San Diego Unified Parent- Life At School

Last night, the Voice of San Diego produced a panel discussion featuring several candidates for school board.  I spent the last of our family’s babysitter budget to attend.

Each year at least one or two people (all my readers) ask me for my thoughts about the candidates and I’ll presume since you’re reading this, you have some interest.  Remember, a blogger is not a journalist, so I have no obligation to neutral balanced reporting nor proper spelling or punctuation. It’s a good gig, no stress.  Pay is not so good.

Beginning on our far left is Kevin Beiser (www.kevinbeiser.com) who is clearly a gifted and dedicated teacher. He’s dedicated to bring a teacher’s perspective to the board. Probably has forgotten more about teaching than I’ll ever know.  I found him to be one of the least-appealing candidates on the panel.  He did hit his main bullet points over and over, but his manner and tone was so shrill it was nearly unbearable.  I can only imagine what his influence on the already divisive board would be.  No thank you.  NO.

Next to Kevin, and now possibly deaf in her right ear, is Katherine Nakamura. (www.nakamura2010.com) When people want “fresh blood” in organizations, they usually want a talented and dedicated few to remain as the guiding and stabilizing influence.  That would be Nakamura. I’m not fond of her website- I’m fussy that way- but ideologically we’re aligned.  Possibly because we both want what’s best for children, the most important part of the education system. I think Nakamura is the last lone voice of reason.  I like her, she’s easily my best choice in that race.

On her left is Steve Rosen (www.rosenforschools.com) who’s website I like. And I’m inclined to like Rosen, too. I would like a fact check on the number of gallons (60?!) of blood his wife has donated- pints maybe?  Lots of excellent education background, and his candidacy was grown at a grass roots level out of Jerebek.  I did find him to be slim on specifics, however, always hitting the note of revisiting the budget book and looking for ways to save money.  Nothing wrong with that, but I have a strong suspicion that’s already been done.  And he’s big on paradigm-shifting, connect-the-dot clichés.  Another candidate, however, that I don’t really want to watch at board meetings.  Agitated, anxious and extremely nervous, blurting out answers to questions in a rush to cram too much into too little time rather than thoughtful, clear approaches to complicated issues.

Note: Would I be nervous in the same situation?  Sure, and maybe that means I shouldn’t have the job either.

Moving south on the panel is my biggest dilemma, Scott Barnett.(www.barnettforschoolboard.org) I really, really want to like this guy- ideologically, we’re very closely aligned.  He’s got a CV a mile long full of exactly the right stuff for a school board candidate.  But Barnett was so obnoxious at the panel I just can’t pull the trigger. He could have just told us about himself, his qualifications and his vision, and I would have waved the flag high for him.  Instead he spent such a large amount of his time and energy blasting away at his opponent. I think he gave us a very strong indication of his character- and it was not pretty. Barnett’s manner and demeanor while fellow panelists (not just his opponent) were speaking was that of boredom liberally sprinkled with both eye-rolling and a clear distaste for opinions other than his own. I’ve seen this in other boards- the City Council as well as the Board of Education.  During public commentary, members will openly chatter, fiddle, grimace, chomp gum, doodle, text, tap toes, fumble with their pens and any number of body language ways of saying the same thing in no uncertain terms: I can’t be bothered with what you have to say. I’m impressed with his qualifications and his opponent certainly has his weaknesses- but Barnett does not deserve my vote. I hope he’s not on the board next year- any benefit he’d bring is far outweighed by his manner and conduct, and I don’t want to have to watch that performance.  Damn.

Next to Barnett is Michelle Crisci, who’s platform is to siphon enough votes away from Barnett in the primary so deBeck can have a clear shot moving forward. A waste of time, money and energy.  Probably great at her job, though. ‘Nuff said.

Finally, the wizened veteran John deBeck. (if he has a website, I can’t find it)If I were to cast a role for school boardmember, deBeck would be the colorful character that, among the strangest rants and raves, comes up with enough brilliance that he can’t be ignored. DeBeck is unapologetically eighty years old, and has the experience to prove it. I think deBeck still has plenty of miles and some solid ideas, but I’ve seen him in action a few times and was not pleased.  During one board workshop, he became so incensed at Nakamura he gathered his things and stormed out of the room. But he’s a straight-shootin’ sonofagun as well, and made an interesting point last night about closing the “achievement gap”.  I think deBeck still has the chops for the job but my support is only partially-hearted.

If you don’t already support Voice of San Diego, please do now.

Transparency has become a very big word for many organizations, and for some good reasons.  People want to see what goes on behind seemingly closed doors of business and public organizations.  While businesses (public and private) have very legitimate reasons for privacy, that privacy has been abused so often people have lost faith in the organizations that use it.

