Minutes of the CAC Meeting on Superintendent Search (edit this)
The 29-member Community Advisory Committee on the Selection of the Superintendent met yesterday.
The committee was facilitated by Carol Choy of Hazard, Young, Attea and Associates. Educated in SFUSD schools, she also worked for SFUSD as a teacher, principal and area superintendent for 28 schools. She went on to be the superintendent of schools in Princeton, NJ and is currently teaching at Bank Street College in New York City.
Twenty-five of the members were there-including Sandra Fewer, Chair of the Committee and staff member for Coleman Advocates (she also has a son at Washington HS); Sarah Lipson, former BOE member and IRF at Bessie Carmichael ES; Phil Hofgreen, Silver Giving Group/SF School Alliance (association of corporations that provide or want to provide money for schools); Germaine Wong, Board Chairman for Chinese for Affirmative Action; May Luey, Retired Bilingual Teacher; Yvonne Johnson-Miller, SEIU 1021; Loreen Chu, Assistant Dean for Ethnic Studies at SF State; Maria Perez-Fonce, LATA (Latino Teachers Association); Lorraine Woodruff-Long, PPS; Nick Driver, PAC; Colleen Montoya, former staff member for the Youth Commission and now working for the Dept. on the Status of Women; Sandy Gwen, junior at Lowell; Elizabeth Bailey, student at Burton and a member of Student Advisory Committee; Nicole McCray, parent of a student at Lincoln; Tareyton Russ, principal of Willie Brown Academy; J.R. Adrichson, parent of a student at June Jordan and a member of the Small Schools by Design Task Force; Queena Chan, senior at Burton HS; Jeremiah Jeffries, teacher at Sherman ES and building representative for UESF; Paul Chang, principal at Thurgood Marshall and representative for UASF; Kwan Quan, SF PTA; Gayle Ow, teacher and assistant principal at Lowell and a representative for UESF; Margaret Brodkin, DCYF, and Caroline Grannan, parent of a student at Aptos MS and SOTA.
The meeting was basically to focus attention on the challenges and opportunities in the District-as well as the characteristics that the Community Advisory Committee wants to see in a superintendent.
Choy stressed that the Board would choose the finalists-and that the search will be confidential. Taking the input from the community, the firm plans to recruit candidates in April . In May, the firm plans to give the Board of Education a list of three to five candidates. The Board has announced that it wants to announce its choice by May 31.
Choi asked the advisory community to list the strengths of the District:
Diversity of the Population
Educated Group of People within the District and supporting the District
Experienced and Well-Educated Teachers and Administrators
Dedicated Group of Students that Have a Richness of Experience to Support Them
Very Good Classified Staff
Good Nutrition Workers, Custodians and School Secretaries
Excellent Paraprofessionals
Highest API for an urban school district in CA
STAR/Dream School Programs
Good Collaboration with the City
Every School Bond Has Been Passed in the Last 15 Years-So Support from the Voters
Large Number of CBOs that Support Eduction
Strong PTA and other parent-based groups
Huge range of programs offered in the schools, such as language immersion
BOE supports small schools by design, charter schools and traditional schools
Weighted Student Formula
Comprehensive Healthy School Program
No Empty Calories program
Community Not Bought Into NCLB
Dual enrollment program with City College
Partnerships with Neighboring Colleges
The CAC identified these weaknesses:
Widening Achievement Gap-Largest Achievement Gap for African American Students of all urban school districts
Widening Achievement Gap for Special Education Students, Latino Students and Pacific Islanders
Difficulty Finding Funding for Superintendent in Charge of Small Schools by Design Program
Aging of Our District Staff-Impending Loss Due to Retirement
Not Enough Accountability in the Instruction with Special Education Students
Dropout Rate-58% of the District’s African American students drop before graduating
Very few of the district’s African American students are graduating (UC) college-ready
Constrained Resources
Declining Enrollment
Staff Layoffs
School Closures
Revenue Shortfall in the Nutrition Dept.
