By Dale Martin
A new plan to transform low-performing schools into high-achieving "dream schools" is turning into something of a nightmare for many of San Francisco's teachers.
Superintendent Arlene Ackerman's "Dream Schools" initiative would implement a number of reforms — including student uniforms, longer school days, Saturday schools, and a contract signed by parents pledging involvement — in an effort to improve the schools. But a requirement that teachers show their commitment to the plan by reapplying for their jobs has angered educators at the schools.
|
|
|
UESF Members protesting the district's decision to change terms of employment and working conditions without consulting the union |
While United Educators of San Francisco (UESF), the union that represents more than 6,000 school district employees, supports the goals of the "Dream Schools" initiative, it questions the methods that have excluded both parents and teachers. The plan is reminiscent of a program introduced a decade ago by former Superintendent Bill Rohas that changed several schools by replacing their staffs entirely. The previous plan, known as reconstitution, destabilized staff and caused a bitterness that went on for years. Now teachers are worried the new plan will do the same thing.
"It's a well-intentioned effort to address the achievement gap of African American and Latino students, but it uses reconstitution as a process for doing that instead of involving teachers and students," says UESF President Dennis Kelly. "That's what we're objecting to."
The union has conducted several rallies at school sites as well as demonstrations at school board meetings to protest the way the plan has been handled. In January, UESF filed two class action grievances and an unfair labor practice charge that the implementation of the program violates the teachers' bargaining agreement with the district.
In all, 10 elementary, middle and high schools have been targeted for the "dream school" treatment. Three have already been converted and seven more are slated to open in the fall. Teachers at the remaining schools say they are worried not just for their own future, but also for their students.
|
|
|
UESF Members Darcy Blackburn Chan and Susan Solomon were among those protesting |
They contend that several of the schools slated to become "dream schools" are already improving as a result of a number of other reforms that have been implemented in the past few years.
Teachers who have already been through reconstitution know firsthand how upsetting it can be. They include Hope Weissman, a computer specialist at Sanchez Elementary School in the city's Mission District, a largely Latino neighborhood. When she saw a young student openly crying about the proposed changes in the school, Weissman experienced feelings of deja vu.
"She doesn't want us to go, and neither do I," says Weissman. "We're all feeling a lot of emotional impact." Weissman wonders why Sanchez needs to be changed — again. In the past few years, the school has received funds to start programs in dance, vocal music, drama, visual arts and computers. Test scores there have steadily risen and the school has met all of its goals over the past five years.
"They want us to reapply for our jobs, but we don't know about the hours, the working conditions, the programs," says Weissman. "This is a dedicated staff here that already works long hours. We've already undergone a lot of changes and they are working. Why reinvent the wheel?"
Weissman recently testified before the school board that, although she's been with the district since 1989, she is considering leaving for Miami, where teachers are being offered $77,000 in salaries.
"This has really forced me to look at other options," she says.
Richard Moore, a chemistry teacher at John O'Connell High School in the Mission District, also questions the reasoning for the change, although he has reluctantly reapplied for the job he's held for five years.
"I came here from teaching 10 years at a private school because I wanted to work with low-performing students," Moore says. "I am well-trained professionally, I am a National Board Certified teacher, yet I am being 'reconstituted.' I don't understand."
Moore also has been unable to get the details of the "new" job and what the expectations are. He's heard rumors that there will be more flexibility but he's also heard that staff will be expected to work until 5 p.m. each day as well as Saturdays.
"We don't know what we're applying for," he says.
But even more, Moore wonders if the new "dream schools" aren't just a marketing ploy to recast the image of the low-performing schools. He says the "dream school" plan for John O'Connell simply rewrites the plan that was written five years ago, when the old vocational school reopened in a new building with a new career pathways curriculum. Despite the fact that some of the promised programs and supplies haven't all materialized, Moore asserts the staff is deeply committed.
Yet the district's new plan is alienating and demoralizing O'Connell's teachers, Moore maintains.
"Basically, it comes down to respect," he says. "This just feels wrong."