An example of this loss of faith is my own- the Project Labor Agreement that was added shortly after Prop S was passed, and the majority of the school board was elected.  It’s clear, at least to me, that the PLA was fait accompli before the election, but that nugget was withheld from the voting public in a purposeful move intended to get the wobbly proposition passed.  I supported the fiscally-irresponsible proposition but, like many others I suspect, would have opposed it if the PLA was revealed as part of their gambit.

In the words of George W Bush, “”There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” Or whatever.

Now those same masters of transparency want to put on a little show in the barn called,” A New Superintendent, the Transparency Charade“, and that show will be opening soon.  The NSTC will star the school board, but is actually a reality show with us, the general public, as a cast of thousands.  And we are to be extensively polled, our opinions will be sought, we will have a voice, we will be engaged, partnered with, brought it to the process, heard, have our chance to speak, thoughtfully considered, reached out to, and otherwise pandered into believing we actually control the system, and have the power to change it.

We know what George Bush would try to say.

This barn show is nothing but an enormous waste of taxpayer resources and school board time.  It’s a smokescreen meant to divert our attention from the dismal display the board has been putting on.  It’s a screen to hide little details like our children will have five days less in their school year, when our valuable teachers don’t have the time to teach to the federal minimum standards. Because the teacher’s job is not tough enough already.

But.  It is transparent, and we should like that, right?

I don’t.

I voted for what I believe to be qualified board candidates.  People who held themselves up as leaders and by doing so indicated an ability greater than mine to make good choices for our children. Granted, the people for whom I voted didn’t win.  But the people that did win, should lead and interview and make decisions as if they have the qualities and capabilities they claimed when they ran for public office.  The NSTC is a cop-out.  They are telling us that they can’t possibly decide what their employee should be able to do, and instead we should do it for them.  Notice this has the additional benefit- if it does not work out (as several superintendents in the recent past) it’s not the board that’s to blame- it’s the cast of thousands of citizens that appeared in their reality show.

Further, what kind of candidate is willing to participate in Survivor: A New Superintendent, the Transparency Charade? First, eliminate all superintendents that are currently doing excellent jobs in markets other than San Diego.  A successful superintendent wishing to winter in our paradise is not going to risk his/her current position by applying in public for another outside their own district.  It’s career suicide.  So- what kind of job search is this, where you eliminate the best candidate pool right from the start?

Oh.  It’s a transparent one.

And what kind of candidate will be willing to leave a rewarding private-sector job for a position where the leadership with whom they are slated to work cannot focus it’s intentions without all the public outreach they plan?  Without the pleading to the public to share their decision making burden?

The field of candidates who will step in that pile is very narrow at best.  And I suspect probably not the most qualified.

But it is transparency uber alles.

How about common sense instead?

Once again great reporting by Voice of San Diego’s Emily Alpert.  Does that woman ever sleep?

Click here for the less-polarized viewpoint.

“What Barrera outlined in his speech is exactly what teachers have been saying,” said teachers union President Camille Zombro.

Really?

No kidding?

Is it because the teacher’s union has their arm so far up the [body] of the school board president that they can actually use their hand to make his mouth move?  See yet another reason San Diego Unified is on the fast track away from desperately needed school reforms.

Once again great reporting by Voice of San Diego’s Emily Alpert.  Does that woman ever sleep? Click here for the less-polarized viewpoint.

Emily Alpert of Voice of San Diego is the premiere education reporter in San Diego, and has written an article about Bill Freeman, the new president of the teacher’s union.  Read her article in full right here.

The most important quote from Freeman is right at the end:

And while [current President Camille] Zombro has at times been alienated from her opponents, most notably former Superintendent Terry Grier, Freeman added, “I do believe in getting close to your friends and closer to your enemies. Camille and I differ there.”

It’s more of the same folks- and maybe worse.  Mr Freeman categorizes the world into friends and enemies- the enemies, we assume due to the use of the plural, are not just the Superintendent but- well who knows, the school board?  Parent bloggers? While Freeman may fantasize being either Sun-tzu or Don Vito Corleone,  how does that help kids?

How are our children served by a person who sees the world in such clear terms as “friends and enemies”?  Is it beyond any shred of hope that we parents could expect a teacher’s union president to work WITH the school board and superintendent to move our district forward towards progress?

Truth is- children are obviously not a priority for the teachers union when negotiating with the district -Freeman’s “enemy”.  Children are just the innocent bystanders, caught in Freeman’s crossfire.

