Equity: Courageous Redirection of Resources!

Like most school districts, San Leandro Unified is facing the challenge of closing the “achievement gap” and helping students be successful regardless of race or gender.

San Leandro's administration would like you to believe they have taken an aggressive approach, hiring consultants who have focused their work in two directions -- having "courageous conversations" among staff about perceptions about race and student achievement, and developing "culturally relevant" teaching strategies. The focus of the work has mostly been on what happens at staff development meetings and what teaching strategies teachers use in the classroom.

Most of the teachers that I know have chosen to teach in San Leandro because of the community's diversity, even after considering the unfortunate promise of lower pay. They enter San Leandro's classrooms deeply committed to guiding all of their students to success, and reversing the trends of hundreds of years of racism. Despite this commitment, there has been a great deal of grumbling lately about the district's approach to equity. Teachers complain about too many meetings at which we talk about the same things over and over again and reconsider a handful of already-presented teaching strategies. It's time to have real courageous conversations in our district about the limitations of their approach.

The district's approach is not misguided, it's just not enough. While focusing on miracles that sometimes happen in the classroom, it doesn't consider or address many of the real causes of inequitable achievement. I agree with the district’s approach as a part of the solution. Teacher perception of student ability is important. Race absolutely matters. There's too much evidence to conclude otherwise. If a student is attending a classroom where she doesn't feel valued, encouraged, or a sense of belonging, she will likely not do her best work. So the work on culturally relevant teaching strategies is important.

However, we will fail our students unless we examine the other, more significant roadblocks to student success for our kids of color.

Most of the racism that keeps kids of color from achieving is not the racism of perception, stereotype and cognitive filters. Most of the racism that inhibits achievement is the racism of resource allocation, family support, and community support for student success. The only way to confront those challenges is by making changes to the educational program. We have to meet our kids where they are, and put more of our resources in the direction of the kids with the most need.

Issues of race, class and opportunity intersect on so many levels that it is foolish for school districts to take one-dimensional, consultant-driven approaches to closing the “achievement gap.” If a kid doesn’t go home to a place where there is parent or guardian who can sit and monitor homework, that kid is at a disadvantage. When English isn’t the first language, and the kid is pushed out of an ELL program too quickly, the kid’s at a disadvantage. Students with parents who didn’t complete college or high school are at a disadvantage. Kids in families that can’t afford college don’t as easily envision their own future as a college student. Unfortunately, these characteristics tend to be more often true for our kids of color.

To meet students where they are, we need to invest our resources in a way that gives teachers opportunities to work more directly with their students and families:

• More opportunities for after-school mentoring by teachers. The one-meeting-after-another approach to staff development is actually getting in the way of teachers meeting with students. Imagine if instead of attending all of those meetings, teachers could actually spend their after-school time working with students. Add a mechanism that encourages students who are struggling to take advantage of teachers who can stay after school to work with them, and you can finally reach students who don’t have sufficient academic support at home.

• Revitalize the ELD Program. ELL students need smaller class sizes with more individualized vocabulary work and more opportunities to communicate, much more support in their primary language, strengthened bilingual education program, and significantly more parent outreach. Since Superintendent Lim has been at the helm in San Leandro, the cuts to ELD (English Language Development) Programs have been dramatic, despite the fact that the population which requires the program keeps increasing in size. This year, the program was practically gutted, though a few ELD coaches still exist when budgeted for by school site funds. What used to be a team of eight great teachers is now a team of four, serving an increasing number of students.

• Better investment in real college-bound mentoring programs, like AVID. Give the program coordinators the necessary resources to expand the program, which focuses on kids who might often become the first generation from their family to attend college.

• More aggressive community and parent outreach efforts, directly connecting parents to the classroom, and expanding the school’s role in the betterment of the community.

Each of these strategies comes with a price tag. We’ll never have real success unless we’re willing to invest. But the potential future cost in lost opportunities for our students and our community is far greater than the real expense of any of these strategies. And sharing a vision is the first step towards realizing it.

