By David Bacon

On November 9, San Francisco School Board members were confronted by angry teachers and parents, protesting plans by Superintendent Arlene Ackerman for establishing what she called “dream schools.” Teachers accused her of resurrecting an old program by her predecessor, Bill Rojas, for reconstituting schools.

Ackerman denied this was her intent, and called it instead a program for “redesigning” schools. But teachers, parents and some board members said that she was implementing the crucial characteristic of reconstitution - making staff at selected schools reapply for the jobs they currently hold.

Board member Mark Sanchez notes that her program has a number of components. “The schools get more resources and a longer school day,” he says. “There’s more regimentation of the curriculum and a zero tolerance behavior policy. But what’s really at issue is that basically everyone at the school is vacated. That’s the issue at hand — not whether schools that are underperforming need more resources.

We all agree that they do. But you can absolutely separate out reconstitution from the question of more resources.”

One of the most outspoken teachers at the meeting was Michael Leahy, a first grade teacher at Sanchez Elementary School, one of those chosen as a dream school. “Reapplying for my job means disrespect and a lot of pain,” he says. “It tells me that the superintendent doesn’t think that I and my colleagues are doing our jobs well. I don’t believe that’s the case at all. I came from a school that was reconstituted in East Palo Alto three years ago. That school is still a failing school. Reconstitution as a reform measure is a failed measure.”

Dennis Kelly, president of United Educators of San Francisco, agrees. “There is no proven record of success, that by changing the staff and not going into the conditions that exist in the community, that you change the school,” he explains. “We need more resources - reflection on the practices, the identification of needs, and then a commitment by the district to satisfy those needs. And teachers are willing to step forward and identify those resources. We believe in reform, and we have offered consistently to support reform, to be part of the program.”

Real reform, according to Leahy, should include “preschool for all students, and reading specialists in all the early grades. We should also have art, drama, music - extracurricular activities to keep kids engaged and in love with school. These things cost money, and at one time schools had funds to pay for them. But over the last 20 years they’ve disappeared.”

Ackerman, however, accuses the union of standing in the way of increasing student achievement. She called for “a different kind of teacher, a teacher who’s really committed to accelerate these children’s progress.”

“When I hear her say it’s going to take a new type of teacher, it’s very frustrating,” Leahy responds, “because I’m working hard at the very goals she has set - raising student achievement. Teaching kids how to read is my life’s work.”

He also rejects the implication that he doesn’t communicate with parents and the community around the school. “I am passionately involved with the parents of my students,” he says. “I try to speak with them on the telephone, catch them while they’re picking up or dropping off their kids. There’s a lot of responsibility placed on me, as a first grade teacher, to teach kids how to read and write. I take that very seriously.”

While doubting that testing measures all aspects of educational success, teachers say scores at Sanchez have been rising for five years, and the school has met state and Federal achievement goals. Yet one indication of the demoralization the proposal has induced among teachers is the fact that by the application deadline, only 92 of 150 dream school teachers had even reapplied for their current jobs. Those planning to move to other schools face a difficult situation. Kelly recalls that one teacher displaced by reconstitution in the nineties “went from school to school reapplying for other positions. She was uniformly shunned, because people thought the superintendent must be right, that she had done something wrong and had to leave her school. This negative reputation follows people — it’s one of the worst aspects of this process.”

Board member Sanchez also recalls that experience. As a teacher he went into Edison Elementary School as a member of its new staff. “Three years after reconstitution nearly every teacher had left,” he recalls. “This model is predicated on the idea that the people who love the kids the most are the problem.”

Sanchez notes that since the November election, Ackerman may no longer have board support for dream schools. “We need to be involved with the community in an open dialogue,” he says. “On this issue, a majority of board members are now willing to have that discussion.” 