The teachers begin arriving at union headquarters around 4:30 p.m. They grab a plate of Mexican food delivered by a local restaurant, pick up a binder of scripts, and settle in at 37 phones spread out on folding tables. Carolyn Vega, the phone-bank 鈥渃aptain鈥� for the evening, offers a few tips on tactfulness before they get started.
鈥淭hink about how you deal with parents,鈥� says Ms. Vega, by day a 3rd grade teacher. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 want it controversial. Keep it sweet. We want those votes.鈥�
|
Since mid-September, that scene has played out six days a week here at the offices of the San Diego Education Association. Along with telephoning, union members have sent thousands of campaign postcards to friends and relatives, handed out fliers to parents before school, and organized two citywide precinct walks to canvass for votes door to door. It all has one purpose: to tilt the balance of power on the San Diego school board in next week鈥檚 elections.
Since 1998, the five-person panel governing the 140,000- student San Diego city school system has been split 3-2 on virtually every major issue put before it. The razor-thin majority has served as the basis of support for the district鈥檚 two high-profile leaders, Superintendent Alan D. Bersin and his second-in-command, Anthony J. Alvarado, as they鈥檝e carried out a comprehensive school improvement effort. The two have stressed staff training and an intensive focus on teaching students basic skills.
Along with the board鈥檚 two dissenters, the local teachers鈥� union has been the loudest critic of the changes that have taken place here in recent years. Many members claim that they鈥檝e lost flexibility in how they teach, that the added time spent on literacy and mathematics leaves little for other subjects, and that students now see school as drudgery. The core problem, say union leaders, is that teachers had almost no hand in crafting the district鈥檚 new policies.
鈥淲e鈥檙e just saying we want to be at the table,鈥� said Terry Pesta, the president of the SDEA, an affiliate of the National Education Association. 鈥淲e鈥檝e been left out of the process from the very beginning.鈥�
That situation could change after Nov. 5. Like the union itself, the two candidates it backs are highly critical of the recent initiatives in the district and call for a bigger teacher voice in the way the school system is run. Those views would prevail if they both win. And if that happens, many observers here suspect Mr. Bersin and Mr. Alvarado would soon be gone. At the least, major portions of their agenda would be altered.
Many of the superintendent鈥檚 strongest supporters see the union鈥檚 bid as a blatant power grab. To assert its influence, those union critics say, the teachers鈥� organization is willing to trash one of the country鈥檚 most closely watched experiments in systemic change in K-12 education. Says school board President Ron Ottinger, who is not up for re-election and supports Mr. Bersin: 鈥淚n San Diego, the teachers鈥� union has always wanted a veto power over any new initiative.鈥�
Union officials, however, maintain that they鈥檙e not seeking their own rubber stamps on the board. Rather, they argue, the district鈥檚 efforts to raise student achievement are critically flawed, a situation that could have been avoided if teachers had been given more input into the planning. What鈥檚 more, they charge that they鈥檙e up against well-financed business interests that have had undue influence on the administration and the current board majority.
Whatever the merits of the opposing sides in the debate, the efforts of the San Diego union provide a glimpse into how important local school board races have become to teachers鈥� unions. Along with negotiating new contracts, supporting school board candidates is one of the organizations鈥� most powerful tools for advocating on behalf of their members and shaping local education policy.
Self-Determination
The San Diego union is hardly alone among teachers鈥� groups in taking sides in district board races. A recent poll of school board members sponsored by the National School Boards Association found that teachers鈥� unions were the group most often cited as being active in such elections鈥攎ore often than groups representing parents, business people, minorities, or religious organizations. In districts of 25,000 students or more, nearly 80 percent of the respondents said teachers鈥� groups played an active role in their local races.
Often, those efforts amount to little more than endorsements. But when the stakes are high, unions have upped the ante. In 1995, teachers鈥� groups in Wilkinsburg, Pa., and Hartford, Conn., gave five-figure donations to support school board candidates who opposed local plans to privatize school management. Three years later, campaigning by the United Educators of San Francisco played a crucial role in a board shake-up there that some say speeded the departure of Superintendent Waldemar 鈥淏ill鈥� Rojas.