Negotiating Union Contracts
Inequity of Resources-Westside schools get more resources
Lack of Transparency on distribution of resources
No results-based budgeting
Segregation of schools
Teachers make more money in surrounding districts
English Language Learners’ needs are ignored
School Assignment Favors West Side Schools
Parents’ Perception That Leads Them to Choose the Same Schools
High Number of SF’s students are in private schools
Affordable Housing is lacking in the City
Safety in the Schools is a concern for parents
Answer the Phones at the Central Office and the Schools
Update the Website
Slowly Cutting Out Paraprofessionals who are essential in the classroom and with special education children
Only Two Alternative High Schools in the District
No bilingual programs in the continuing or alternative high schools
No vocational education
No systematic actions to improve education-only motivated by lawsuits
Atmosphere of fear and retribution among teachers if they dare to speak out
Special student assignment process for Lowell and SOTA
Choy then added her own that she said that she heard from other groups, so these also were added to the mix:
“Cultural” Perception that the District is Hiding Facts
Need for More Positive News and More Consistent Communication of Positive News
Need for a Strong Communicator
Phil Holgren, chair of the SF School Alliance reported that his group ran a poll among San Francisco voters. He didn’t note the number of voters polled. He found:
To the question, is SF Unified School District going in the right direction or the wrong track:
Right Direction-22%
Wrong Track-54%
To the question, how would you rate the quality of the education provided by SFUSD:
Good to Excellent-28%
Not So Good to Poor-54%
To the question, how well do you think SFUSD manage its funds:
Excellent 20%
Not So Good to Poor 53%
Characteristics of a Superintendent:
1. Need to Find Funding
2. Actually Implement Programs
3. Innovative
4. Committed to Stay Five Years
5. Visionary and Strategic
6. Prioritze
7. Accessible to People
8. Experience in Education/Classroom
9. Search for Solutions/Think Outside the Box
10. Listen to Students
11. Educated in Public Schools
12. Collaborative Seeking Attitude
13. Integrity
14. No Huge Ego
15. Vision and Plan that is research-based
16. Institutional Leader/Academic Superstar
17. Already demonstrated working with the diversity found in SFUSD’s student population
18. Speaks other langauges
19. Sense of humor
20. Politically savvy
21. Confidence to allow staff to get the results on their own terms
22. Genuine respect for students.
23. Confident enough to hear honest feedback from students, parents and the community
24. Goes to school sights
25. Shouldn’t be revengeful
26. Someone who always put children first
27. Tactful
28. Seeks to involve and empower staff and families to find solutions to learning needs
29. Seeks ways for transparency
30. Knows CA politics and the budget process in Sacramento
31. Effective communicator
32. Understands the progressive politics of San Francisco
33. Understands that equality can also mean spending additional dollars on struggling students and struggling schools to create a level planning field
March 15th, 2007 at 7:07 am e
“To the question, is SF Unified School District going in the right direction or the wrong track:
Right Direction-22%
Wrong Track-54%”
What ignorance. Anybody keeping a close eye on our public schools in SF –whether parent, student or administrator–can readily see that the schools are much better now than they were five or 10 years ago.
Why the misconception?
Because very few San Franciscans have children, and they have no idea what is happening in our schools.
Kim, thanks for posting this one.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:11 am e
This list of “strengths” and “weaknesses” doesn’t bode well. I’m mystified by “Good nutrition workers.” Except for Balboa High, which has a special nutrition program, school cafeterias in SF offer garbage.
And the biggest weakness of SF schools is not mentioned in the list. The biggest weakness is the teachers union, which makes it absolutely impossible to fire an incompetent teacher. One of the duties of a good union is to police its own — to train new members when necessary and yank members who aren’t doing their job. Dennis Kelly, the president of SF teachers, treats the district like an entitlement program for his members.
I’m also concerned that the third item on the “Weaknesses” list is “Difficulty Finding Funding for Superintendent in Charge of Small Schools by Design Program.” It shows what this group’s priorities are. It’s priorities are those of the Green Party members who want to foist an untried small schools experiment on innocent schoolchildren.
How about this idea for a new superintendent: Bring back Ackerman. She wasn’t so bad. Or how about this idea: Give the job to acting superintendent Gwen Chan. She knows her way around the district better than anybody.
March 15th, 2007 at 10:55 am e
Two more things:
The biggest problem that the district will face in the long-term is funding for its health-care obligations. Why no mention of this? If health-care costs are going to continue rising 10% a year, the district is going to go bankrupt.
This has already happened to the Richmond School District (where anyone working for the district five years or more was guaranteed healthcare coverage for life).
