The monolithic structure of public education is resistant to change. As evidence the system continues to use an antiquated calendar from our agrarian past, and it organizes school districts in historic slices that make no logical sense.
I agree with SJI readers who believe the system of public education is poorly organized. This nonsensical structure causes redundant expenditures and weaker student outcomes than necessary. Reorganizing these districts with more wisdom and thought, I truly believe, would be beneficial to the goal of increasing student achievement.
In the City of San Jose there are 19 school districts serving approximately 120,000 students. Some are elementary districts serving grades K-8; some are high school districts serving grades 9-12; and one is “unified,” serving grades K-12.
The sizes of these districts vary from 525 in the case of Luther Burbank to 33,000 for San Jose Unified. Eastside Union High School District has six feeder elementary school districts. I think that is a model that might work for adults, but not for children. We must be about what is best for children.
All of these local school districts elect a five- or seven-member Board of Trustees to create policy and budget oversight. This structure of governance is our grassroots democratic representation at its core. Most of these 19 San Jose districts employ:
• A full time superintendent to serve as CEO
• A full time business manager to serve as CBO
• A full time assistant superintendent of instruction to serve as Chief Education Officer
• A full time assistant superintendent of human resources to serve as Chief Personnel Officer
• A full time director of food service to serve as chief nutrition officer
• A a variety of other district office support staff to keep the complex system moving along, too many times at breakneck speed.
Most citizens of other states think this patchwork structure of school district organization in Silicon Valley makes no logical sense. Most of the educators I talk to agree, but few have considered ways to augment the system so students’ outcomes are more vital than grassroots local control.
Moreland School District was the last district to attempt to unify K-12 from a K-8 district but lost the election after three years of planning.
Turf battles and the loss of local control are the two issues that keep the status quo in place. A K-12 unified school district makes significantly more sense than a K-8 or 9-12 district and with good leadership can produce better overall outcomes for its students. In addition, when redundant positions and services are combined to serve children there will be significant monetary savings to put into local classrooms and teacher salaries and/or benefits.
Using San Jose Unified as a model size, perhaps policy makers and city leaders should be discussing the benefits of having four unified districts in San Jose with approximately 30,000 students per district. The benefits would be enormous as we merge, consolidate, strategically plan and execute a vertical slice of neighborhood schools in one geographic region balanced by ethnicity and race as equally as possible. This vertical slice of schools would be an all-encompassing community of K-12 learners.
I am an eternal optimist and believe anything is possible, although I am certain many readers are laughing out loud (LOL) at the thought of change. San Jose 2020, which will be launched this Thursday at City Hall, with Mayor Reed and County Superintendent Weis, is a vehicle to begin this discussion in serious ways. After all, turf should never get in the way of doing what is best for the children. What do you think? Do our leaders have the courage to begin this discussion?
Do the larger unified districts have better student achievement?
My impression may be false, but I thought that SF unified, LA unified, Oakland unified, and SJ unified achieve worse student performance than the smaller districts.
I was actually wondering the same thing. Do larger unified districts really have better student achievement? I am not sure that I see the benefit of having larger districts. Yes, some positions would be cut and money may be saved, but would that make things better? I think that having fewer people in charge of more students would not be beneficial. Administrators would be spread too thinly and lose the ability to really know their districts and make the right judgment calls.
Joseph,
Thanks for the insightful column. Many of us have clamored for solutions to eliminate the tangled web that we now have. It’s unfortunate that turf wars prevent us from eliminating all of the funding that goes to waste.
In the City of San Jose there are 19 school districts serving approximately 120,000 student
“When schoolchildren start paying dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.”
—Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers
No matter how you carve up the geography, no matter how you rearrange the administrative chairs, no matter how much “parent involvement” there is, no matter how many nutritional school lunches, breakfasts, dinners, snacks, and brunches are provided, no matter how many performance studies or audits are done, nothing —NOTHING—will change in public education so long as the unions own the politicians that fund and run the schools for the benefit of the unions.
“No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up.” —Lily Tomlin
Boy you’ve got that right, Doof. But you’ll notice in all of DiSalvo’s articles, the unions are the elephant in the room that he never mentions.
DiSalvo says, “We must be about what’s best for the children”.