鈥淚 find in San Francisco that teachers and paraprofessionals make a much closer connection to the power of the school board now than they did five to 10 years ago,鈥� said Kent Mitchell, the president of the union there, a merged local of the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers. 鈥淭hey do understand that as teachers and paraprofessionals they have this amazing ability to help determine their own work life.鈥�
In San Diego, there鈥檚 no disputing that the work lives of teachers have changed since the arrival of Mr. Bersin and Mr. Alvarado in 1998. In a system that had been largely decentralized, the two sought to establish common instructional strategies throughout its 182 schools. Their efforts are laid out in a wide-ranging plan as ambitious as its title: 鈥淭he Blueprint for Student Success in a Standards-Based System.鈥�
All elementary school classes, for instance, now spend three hours a day on literacy, and all kindergarten classes have been made into full-day programs. A course that stretches two to three periods long has been introduced in the middle grades to improve reading and composition skills.
At the same time, teachers are getting heavy doses of professional development in specific teaching methods, followed by frequent observations of how they use those methods in the classroom. One of the sorest points for educators here is that 600 teachers鈥� aides lost their jobs to free up money for parts of the blueprint.
Whether the changes are for the better is the central question in the current school board races, in which four candidates are vying for two seats. In one corner sits Clyde Fuller, a retired FBI agent, and Katherine Nakamura, a lawyer and university administrator. Both argue that the overhaul of the district has brought much-needed improvements.
Though conceding that the swift pace of change has taken a toll on many staff members, and that some policies may need tweaking, the pair say recent test-score gains validate the district鈥檚 overall approach. Says Ms. Nakamura: 鈥淲hen you鈥檝e got a house half built, the most expensive thing you can do is burn it down and start all over.鈥�
In the other corner are Jeff Lee, a former U.S. Navy officer, and John deBeck, a retired teacher and the only incumbent. Together, the two union-backed candidates complain that teachers are now hamstrung in how they provide instruction, and that the arts, social studies, and other subjects have been squeezed out by the new focus on basic skills.
Mr. Lee, a longtime parent activist in the district, has his own favorite metaphor for describing the blueprint. 鈥淲hen I buy a car, I don鈥檛 ask the engineer who designed it how good it is,鈥� he says. 鈥淥f course he鈥檚 going to tell you it鈥檚 great. I ask the people who drive the car. And when you ask the teachers, they tell you this blueprint is a lemon.鈥�
鈥榃ork Our Tails Off鈥�
For the union to claim success next week, both Mr. Lee and Mr. deBeck must win. A victory by only one of them would continue the board鈥檚 current split in favor of the superintendent, because two of the three members not up for election support the blueprint.
鈥淲e know it鈥檚 going to be a tough race,鈥� the SDEA鈥檚 Mr. Pesta said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e going to work our tails off.鈥�
Just how much of the union鈥檚 energies are consumed by campaigning is evident these days at the group鈥檚 headquarters in a two-story office building in San Diego鈥檚 suburban Mission Valley area. Newly printed yard signs and door hangers await distribution. Sign-up sheets are posted asking for volunteers to hand out fliers at street fairs and ethnic festivals.
The phone bank set up in a back room has made as many as 1,500 calls in a single shift. Lists generated from the county elections office allow callers to zero in on most-likely voters as they make their pitch. Each call begins with 鈥淗ello ... I鈥檓 a teacher.鈥� Undecided voters are told that the superintendent鈥檚 policies 鈥渉ave increased our dropout rates and demoralized teachers.鈥�
Like many of the volunteers who show up each day, Alison Knowles says her motivation comes from firsthand experience. The 30- year-old 2nd grade teacher says the district鈥檚 new professional-development regime will keep her out of her classroom 15 days this year. And while she says morale at her school hasn鈥檛 suffered as much as at others, she maintains that the system鈥檚 emphasis on certain teaching techniques fails to address differences in students鈥� skills and learning styles.