Charter Blues

A writer on “San Leandro Progressives,” a Yahoo group that I hear from, has posed the question of whether San Leandro should develop another charter school. Here we go again. What masquerades as educational reform in the guise of a charter school really rips away at the fabric of public education.

In California, charter schools can only really exist at the expense of “mainstream” public schools. Every time a kid goes to a charter school, the neighborhood school loses money. The inherent difficulty is that every student does not cost the same to educate. But California’s emphasis on ADA doesn’t adequately fund the “more expensive” students (students in resource and ELL programs.) Also, neighborhood schools don’t often have the flexibility to easily shift students, teachers and classrooms. Unexpected shifts in attendance rip little holes into the district budget.

Charter schools get to pick and choose which students fit their charter. In other words, they can leave any kid behind. And they don’t usually accept the kids that cost more. Students with learning disabilities and physical disabilities, and students who are ELL (English Language Learners,) cost more because they require more staff support. (“We’d love to take Junie, but we just don’t have the facilities to accommodate her.”) Charter schools don’t have to take these kids. “Mainstream” schools do. The result is that the “mainstream” school is left with a higher percentage of students who cost more to educate, but are not compensated fully for the additional expense.

Charter schools often have required parental-participation responsibilities in order for their kids to attend. Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of encouraging parent participation. But what about the families who are simply unable to fulfill these obligations? Parents in single-parent, double-job families, or families where someone requires long-term care often don’t have the option of meeting a charter school’s participation requirements. So, their kids won’t have the same school opportunities, and they end up being stuck in the school where there are no such requirements.

Finally, charter schools lean hard on their teachers and parents. Without Union approved contracts, teachers are often asked (expected) to work 50 - 60 hours a week, must often be available for evening phone calls or extra tutoring sessions (without compensation), and survive without a whole lot of administrative support. Sure, fresh-out-of-teacher-school, school-reformer-type teachers are often anxious to take on the challenge. They just don’t last very long.

For a school to have long-term success, there really needs to be a good balance of new teachers and veteran teachers. If teaching is a career, you have to find some out-of-school balance in your life. It’s hard to find that balance when you’re working 50-60 hours a week. Call me lazy, but I actually believe that I can do my best teaching if I have a life outside of the classroom.

And finally, there is the problem of administration. Somebody has to watch where the money comes from and where it’s got to go. Each school is a little different, so there’s not really a how-to manual. The same person has to be the boss (no favorites, please), politick the parents and keep everyone smiling. In a charter school, that’s usually one person. And that person is probably looking for another gig. When that person exits stage right, the new challenge is finding a worthy replacement, and maintaining a sense of school identity and organizational memory.

In the end, I can’t help but seeing charter schools as a means for the slow disintegration of the neighborhood public schools. I lump them together with No-Child-Left-Behind, vouchers, and the crisis of pathetic funding as direct attacks on our kids. But despite all of the attacks on our schools, I still believe that the public school is perhaps (or should be) the last great institution – the only place in a multi-racial, multi-cultural community where we can all come together with a common cause and support each other.

So, What should we expect from a school administrator?

I thought I'd follow up on two of my previous entries, and start posing some questions that should be considered when evaluating a school administrator.  I'd be glad to hear anyone else's thoughts.

These are in no particular order.

1.  Does the administrator do a good job hiring quality staff?

2.  Does she/he hire staff which reflects the diversity of the student community?

3.  Does she/he do a good job retaining the proven/quality teachers already on staff?

4.  Does she/he facilitate a school-wide effort on developing a positive school climate in which all students feel safe and welcome?

5.  Does she/he facilitate a school-wide effort to create a schoolwide climate where all students can excel to their best level?

6. Is staff development meaningful?

7.  Are staff meetings well-used (as opposed to being wastes of time)?

8.  Are meetings with parent groups well-thought-out to encourage parent participation?

9.  Does staff feel like they are connected to school wide efforts?

10.  Do teacher concerns get adequately heard and dealt with?

11.  Do parent concerns get adequately heard and dealt with?

12.  Do teachers get adequate support for their initiatives?

I know I'm missing some really important questions, but this is a start.