-
- Independent
Evaluation Of The Superintendent
- Year
2000-2001
- San
Diego Unified School District
-
-
- From
- Board
Members John deBeck and Frances O'Neill Zimmerman
-
-
- August
7, 2001
- Board
Members John deBeck and Frances O'Neill Zimmerman
have serious reservations about the overall
performance of Alan Bersin as Superintendent
in the San Diego Unified School District in
year 2000-2001. Assessment: Ineffective
- COMMENDATION
- The
mission of our district is to improve teaching
and learning in the classroom, so we are pleased
to see improved student test scores over
the last year [ed. 1999-2000]. We approve the
continuing emphasis on teacher coaching and
training, as well as development of principals'
skills as instructional leaders. In these important
areas, we are becoming a stronger school district,
and we credit the Superintendent for these gains.
- After
paving the way with our own standards, the Board
adopted California's K-12 academic standards
for what students need to know at each grade
level. We look forward to the Superintendent
fully aligning our curriculum and classroom
materials with state standards. This is
especially important in math, science and the
visual and performiing arts where, at present,
the Superintendent seems to be doing his own
thing.
- The
Board has adopted the state accountability
system, but we believe it and our present
narrow testing focus on literary and math ignores
the broad range of knowledge our students need.
We believe there is more to a good education
than what we are measuring.
- We
are optimistic about expedited completion of
Proposition MM work since the hiring
of new executive director, Admiral Lou Smith.
His responsiveness, candor and experience cause
us to hope that quality work will be accomplished
henceforth, within budget and on time.
- We
approve the Superintendent's continuation and
expansion of the district's traditional collaboration
with government agencies, private enterprise
and commnunity organizations that serve the
whole chiId through programs such as EarlyLink,
HealthLink, "6 to 6" and books for
class libraries through San Diego READS.
- CONCERNS
-
- We
continue to be deeply concerned by the negative
impact of the Superintendent's expensive and
drastic "Blueprint for Student Success"
on the comprehensive education that is the right
of every one of San Diego's 143,000 public school
students -- including high, mid-range and low-achieving
youngsters, English learners, seminar students
and children in special education. Social
promotion and tracking are still with us
under terms of the "Blueprint."
- To
raise test scores in reading and math and to
camouflage social promotion, the Superintendent
and his Chancellor of Instruction, Anthony Alvarado,
have sacrificed depth and excellence
in other important areas such as music and art;
world languages, career preparation, alternative
education and magnet programs. Meanwhile, 24,000
low-achieving youngsters have been tracked into
long hours of segregated remedial classes in
reading and math. This is a profoundly imperfect
and unacceptable way to close the "achievement
gap."
- Our
present elementary math program needs
substantial improvement; science has
virtually disappeared from the elementary school
day; art and music are squeezed by long
"literacy" mornings; physical education
and even recess are endangered.
- In
high school, fewer electives in social
studies and languages are available; science
is in disarray with the adoption of the weak
"Active Physics" requirement; and
class size has risen dramatically in
many advanced classes as more and more small
remedial classes in reading and math are imposed.
- Across
the district, average daily attendance
of students is down from last year, and we enrolled
700 fewer all-day kindergarten children than
our demographers expected. Could it be that
our "consumers" are voting
with their feet?
- The
Superintendent has dismissed all classroom
aides, expropriated without community consent
all Title I monies that paid for aides as
well as many other school site services, and
harvested all available resources to pay for
the consultant-and-supervisor-heavy "Blueprint."
We deplore the Superintendent's continuing reliance
on expensive imported consultants rather
than developing and using the academic skills
of district educators.
- Next
year we finally will receive an analysis
and audit of the "Blueprint" from
the respected Palo Alto-based American Institute
for Research. We regret that the effects of
the "Blueprint" experiment on the
lives of our students will not be evaluated
officially until the end of year three.
- We
remain concerned about delivery of special
education services. While Individualized
Education Plans (IEP) and 504 records now are
available on-line, will we use that information
to help children? Mainstreaming techniques required
by the "Bluepnint" may compromise
specific provisions of student IEPs. Formal
parent complaints or class action lawsuits again
appear to be the common form of redress. We
believe it is the Superintendent's job to provide
special education services to needy students
as required by law, not to stonewall families
to avoid costs.
- The
Superintendent has failed to modernize the district's
business practices, and he has publicly held
others accountable for cost overruns occurring
on his watch. By contrast, the Superintendent
has yet to hold the Chancellor of Instruction
accountable for his haphazard work --
the most egregious recent example being the
"Active Physics" debacle.
- Without
Board consultation or public discussion, the
Superintendent unilaterally pursues ideas for
spinning-off district functions and for
converting district assets. Examples
include eliminating our school police, selling
off irreplaceable school real estate, and questionable
ventures such as single-source purchasing
of supplies and exclusive contracts with soft
drink vendors.
- The
Superintendent's ritual annual "restructuring"
of the organization is misguided and counterproductive
churning. Among its many negative effects
are confusion and insecurity among the workforce
which never knows "who's on first."
Such an inherently unstable environment distracts
employee attention from the district's mission
to support improved teaching and learning in
the classroom and threatens reform efforts.
- Despite
the Superintendent's attempts to market his
programs through the media, there has been no
true dialogue with the community. He is obligated
to make transparent the business of this school
district, but we remain the only major public
agency in San Diego County not to televise
our regular meetings. We regret that the
Superintendent has never used his formidable
influence with the three-member Board majority
to make this happen.
- The
Superintendent's management style has
been characterized as adversarial, prosecutorial,
confrontational, dictatorial and vindictive.
Whatever the descriptor, the Superintendent
has strained relationships with parents, teachers,
students and employees. The Superintendent continues
to seek validation for done deals; he has ignored
the Board minority counsel and concerns. Had
he listened and responded more collegially,
we sincerely believe he would have improved
the district's education reform initiatives
over the last year. His relentless style and
take-no-prisoners attitude is contrary to the
spirit of education in general and damaging
to our educational enterprise in particular.
We deplore it.
- FOZ:JDB
- jgm:boardbusiness
- 8/3/01
|