Second, you cannot blame the schools for poor performance and attendance among African-American students. Parents are to blame. When I was growing up in San Francisco, there was a large African-American working-class and middle-class population. The black community thrived here–in our schools and elsewhere. But it has been driven out of the city, leaving behind all of the project kids. These kids suffer from poor parenting and a lack of fathers in the home. Our schools are not to blame for these problems.
March 16th, 2007 at 6:45 am e
Actually, Dave, Balboa does not have special food for their nutrition program; the food served in the Grab n Go breakfast is the same as what is served in middle and high school cafeterias around the City. What makes it special is the method of delivery - the breakfast is available in the lobby as students enter in the morning, and packaged so that they can take it to class and eat it during the first ten minutes.
As to your claim that the rest of the cafeterias serve “garbage”, as chair of the district’s student nutrition committee, I would be very interested in hearing more details to back up your claim. Please go to www.sfusdfood.org, and scroll down to the Feedback section at the bottom; you can use the form to send in your complaints. Please give as much detail as possible; just saying “the food sucks” really does not provide the level of information needed to make changes.
Finally, please do not try to blame the cafeteria workers for what you perceive to be shortcomings with the food. Unless your complaint has to do with the temperature at which the food is being served, there is little else that the cafeteria workers at every elementary and about half of the middle and high schools can do to affect the quality of the food served. For those at the relatively small number of middle and high schools which are cooking schools, the quality of the cooking can vary based upon the skill level of the cook/manager, but most of these employees are capable, and a few are quite talented. If you have complaints about the food at a specific school, please send details so that it can be addressed. Your name will not be used in any follow up, although you will get a response back from me.
Really, if there are problems at specific schools (and this is addressed to anyone who has bothered to read this far), please let the student nutrition committee know about it by using the feedback form at www.sfusdfood.org; it is the quickest way to make any needed improvements.
Thanks!
March 16th, 2007 at 7:26 am e
I’m veering off the original topic to address school food. I’m the member of the CAC who brought up as assets the fact that SFUSD has what may be the nation’s most comprehensive healthy school food policy, with its “no empty calories” emphasis. I’m a longtime parent volunteer member of the SFUSD Student Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee, and a member of the committee at Aptos Middle School that oversaw the initial pilot project for the now districtwide wellness policy in early 2003.
I believe that the city/community needs to take responsibility for contributing what’s needed to make the school meals as high-quality as possible. Currently, SFUSD’s Student Nutrition department is required to break even, balancing its costs (including the nation’s highest labor costs) against its income from the non-low-income students who can pay (modest amounts)for their meals and a la carte
foods. Any further expenditure comes out of classroom and school needs.
That’s just wrong. It shouldn’t be education vs. decent food. Feeding kids is not the function of educators — it is a community responsibility. The city needs to step in and make up the difference. If San Francisco wants to claim to be a compassionate and progressive city, the first thing it should do is feed its children adequately (rather than dumping the responsibility on educators and turning its back).
I appeared last night on a panel with Ann Cooper, the celebrity chef who has gotten national news coverage for her work in Berkeley schools. She said that the city of Berkeley subsidizes the school meals. That’s obviously the right and civilized thing to do. (And Berkeley still charges double for its school meals what SFUSD does.)
March 16th, 2007 at 7:53 am e
Dave writes:
“I’m also concerned that the third item on the “Weaknesses” list is “Difficulty Finding Funding for Superintendent in Charge of Small Schools by Design Program.” It shows what this group’s priorities are. It’s priorities are those of the Green Party members who want to foist an untried small schools experiment on innocent schoolchildren.”
I am NOT Green, but small schools have been shown to dramatically improve learning and skills for many of our Black and Latino children. So, I do not think this is an agenda item of “Greens”, I think this is an agenda priority for the folks that care about our Black and Latino children. Consider this a Black/Latino issue but not “Green”. For me, closing the achievement gap of our Black and Latino children and providing them with a superior education is a top priority and we owe it to them to offer them proven methods of education. This is not some “experiment foisted on innocent school children”!
March 16th, 2007 at 8:12 am e
If I offended anybody with my “food as garbage” comments, I’m sorry. I was speaking from experience with my own children. I was aghast to see what they were serving in my children’s schools. It was criminal. Perhaps things have changed.
As for Tami’s reply to my objections to the small schools movement, where is the evidence that “small schools have been shown to dramatically improve learning and skills for many of our Black and Latino children.” Is there a study of some kind?