Next time the teacher’s union calls itself  ”partners” in education or “advocates” for children, remember the basic premise and attitude with which Freeman has taken the job.

What a disappointment.  Again.

Sun Tzu

Had a great time today volunteering in the kid’s classroom about my least favorite subject: Math.  I continue to struggle with even some of the basics, and when he brought home long division homework, I nearly got sick.

Hate the stuff.

But I was pottering in the garage the other day with one of my most favorite pastimes- motorcycles.  I needed to compute a final drive ratio.   This is not a difficult problem, but I began thinking- suppose I had learned math on a motorcycle?  How would that have changed my relationship with math?

We are fortunate to have John Snyder teaching Jesse this year, and like many teachers, Mr Snyder welcomes input and creative approaches.  And thus MotoMath (and MotoScience) was born.

My buddy Paul Kamanski  (a HUGE talent- see Comanche Moon) helped unload and roll in the bike and it’s lift to the classroom while the students were at PE.  I used the bike for conversations about fuel/air ratios, mileage computation, final drive ratios. How many teeth on the sprocket and the countersprocket and how many times would the countersprocket revolve with a single revolution of the rear wheel?

We discussed safety gear, ATTGATT or “All The Gear All The Time”, coefficient of friction, traction, hydroplaning, speed vs power.

We talked about alloys, strength and weight of the elements that make up the materials from which a motorcycle is made.

And it worked.  The kids were stretching their understanding of math, seeing applications for their lessons and applying their brains to something they saw was both unusual and interesting.

And I hate math just a little less.

I’m a motorhead.  Motorcycles especially, but cars too.  And when there are major engine problems in a single-cylinder internal combustion engine, the two most crucial parts are the piston and the crankshaft.  If the piston is damaged beyond repair, but the crankshaft is OK, repairs can be done- a new “top end”.  If the crankshaft is bad, it’s far more complicated, but  new bottom ends have been done.

But if the piston and the crankshaft are bad, it’s time to rebuild. With new parts.

And so it is with the San Diego Unified School District.  Yes, I have my beefs with the school board and the union that controls and operates them.  I certainly can see some excellent decisions and  some very poor ones.  But this is all minor stuff- engine tuneup material, compared to the budget shortfall passed down by the State of California.  Boardmember Evans and I agree on at least two things- textbooks will be like typewriters and what we’re doing right now isn’t really belt tightening- it’s cutting off one of your arms.

I see the budget issue as insurmountable.  The piston and the crankshaft are both bad.  So, what to do?

What any other large business or municipality can do:  File bankruptcy.

Clearly SDUSD’s operating costs exceed their income.  And there is no amount of little spending freezes or head-office cuts are going to offset that shortfall.  The teacher’s union is “not allowing” teachers to be cut, and parents are strongly objecting to any change to status quo.  (And status quo to their personal primary school experience- roll back the clock if they can!) The head office and it’s lack of management skills are one reason the union thrives- SDUSD is one of the worst employers I’ve ever observed.  These fundamental forces are fighting to keep both the broken piston and the broken crankshaft.

The hard fact of life at SDUSD is 80% of their expenses are personnel.  If you agree the capital assets, like buildings, property etc needs to be maintained at a minimum level (and trust me, that’s what they do) from where are the cuts going to come?

Ok, let’s say we have to cut teachers.  We all hate this.  Cutting teachers means increasing class size.  But we can’t cut the least-effective, nope.  The union that runs the district requires cuts be made on a seniority basis so we leave some less effective teachers to live on, and risk cutting some of the freshest (albeit less experienced) and most progressive talent to Starbucks to sling caffeine.

I’ve seen the effect of cutting administrators- much of the work is laid at the feet of principals.  These folks have one of the world’s worst jobs, and they took it for one of the world’s best reasons- to help teach children.  Instead of spending time in the classrooms observing and encouraging teachers (with whom they are tasked to manage, support and encourage) they are trudging through the muck of budgets and legal issues.  Many vice-principals, school nurses, school counselors are gone now- and where do you think that workload has gone?

Move now, and move quickly.  Pull the legal ejection handle and file bankruptcy and reorganize.

Start with new leadership that creates a modern organization with strong central management skills.  Re-hire only the best, brightest and experienced teachers with a track record of effective teaching. Incorporate 21st century teaching using methods that truly prepare our children for life in the future, and allow those teachers to function as the coaches and mentors at which they excel.  Create management and accountability systems for those teachers that support and encourage the best, and eliminate those that are better suited to jobs outside of education. Management systems that offer principals both the accountability for their school’s performance, and the authority to make changes to support that performance.

Over-simplification?  Maybe. But after a few years of observing and participating in the SDUSD, I’m pretty confident this is the only alternative.