鈥淭his campaign is so important,鈥� said Ms. Knowles, sipping a Diet Coke and nibbling a chocolate- chip cookie between calls. 鈥淚f we don鈥檛 get out and try to make a change, then we really can鈥檛 complain about it.鈥�
鈥榃e Have the Bodies鈥�
Teachers like Ms. Knowles are the bread and butter of the union鈥檚 campaign. The SDEA鈥檚 9,000 members represent an enviable army of potential volunteers, as well as a conduit for getting its message out to teachers鈥� families and friends. Recognizing that teachers鈥� votes alone could tip the scales in this election, union leaders at each school are reminding colleagues to go to the polls.
鈥淭he other side has the money, and we have the bodies,鈥� contended Gail Boyle, a former SDEA president who is now part of the union鈥檚 staff. 鈥淚f they do phone banks, they have to pay for it. All we have to pay for is food for our volunteers. And they can鈥檛 say to people, 鈥業鈥檓 a teacher.鈥� 鈥�
Still, the union has amassed an unusually large war chest for a local school board race. According to disclosure forms filed here last week, the SDEA鈥檚 political action committee had by Oct. 19 already raised nearly $462,000 this year, including $300,000 from its state parent, the California Teachers Association.
That鈥檚 more than twice the amount the local raised throughout 2000, the last time a school board election was held here, when most of the big-ticket items went toward mailings and radio spots. (By way of a national comparison, fewer than 6 percent of school board members from large districts in the NSBA鈥檚 recent poll said they raised more than $25,000 for their last campaigns.)
鈥淭his operation is top-notch,鈥� said Elsie Jones, a staff member at the San Diego local who came here two years ago from the NEA鈥檚 Georgia affiliate, where she did political work. 鈥淚t would be on the cutting edge if a small state organization were doing this.鈥�
Major-League Politics
In fact, the SDEA鈥檚 efforts must be cutting-edge for it to have any hope of winning. In part, that鈥檚 because of the way elections are held in San Diego. While the primaries are organized so that each candidate for the board runs only in one of five regional districts, the winners run citywide in the general election.
That means anyone running for the school board here must campaign across a bigger landscape than someone running for one of the area鈥檚 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Getting a candidate鈥檚 message across in a city of 1.3 million people takes significant backing, and all four contenders in this race have heavy hitters in their corners.
While Mr. Lee and Mr. deBeck have the teachers鈥� union, Mr. Fuller has gotten help from the local Republican Party. The GOP has sent out at least two mailings on his behalf, including one aimed at 140,000 Republican households. Former California Gov. Pete Wilson, also a Republican, gave the keynote address at a Fuller fund-raiser.
Meanwhile, Ms. Nakamura has been endorsed by state schools chief Delaine Eastin, as well as several San Diego City Council members. She and Mr. Fuller also got a boost when U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige visited the district this month and praised its improvement efforts.
鈥淚t鈥檚 often the case in these races that the unions are not opposed by important counter-organizations,鈥� observed Michael W. Kirst, a political scientist and education professor at Stanford University. 鈥淚n San Diego, they are.鈥�
Indeed, the SDEA was vastly outspent during the 2000 school board race. That year, union-backed candidate Frances O鈥橬eill Zimmerman was the target of a negative television ad paid for mostly by business people, including Wal-Mart heir John Walton, San Diego Padres owner John Moores, and the chief executive officers of two local telecommunications companies. Funding for the commercial鈥攁n unprecedented feature for a school board race here鈥攖opped $500,000. Ms. Zimmerman, an incumbent and vocal critic of the superintendent, nonetheless won re-election.
Ms. Zimmerman credits her narrow victory, in part, to a backlash against what she calls the 鈥渉eavy handed鈥� campaign against her, and the last-minute rallying by the SDEA. "[The unions] have a lot of influence,鈥� she said recently. 鈥淏ut they don鈥檛 have any more influence than any business group.鈥�
As of last week, no similar television campaign had been launched to counter this year鈥檚 union efforts. Mr. Lee and Mr. deBeck have said they expect to face a large business- supported opposition campaign just before Election Day. In the meantime, many of the business leaders who opposed Ms. Zimmerman two years ago have made the maximum $500 contribution to the campaigns of Ms. Nakamura and Mr. Fuller, as have some business owners鈥� families.