Speaking as one who is the husband of a school teacher in SF and the son in law of a principle, and one who has vollunteered at many schools in SF, I think a small schools movement is a disaster on the middle school and high school level. A large middle or high school can offer a music program, arts program, school newspaper, drama department, and many dozens of clubs. Each of the activities I just listed requires a faculty advisor or qualified teacher. In a small school, there are not enough qualified faculty advisors to provide these classes or activities.
I remember talking to the principle of Mission High several years ago. He wanted to start a drama department, but to do so, he needed a multi-credentialed teacher who could teach drama and at least one other subject, because there weren’t enough students in the school to justify having a full-time drama teacher. The principle could not find this person, so the school didn’t have a drama department.
If you want to see how good a large school can be, look at A.P. Giannini Middle School, which offers a fantastic music program (two orchestras, three bands, a jazz band, and three choruses), an excellent athletic program, and numerous clubs. No small school could come near that.
And of course there’s Lowell, with its 2200 students, which has over 50 clubs. That’s just amazing.
Again, I would really like to see documentation to prove that small schools improve reading and writing among blacks and Latinos. But all I’ve seen so far is antecdotal evidence, and until I see something better, I will continue to think that small schools are an “experiment foisted on innocent school children.”
March 16th, 2007 at 9:06 am e
Hey Tami — I am not at all a critic of small schools — my own son attends one (SOTA), and I definitely appreciate the benefits of the personalized approach. Though there are benefits of larger schools (like Washington!) that he misses out on, too. (SOTA has no competitive sports, for example.)
But it is actually NOT borne out that small schools close the achievement gap. Statistics don’t back that up, including figures for SFUSD’s small schools. And the current small schools, overall, are not full and are not turning away students, so they are so far meeting demand. (Caveat: results of the school enrollment process for fall are being released in a couple hours, so maybe we’ll learn otherwise from updated figures.)
And one of the biggest concerns about small schools comes from the labor movement, because one aspect that the small-schools movement calls for is autonomy in hiring. What that really translates to is no seniority rights for teachers. I was present when UESF VP Linda Plack spoke at a Board of Ed meeting about small schools, and she was clear that that’s a big concern to UESF.
I hope this can all be worked out to everyone’s benefit, but I just want to point out that there’s a lot of “it’s a miracle” hype going on that’s not fully based in reality, and that there are genuine, significant concerns to be dealt with. Sorry to be the dash of cold water, but debunking hype seems to be my role in life.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:38 am e
If “closing the achievement gap” is an over statement, which may be because there is not enough data available yet to prove it true, I stand corrected. But I do remember reading articles stating that for some Black and Latino children small schools are advantageous. I am sure other children benefit as well, but right now in SF, these children are the ones in a crisis!
One fact that YOU (Dave)are free to research on the SFUSD web site, is the FACT that before Golden Gate Elementary was closed by the NON-GREENS on the Board, due to small classes, NOT by design however, was that their test scores were increasing steadily two years in a row. As best I remember, there was a lot of parent sentiment that due to the individualized attention afforded in this environment, that small classes was a major contributing factor to this improvement. Since elementary school is the foundation for a child’s prospect of educational success in life, for the children that need the small school learning environment, they should be available. As for other schools (middle and high) there are a plethora of reasons why SOME of our children may need smaller schools.
I know what Caroline said to be true, though I think there are students from those smaller schools who do get to participate in sports through other schools, though I am sure this is not ideal, presumably the reason that they attend the smaller school is essential enough to outweigh the inconvenience of participating in sports through another school’s team.
I will try to find what I read about the smaller schools benefiting children.
Lastly, it sickens me that Dave again brings up the “Greens” against the children commentary.
The Greens that have served on the Board have consistently been champions for our children, particularly the Black and Latino children in MY district that suffered from a disproportionate number of school closures as they experience rampant homicides and other issues.
For me, as a lifelong Democrat, I think we can give all current Board members the benefit of the doubt, whether we agree with them or not, that they are looking out for the best interest of our children and let’s go after the real enemy, chronic under funding of our schools.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:25 pm e
Caroline — SOTA is not a small school by definition. SOTA has 600 students (not counting the students in the SOTA Academy). By definition of the Small Schools movement, a small school should have 200 students.