Pull the handle, San Diego Unified.

President Obama has something to say about education, and would like to say it to students. This has become another polarizing event for the Right and Left- why?  Certainly if it was President Bush, the Right would fight for Diamond Vision screens in cafeterias nationwide. Instead, they are actively promoting a protest day. But let me set politics aside for the balance of this post. There is a fantastic opportunity here that is being skipped by both sides of the aisle:

Teach about media.

Teach why a President would want to talk directly to children. Teach how the President can get airtime and news attention that will relay his agenda and his viewpoints. Teach why people would object to this. Teach how important it is to some people that information is regulated. Teach how important it is to some people that information is UNregulated. Teach what might be called partisan in the President’s message. Teach what the alternatives to the President’s suggestions might offer.

Whatever a family’s point of view on education might be, I believe a child will improve their ability to navigate the world if they are offered the power to reason, and the power of understanding the influence (and influenced!) media and news.

By now, everybody knows I’m not an educator. I’m just a local parent trying to navigate the waters of San Diego Unified.

By now, most of my readers understand I’m frustrated at what I’ve discovered on this journey.

By now, my strong support for teachers, and specifically not their union, is well-documented.

By now, people have begun to send me things, and among them are resources that come from researchers far more talented and patient than I. I just received one yesterday that summarizes the biggest frustration I have with San Diego Unified- the grip of the teacher’s union on the management of the district.

First, I completely understand why unions are formed. Unions are formed primarily to provide working people with the power to improve their working conditions. Many years ago, before the multitude of employee protection laws, unions were the only way to preserve safe and equitable work environments. These unions have ballooned to become their own beast, the HAL9000 of labor, who’s prime directive is self-survival and growth at all costs. Many teachers who will speak candidly are often embarrassed by their own representation and the protection their union offers poor quality teachers, often at the expense of higher-performing and better qualified individuals.

In recent months, we’ve seen the union-controlled school board vote our bond dollars to not just support the teacher’s union, but the construction worker’s unions as well. So the union has unions.

The basis and power of unions lie in collective bargaining, a constitutional right which I support, as long as a business or institution has the constitutional right to hire and fire the employees of their choice. And therein lies the rub.

Have a look at this 48 page report put together by Harvard University, The Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute and the Program on Education Policy and Governance. Heck, you can just read the Executive Summary if you’d like,but the details are in the rest of the 40+ pages. It’s about collective bargaining and it’s problematic effects on education. Here’s a favorite (however sad) clip:

• They restrict efforts to use compensation as a tool to recruit, reward, and retain the
most essential and effective teachers.
• They impede attempts to assign or remove teachers on the basis of fit or performance.
• They over-regulate school life with work rules that stifle creative problem solving
without demonstrably improving teachers’ ability to serve students.

The report also cites specific examples of some ridiculous clauses successfully negotiated by teacher’s unions- examples that defy all logic, but exist in the code because, frankly, they asked for it.

Now before you get your keyboard all heated up, I’ll reiterate my belief and support for teachers, the second most important part of the education equation. Most teachers earn the privilege and deserve to be treated and compensated fairly. Teachers also deserve the full protection of the employee legislation that govern conduct at any organization. I support teacher pay raises for those who are exceptional in their work conduct and make strong efforts to continuously improve the classroom environment for our children. No only do I believe this in the abstract, but continuously volunteer at our school and in our classrooms supporting and encouraging teachers.

But. As long as the union is running the school district we will be unable to create the changes necessary to move our district forward far enough to provide the level of education our children need for a global future.

Any superintendent hired as a change agent will quickly follow the lead of Bersin, Cohn and now Grier and get the heck outta this town. Read the report- you’ll see why.

Teachers, YES, unions, no.

Parents are frustrated. We see all the power and influence in the district and on the board- the teachers, the administrators, and unions. But what about parents? Are we entirely powerless?

Well, sorta, yes.

Parent unions are becoming popular for a good reason- we’re under-represented and have little organized voice. The concept of a powerful parent group has it’s appeal- torches, pitchforks, and a march on the Board who is supposed to represent us. And I like that- do it!

I see a different problem. The parent groups in which I’ve been involved fight like crazy for the maintenance and longevity of the status quo. They are the first to fight budget cuts (and why not?) and the first to fight for textbooks and cork bulletin boards. Not better connectivity and website content.

But I have rarely seen a parent group fight for progress. Or fight for innovation, fight for forward-thinking. Fight for new concepts and new technologies and their implementation in our schools and classrooms. Fight to change paradigms when budget cuts come- they rarely ask the question: How can we benefit from these changes?

