San Jose’s 2014 mayoral race will be as crowded as an elevator going down to the parking garage at quitting time. I view this as a good thing, because the issues need to to be discussed in detail more than ever. I am certain there are some announced and unannounced candidates that get “it”—including councilmembers Madison Nguyen and Sam Liccardo.
The “it” is the results we get from our educational institutions. All other issues are either related or pale in comparison. Topics that score political points and attract votes in a race for mayor traditionally include positions on public safety (police and fire), libraries, economic development, affordable housing, roads, permitting processes, arenas and stadiums, water, utilities, trash, street cleaning, public transportation, downtown development, taxes, unions, pensions, etc. If public education gets mentioned in the campaign it is usually perceived as out of bounds or in another institution’s court. “It” gets mentioned far lower on the agenda than it should be.
With the launch of SJ 2020—an initiative to end the achievement gap by 2020—in the City Hall Rotunda in 2010, Mayor Chuck Reed and former county Superintendent Charles Weismchanged the course of campaign issues. On that autumn day the role of mayor became a change agent for better results in public education, albeit incrementally.
Mayor Reed deserves credit and thanks for expanding the role of San Jose’s mayor on this issue. It will be up to his successor to expand on the effort in ways that bring results for schools to the very top of the public agenda. The quality of our education system, birth to career, is inextricably related to public safety, crime, and economic development—issues that always rise to the top of an agenda in a mayor’s race. We cannot wait for the 2018 election for the mayor to get “it,” when “it” is so urgent.
In many of my conversations with community leaders, even with some of the current mayoral candidates, I have argued for a mayor that views the quality of our schools as the No. 1 issue of the times. In a recent email exchange with a board member of the San Jose/Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, my position that a mayor in San Jose can do a lot to further the results of our schools ran into a disbelieving challenge. One of the replies I received: “But, what can a Mayor do?”
I wrote, “Menino in Boston, Bloomberg in New York, Emmanuel in Chicago are mayors with a strong city mayoral government system and more direct authority over schools. Each one is playing a major role to improve school results. In San Jose, with a weaker city charter and a mayor without any direct linkage in relationship to schools, it is harder for sure.”
But a new mayor can play a strategic role in using the position as a bully pulpit for all children and school results. This person can use data from the city’s 19 school districts—too many in my opinion—and sunshine their achievement data annually in a city education report card. The data can include: graduation rates; percentages of students meeting A-G requirements (UC/CSU minimum standards for admission); proficiency in math, science and English-language arts, broken up by demographic subgroups and gender. The mayor can use his or her positional power to convene community leaders and stakeholders to develop strategic plans for STEM results and students’ mastery of skills in innovation, entrepreneurship, and communication.
With 50 percent of all students in public schools in San Jose scoring below grade level proficiency in math and reading, and a high school dropout rate of 35 percent for Latinos, we have a problem that needs an urgent remedy. Education results are the key economic engine. The new mayor can be that key leader to bring about the urgent change needed. The candidate that demonstrates that they get “it” will have my full support.
Joseph Di Salvo is a member of the Santa Clara County Office of Education’s Board of Trustees. He is a San Jose native.
Although education is important it is not an essential service that a city should be providing or funding. Especially when they can’t provide the essential city services they are supposed to be providing and that we pay for.
Joseph,
You got it wrong.
“Next San Jose Mayor Needs to Get ‘It
The voting idiots need to get it right. Most don’t even bother and the rest drink Chuck’s cool aid. We have four clowns of Reeds running for his seat. OK 3 1/2 but Sam will join, trust me.
What we need is a fresh face and view for the city. Hell Mr. Wall could do a better job. We do not need the same ole crap coming out of another cronnie of Chuck. ENOUGH!
Heck they are still going to be sitting on the council regardless and throwing up the same ole @#%% and hope it sticks.
Its just like the federal govt., until we put new officials in place nothing will change.
Forgot to mention, thank you CH 11 for your investigation on why each council member gets 10K per year to go party on our dime. Sam pretty much summed it up, “To get Votes, because you poor councilman could do it on your meager city salary”.
And we complain about the county, heck the cities policy is so vague it’s a joke. And if they go over the limit, who cares, there is no punishment. So Sam, Pete, PO, go party with your guest and booze, eat on our dime. THANK YOU SAN JOSE.
Back when Mass was still delivered in Latin, the Catholic faithful could go to church on Sunday and have their cherished beliefs bathed with powerful sounding, yet seemingly soothing words, spoken in a language they didn’t understand. The great benefit to this was it ensured they could exit the church with their faith re-energized by the experience but unchallenged by any unnecessary reasoning.