Tami–Your Golden Gate Elementary school example misses the point. All schools benefit from small class sizes. My point applies to middle school and high schools, when most kids would like clubs, sports, and other extraccircular activites. These activities actually keep kids in school. A child who might otherwise not want to attend school will attend if there is a club or athletic activity that interests him/her.
The small schools movement has merit when it argues that small schools can track kids better. This is true. With 200 or fewer students, it’s easier to tell which kids are failing or where kids need help. But a large school with good counselors can do the same. If counselors are in touch with students and parents, they can track kids carefully.
Why give our Green school board members the benefit of the doubt as they embark on a small schools experiment that may doom five or ten graduating classes in SF to mediocrity? No one has demonstrated that these small schools really help kids. All the small schools movement does, it seems to me, is put high schoolers back in an elementary school setting. They’re not going to like that. They’re going to drop out in greater numbers, I think.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:55 pm e
I know SOTA isn’t an official Small School; I just mean that it is, essentially, a small school, so I know and appreciate the benefits. In addition, because it’s built around nine separate artistic disciplines, those function somewhat like the small learning communities that are one variation of the small schools movement. I’m emphasizing that because I am NOT putting down the idea of small schools, and I recognize that they are a much better environment for some kids.
But I have checked into the claims about small schools closing the achievement gap, and they do not check out. It’s not because of insufficient data; it’s because it simply isn’t happening. It’s definitely not happening at SFUSD’s small schools — they are not closing the achievement gap; they are not raising African-American and Latino test scores. Students and parents like them for other reasons, and that’s great; there are kids who are much happier in that environment; I wholeheartedly agree with all that. But I’m truth-squadding this one. It’s simply not the case.
In addition, the labor questions really create a dilemma for an advocate of workers and unions. I’m on a national listserve of small schools advocates — probably entirely liberal/progressive — and they voice their concerns about this at times, in this vein: How can we both give the small school full autonomy over its staffing and also not deny workers their seniority rights? The answer is — they can’t. It’s a serious problem, and one that will pose a real dilemma when our district and UESF have to deal with it directly.
March 16th, 2007 at 9:21 pm e
Dave says:
“My point applies to middle school and high schools, when most kids would like clubs, sports, and other extraccircular activites. These activities actually keep kids in school. A child who might otherwise not want to attend school will attend if there is a club or athletic activity that interests him/her.”
Must have been nice to be in high school as a popular jock, cheerleader or scholar, or all of the above. You seem so superior! I shall bow down to you now as moron peon that you deem me to be!
Newsflash- there are students that are isolated and rejected by those of you that are the “popular kids”. Some kids needs individual attention in a small school environment. I rest my case now since neither of you know or care about people like me and my children!
Caroline, I already found plenty of date that does state small schools are beneficial but since you are the only one with facts and credible sources it is pointless to even go further.
Now, Dave and Caroline, tell me how I do not know about myself or my children????????? as I am so inferior to you!
March 16th, 2007 at 11:56 pm e
Tami…really! I don’t “deem” you to be anything, much less a peon.
It isn’t necessary to be a popular kid to find something in school that really interests you. In a school with many clubs and extraccuricular activities, a so-called nerd is more likely to find his/her niche than in a small school were everyone is in the same boat and there isn’t much to do around school.
If you have evidence that small schools work, please give us the URL or some other place where we can read the data. What do you want, to create little country schoolhouses all across the city of San Francisco?
High school especially is a transition period. At high school age, students should begin managing their own lives and branching out. They’d have trouble doing that in the small school environment.
March 17th, 2007 at 11:35 am e
Tami, please point me to the data that show small schools closing the achievement gap. I and others have crunched the numbers in SFUSD and checked up on the claims coming from outside SFUSD, such as that totally BS Bank Street study from Chicago that has been much cited. If you really can show some, I will certainly accept it.
Needless to say, I’m not saying you know nothing about your children or are inferior to me. I’m saying that when I and others have checked into the claims that small schools are closing the achievement gap, those claims have never, ever, turned out to be accurate. The worst I was accusing you of was accepting a hyped-up and inccurate claim that is — I acknowledge — widely passed around as gospel truth. (That includes being parroted frequently in the press.) I only learned that such claims are often bogus from years of closely following charter schools, privatization and other supposed “miracles!” that weren’t.