Certainly a parent union can’t hurt. But I believe actual solutions to many of our problems require more than another organization, however powerful or well-meaning.

Solutions require leadership and innovation- rare in large torch-and-pitchfork groups, or groups of any kind.

It isn’t that they can’t see the solution. It’s that they can’t see the problem.” -G K Chesterton

There’s been a lot of talk around the district and parents regarding the role specific parent groups, mostly Foundations, may play in directly funding positions at district (public!) schools. As a former Foundation chair, I completely understand the district’s policy of reluctance about parent groups directly funding onsite personnel.  I also share the frustration parents have about their willingness to fund critical education shortfalls.  Parents see that their child’s education could be enhanced with additional curriculum, and that’s easy to resolve.

Solution: Let’s put on a show in the barn and with the money we raise, we’ll hire another teacher!

As a business owner, married to another business owner, I have an understanding about employment and human resource demands and the extensive legal and tax implications thereof.  I have never met a single parent group (a PTA, PTO or Foundation) that shares that understanding.  It’s not as simple as throwing down some money to a former teacher on a bi-weekly basis.

The employment laws of the State of California are a tangled web which have driven many companies out of our state.  This, coupled with the significant complication of placing an employee on the premises of another entity-a district school- and subject to the control and direction of the district, creates a legal quagmire for both parties.  And should some legal incident take place- an employee that commits a crime,(ask Helix High!) or simply trips/falls causing injury while on campus, the lawsuit papers will fly like the birds on Piazza San Marco. So Foundations will need to carry fairly expensive insurance policies to protect themselves, their board and the district.  Foundations hate paying for insurance.

The most naive will believe it’s simple- pay the  ”teacher” as an “Independent Contractor”. The IRS and labor board take a very narrow view of this status, and the description of the position itself; regular hours, specific tasks, consistency of pay and performance- are all directly opposite of the Independent Contractor definition.  As an employer of per-deim personnel, my corporation is a target for the labor board, and I have been audited specifically in search of inappropriately defined Independent Contractors.  Surviving this audit was easy for me- I had consistent and thorough employment records, kept by a professional.  Records like these have not been in my experience as a Foundation Chair nor a former PTA member.

So- parents employing staff is not as easy as it sounds in the abstract.  Sure, 30 or 40k per year for a Spanish, Art or Science “teacher” is within the fundraising abilities of some parent groups.  But the infrastructure required to properly support that position legally and consistently is another major hurdle that is rarely considered. It might be possible for a year or two, but at some point the Foundation may wish to fund something different, or may have a fundraising shortfall. What happens then?

From the district’s point of view, their first and overriding priority is the safety of our children. They do this is by carefully controlling and vetting those allowed on their campuses.  I support this goal (who wouldn’t?) and independent hiring by other entities represents a significant threat to that policy. In order to maintain security for our children, the district would need to be involved in the selection process or  require certain standards in background checks for prospective employees.  And that process would have to be monitored and controlled at the district level, so we’ve now created another level of administration at the district level for which there is no funding.

There is also the Pandora’s box of authority.  Would the Foundation’s employee be subject to the authority and direction of the school’s principal?  If so, it asks the question: Who’s the boss?  Suppose the principal prefers Castilian Spanish over the Spanish of Mexico?  Or likes contemporary art rather than classics?  Is the Foundation in charge of the curriculum for which it’s paying?  Let’s suppose, just to add a tempest to the teapot, a Foundation pays for a teacher specializing in Creationism? Who decides?

Are there ways around this?  Possibly.  One would be for the district to create a relationship with an independent employment service to establish and create hiring standards and background checks.  The Foundations would then pay that employment service to hire and administrate the position.  But most Foundations will be unwilling to face the cost of these practices- it raises the price of a position by at least 25-30 percent.

But I have another conflict with the idea,

about which I remain completely unresolved.

Government support of education is by nature, a socialist program. We are taking our tax dollars and distributing them on an education program with the specific intent to help children become functioning and contributing citizens, hopefully paying taxes and not utilizing expensive social programs.  The “rising tide raises all boats” idea.  I think that’s great. Most of the Foundations wishing to fund additional curriculum are generally at schools that are higher-performing with higher income parents.  These parents (and I include myself among them) are making decisions based on the specific needs of their own children, not the greater need of the district.  This circumvention of the process brings with it ethical and moral questions. When I volunteer in our child’s class room, I’m not there just to help him, I’m there to support the teacher and the entire classroom.  If I’m involved in campus beautification, I’m trying to create a better environment for all at the school.

So where does that end- at the gate of our own child’s class, grade level or school, or at some higher level?