As Mr. DiSalvo demonstrates here on a regular basis, the don’t-detail-the-dogma approach that served the Catholic Church so well for hundreds of years is alive and well in public education. Relying on lofty language that literally bubbles with hope, education’s high priests deliver uplifting sermons aimed to keep the flock blissfully mesmerized, the tax dollars pouring in, and the truth in exile. Not only has Mr. DiSalvo and his kind proved they can beat anyone in dominoes, but they’ve proved themselves bent on resurrecting the Dark Ages right here in the land of high technology.
“Equality of results” is the promised land of their efforts, and, in keeping with tradition, if you want to get to the promised land you’ve got to give, and give, and give. You’ve got to want to get there so bad you’ll suppress your common sense, your rightful skepticism, your ear to outside evidence. You’ve got to ignore that “equality of results” has never been seen—not in an objective appraisal of human performance or that of any other living thing.
That Mr. DiSalvo now offers to his flock one Chuck Reed—a mayor whose blessed this city with an equality of despair, with the intent that he be hailed as a heroic figure demonstrates a level of chutzpah indicative of those wielding faith-based power; those who are never held to answer. Chuck Reed, by word or deed, has solved nothing. His only supporters are those who, like Bernie Madoff’s once faithful army of investors, have been fooled by the impressive promises that mask his empty investments.
I guess it’s fitting for Mr. DiSalvo to align himself with the mayor’s mumbo jumbo… it goes so well with his own.
I agree with Joseph, there isn’t “any direct linkage in relationship to schools.” That is the responsibility of the State and locally elected school board officials, and they should do their job.
There is direct linkage of the Mayor to public safety (police and fire), libraries, economic development, roads, permitting processes, arenas and stadiums, water, utilities, trash, street cleaning, public transportation, downtown development, taxes, unions, pensions, etc. Rightly so, this is what the Mayor, in a City Charter based City to focus on.
I do not believe their is any Mayor elected, or yet to be elected that does not care about Schools and the future of our children. But to ask him (or her) to relinquish their duly elected responsibility to do the job of someone else is unrealistic.
The suggestion the mayor “can use data from the city’s 19 school districts—too many in my opinion—and sunshine their achievement data annually in a city education report card. The data can include: graduation rates; percentages of students meeting A-G requirements (UC/CSU minimum standards for admission); proficiency in math, science and English-language arts, broken up by demographic subgroups and gender. The mayor can use his or her positional power to convene community leaders and stakeholders to develop strategic plans for STEM results and students’ mastery of skills in innovation, entrepreneurship, and communication.”
This is already done, I see the results published quite often showing the achievement of each school and district. Why is it the Mayor’s responsibility?
The public need to hold people like DiSalvo responsible to do their job. It seems like he feel his job is to blame it on the inaction of some whose job description does not include schools. Passing the buck – seems to be the case here.
He needs to put all the emphasis on downtown, period. Forget North San JO and South San JO! Downtown needs all the attention it can get to become like a decent Manhattan with booming prosperity and fun. Downtown needs all the towers build immediately with public and private money to get the city in order.
If you consider all the missteps that the County Office of Education has taken with mortgages and now the continuing train wreck with selecting replacement trustees, you’d have to think this is the pot calling the kettle black.
As “Vacancy Vaquero” commented in the article below this one, you’re now trying to figure out how to make an appointment again, instead of holding an election. This is after the DA advised you to hold an election.
Are you folks hard-headed, stupid or both?
“With the launch of SJ 2020—an initiative to end the achievement gap by 2020—in the City Hall Rotunda in 2010, Mayor Chuck Reed and former county Superintendent Charles Weis changed the course of campaign issues.”
The county Office of Education hosted a public forum on SJ 2020 in January 2010, but the actual start of SJ 2020 was in October 2009. It is now 42 months later, with only 81 months left until 2020.
Adding the wonderful contributions of our lame-duck mayor and a county superintendent who was ridden out of town, isn’t there some doubt in your mind yet that getting “it” might not involve political figures who are using your naivete about their sincerity?
A third of the time from the beginning of SJ 2020 has been spent. What do you really have to show for the politicians’ involvement? How’s that working out for the kids?
The Mayor of San Jose has virtually NOTHING to do with public education, and barring some sort of change in the California constitution, this state of affairs will continue. Sheesh, talk about not “getting it!”