education looks like in the kind of shadow of the pandemic.
S1: And we're talking about San Diego Unified here. And as I mentioned , you know , it's a very large school district. I think it's the second largest in the state. Um , you know , and and overshadowing this , we're kind of talking about , you know , how to best handle. I think you talk about this one size fits all approach to education.
S3: That is not something that has. It's not a novel consideration. Um , as you said , it's the second largest district in the state , behind only Los Angeles Unified , which is , I think , like about just under half a million kids , which is just a.
S1: Significantly larger than Saint unified.
S3: Significantly larger than San Diego Unified , which is a little under 100,000 kids. Um , you know , one of the big difficulties when you have a district is large. It covers pretty much the entire city of San Diego is that kids from Scripps Ranch have very , very different needs and very , very different realities , both educationally and economically , socioeconomically than kids from , uh , you know , downtown or kids from , you know , uh , Patrick Henry , the sort of area or kids from , you know , southeastern San Diego , uh , communities. And we see that represented in data. I did a series of stories last year that looked at , at , at really the inequitable , um , Education outcomes for kids , and it played a lot into that kind of standards. Question. You know , again , are we making it easier for kids to pass classes ? Are we making it easier for kids to graduate ? And in those stories , I found that in one of them , I found that in the 20 2223 school year , only about 3.4% of Lincoln's juniors met state standards. In math , that amounts to 11 , 12 , 13 kids in a whole , you know , class of kids , the whole junior class of kids. But at that same time , the test scores that they were the the grades that they were getting were very , very different , right ? 74% of kids were passing math classes when only 3.4% of them were meeting state standards on test. And the next year , there was even more conflicting evidence , which is that of that junior class , 84% of them graduated. So I think that all of these things we have to hold in our heads and understand that there are changes going on in the way we grade. There are changes in the way going on and the way that we that we graduate kids and all that taken together could potentially give kids really mixed signals , right ? They if these kids are graduating high school and aren't necessarily prepared for the rigor of college , the college experience could be a really , really difficult one. So when we're looking at changing standards , when we're looking at grading and we're looking at graduation , we have to make sure , in my view , to center it around the kids who are potentially the most impacted by the inequities that exist inside and outside of the classroom.
S1: I mean , I like how you put it. You kind of we need to have these multiple , you know , hold both of these things in our heads at the same time. Because you're right , there's so many aspects. There's the standardized test piece , which is always , you know , I know something you've been kind of tracking.
S3: And it's difficult because while these may look like , you know , individual pieces of information. They're all connected and they all play into each other.
S1:
S3: You know , again , if we go back to a system where there are thousands of kids who are graduating from San Diego Unified high schools without having the without having completed the classes that they needed to ensure that they get access to four year universities directly out of high school. And they are disproportionately black and brown and poor like they were , you know , a decade ago. I don't think that this necessarily can be considered a success. Again , it's very important to ensure that kids have the opportunity to get a diploma because a diploma opens up so many doors. But we have to be really , really careful in figuring out exactly where the right place is to start to tweak things and make sure that that , that kids have those opportunities. Um , It's a really complex conversation , and I think that multiple things can be true at the same time , that it's good if more kids get a diploma. But it also may be really , really worrying if those kids who are getting a diploma because the the requirements are less rigorous , rigorous are the same ones who were disproportionately impacted by the inequitable systems of the past.
S1:
S3: I don't necessarily get there. Um , but , you know , for me , summer is basically going to look like the whole rest of the year has been trying to dig into educational issues and ensure that that the people in power are held accountable.
S1: Well , you do a great job and you also have the schools guide. You know , you do so much on this issue. So we appreciate you kind of delving , you know , breaking this down for us. Jacob McKinney is education reporter with Voice of San Diego. Jacob , thanks again for being here.
S3: Andrew , always a pleasure. Appreciate it.
S1: Up next on roundtable , our weekly roundup of other stories we've been following this week. Stay tuned. Roundtable's back after the break. Welcome back to KPBS roundtable. I'm Andrew Bracken. It's time now for the Weekly Roundup , where we chat about a few other stories we've noticed this week. And here , as usual , I'm joined by KPBS producer Ashley Rush. Hey , Ashley.
S4: Hey , Andrew.
S1: So we're going to have to go quick here. We don't have a whole lot of time , but I did want to kind of talk about , you know , this new study from UC San Diego has been getting a lot of attention. There have been a lot of stories this week. It looked into the Tijuana sewage crisis and particularly looked on the impacts on not just water quality , but the air quality. Obviously , this is something that's been going on for years. For decades , the beach closures have going on. A lot of the attention is , you know , on the health impacts of the polluted water. But this story , published earlier this week , went in Wednesday's edition of Science Advances. You know , they took samples of both water and air. And it did show signs of multiple pollutants. Um , and it seemed to confirm a lot of these , you know , health complaints that residents have been raising.
S4: People remember that in January of last year , hundreds of homes were flooded in neighborhoods like South Crest and Shell Town , and the city now faces 53 lawsuits , with over 1500 plaintiffs over last year's flood. Those lawsuits claim that the city failed to maintain Troy's Creek behind their homes. But the news this week is that the city is filing a countersuit against 11 property owners. It's alleging that they failed to maintain drainage facilities on their own properties. An attorney , Evan Walker , represents some of the residents. He told KPBS that this latest suit is just an intimidation tactic. He thinks the city is hoping to scare some of the victims coming forward with the lawsuit. So , you know , we'll see what happens next with all of this. But I think it just really shows the ongoing fallout of last year's floods.
S1: Yeah , I mean , it's just really long ranging impacts. It's a really strange reaction to it with the lawsuit. So again , something we'll kind of continue following. I wanted to finish up with a story. It's like a story every year I love it's the national spelling bee and I always love it. It's. And this year is the 100th anniversary of the National Spelling Bee. And one San Diego student made it to the fifth round this week. Dua , only 13 year old from Bright Horizon Academy in San Diego. And I don't know , I just I really always so impressed by what they do and some of the crazy words they get. I feel like my vocabulary gets better just by watching. You know , totally watching it a little bit. And one of the words do a correctly spelled was shin plaster. Okay. And that's a piece of paper currency , especially one that's not , I don't know , depreciating in value I've learned. So that's like I didn't know that. I don't know if.
S4: I did not.
S1: Know how to spell it.
S4: I do because we are looking at it right now , but I wouldn't know otherwise.
S1: Well , you know , congratulations to her. I think that's that's really cool. You know , San Diego County has produced two national spelling bee champions. Wow. You know , she made it to the fifth round and tied for 74th place this year. So congrats to her. All right. That's all we got for today. I've been speaking with KPBS producer Ashley Rush. Ashley , thanks.
S4: Thanks , Andrew.
S1: That'll do it for our show today. Thanks so much for listening. You can listen to the show anytime as a podcast. KPBS roundtable airs on KPBS FM at noon on Fridays again Sundays at 6 a.m.. If you have any thoughts on today's show , you can email us at roundtable at KPBS or leave us a message at (619) 452-0228. Roundtables. Technical producers this week were Brandon Tufa and Rebecca Chacon. The show was produced by Ashley Rush. Brooke Ruth is Roundtable's senior producer. And I'm Andrew Bracken. Thanks again for listening and have a great weekend.