San Diego business leaders say they have a legitimate stake in the outcome. Poor student performance in the past, they argue, has hurt their ability to attract new companies and recruit skilled workers. Before Mr. Bersin was hired, just 41 percent of the district鈥檚 students were reading at or above grade level, and the achievement gap between minority and white students had been growing for several years. Since the new administration took over, all minority groups but Asian- Americans have exceeded the gains made by white students, and 48 percent of all students are reading at or above grade level.
The fear is that an about- face by the school board now would halt that progress, said Ginger Hovenic, the president of the local Business Roundtable for Education, an offshoot of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce.
鈥淭here are 125 members on this roundtable, and this is foremost in their minds,鈥� said Ms. Hovenic, a former Harvard University lecturer and winner of the National Distinguished Principal of the Year award. 鈥淭hey realize any kind of reform depends on the leadership at the top. And if that leader leaves, the reform stops.鈥�
Hindsight
Union leaders say it didn鈥檛 have to come to this. Mr. Pesta and many SDEA members assert that teachers would have bought in to many parts of the blueprint if they believed they had played a part in its design. In particular, the use of outside consultants鈥攎any from Mr. Alvarado鈥檚 old district in New York and some from as far away as New Zealand鈥� has left a bitter taste in union members鈥� mouths.
鈥淎ll the changes aren鈥檛 bad,鈥� said Ms. Knowles, the phone-bank volunteer. 鈥淚t鈥檚 the execution of the changes. It鈥檚, 鈥榊ou will do this; if not, you鈥檙e bad.鈥� 鈥�
Some national observers and even some supporters of the blueprint agree that the rollout of the plan could have been handled better. An exhaustive study of the district鈥檚 efforts by the American Institutes for Research, a nonprofit research group in Washington, urges that more be done to help teachers see the 鈥渂ig picture鈥� of the new policies. Adds the report: 鈥淭hey also need to feel valued.鈥�
Ms. Hovenic agrees more attention could have been paid to the stress that the many changes put on district staff members.
鈥淚f there had been some sense of, 鈥楬ang in there, I hear your pain,鈥� then it would not be what it is now,鈥� she said.
Mr. Alvarado, the blueprint鈥檚 chief architect, isn鈥檛 so sure. Tensions have been high between district officials and the SDEA almost from the day the board surprised many educators here by hiring Mr. Bersin. He had served as U.S. attorney in San Diego following his appointment to the post by President Clinton and had no experience working in education. From early on, Mr. Alvarado says, union and district leaders clashed not just on parts of the improvement plan, but also on such underpinnings as the need to bring greater coherence to the district鈥檚 instructional practices.
鈥淲e actually had antithetical theories of action about what a reform is,鈥� said Mr. Alvarado, whose official title is chancellor of instruction. 鈥淪o it wasn鈥檛 something that could be negotiated.鈥�
Working Together?
Despite the conflict, Mr. Alvarado insists he鈥檚 no union basher. As the head of New York City鈥檚 Community School District 2 from 1987 to 1998, he forged a close relationship with leaders of the AFT affiliate there as he sought to improve reading instruction and teacher training. That work even won him an award from the AFT that now hangs over his desk.
The chancellor claims to be giving little thought to the effect that the pending elections could have on his job, or that of his boss. But even if the union doesn鈥檛 prevail, he sees the SDEA playing a more active role in shaping district policy in the future. Said Mr. Alvarado: 鈥淚 predict that we will start to do business together, that the temperature will drop, and there will be much more, much more collaborative work.鈥�
In other words, the union will have a seat at the table.
Coverage of leadership issues in education鈥攊ncluding goverance, management, and labor relations鈥攊s supported by Broad Foundation.