Ms. Tomlin was right. There’s no possible response that’s cynical enough for that statement coming from that guy.
Mr. Galt,
I have written about unions and their role in public education on many occasions and for varied issues. I have highlighted on SJI Michelle Rhee, Chancellor in Washington D.C., who is dealing aggressively with tenure laws, actually having teachers declare whether they want to be on a tenure track or performance pay track when they begin in her district. I am on record as saying tenure law as we know it must be changed in order to advance student achievement outcomes. I have argued rather passionately for alternative compensation pay-for-performance models that must go hand-in-hand with augmenting tenure laws.
Teacher unions play a vital role in representing their members. I think union representation is critical for the overall success of the total system, yet I too believe that collective bargaining can be a negative process that does not promote increased outcomes for the children as key stakeholder of the system. I have been an association/union president and management president and have negotiated many contracts on both sides of the “table”. Interest-based and win-win tenets must be paramount for both management and teachers as they approach new contracts.
The real elephant in the room is not unions it is the lack of adequate funding we have in California. The more we lose sight of the real elephant the more our children will languish in a substandard system of public schooling.
Joseph,
Just curious – if lack of funding is the real elephant, would you agree that millions of illegal alien students, unable to speak English and sorely lacking other skills, contribute to the funding deficit? I have a ten dollar bet that you won’t answer this question or, if you do, it will be some politically correct nonsense.
Your scapegoating reflects academic laziness. I see the same kind of stuff at work. A person skims a bunch of headlines and comes to the water cooler acting like their a scholar on the topic. Its like Doofinator, who likes to complain and mock because its easier than offering solutions to the problem.
Joseph,
I agree. It seems funding for education is like funding for the Police, health care, animal care and welfare in shelters, and essentials are always at the bottom of the list of our budgetary priorities. How can we ever properly prepare or train our youth to survive as adults if we can’t even meet their basic needs? Even in the most impoverished countries, education is a priority!
Greg, do you actually know any of the “millions” of immigrant students who “are unable to speak English” and are “sorely lacking other skills”? I do, because I have been teaching them for fifteen years. They are bilingual and can read, write, and do math in a second language which is more than anyone I ever knew growing up.
“like THEIR a scholar on the topic”.
Don’t you mean “like THERE a scholar on the topic”?
John,
It seems like you are just trying to find an easy target to scapegoat by blaming everything on unions. I agree with Joseph that the real elephant in the room is lack of funding.
There are many of us that truly believe teaching “must be about what’s best for the children”; and there are many like Joseph who have made a career “doing” what’s best for children.
Kirk
Instead of focusing on who John Galt is “scapegoating”- John Galt who has nothing to do with education policy- you might want to consider the scapegoat that is used by the people who are actually running the show. DiSalvo’s scapegoat is “not enough money”.
His philosophy of education seems to boil down to, “How can we expect teachers to do a good job unless we pay them more?” He infects his students with this attitude and they will infect their students with it right down to grade level. So in Raj’s visit to Andrew Hill High we get kids who say things like “it’s unmotivating to carry on with all the money being taken…” and “how can we do good in school when they are doing budget cuts and taking money from the school?” Where do these kids get this self-defeating attitude? Seems to me it’s passed down to them from the top.
Our conscientous, revered educators do more harm with this implicit message of “you can’t possibly succeed without more money” than any amount of education funding could possibly repair.
No, the bigger message kids are getting is that their school sports, music and arts programs aren’t really important anymore. A roundabout way of saying YOU KIDS are no longer important. A direct consequence of a lack of funding.
To say nothing of the many layers of political bureaucracy sucking funds out of the schools…federal, state (two grand poobahs there!), county and school district. There’s at least one too many bee watch watchers!
I see that reorganizing school districts would cut down on redundant expenditures, but I don’t follow how it will improve student achievement. How? Why?
It seems to me that if we are going to reform “the system” we need to target funding. I can certainly see how unequal funding practices have a direct impact on student achievement.
FUNDING!!!!!!! Paula brings up a great issue that goes hand in hand with this topic. We can talk all day long about school districts need to reform but how can we tackle this topic without talking about budget and finances? Each year more and more programs are being cut. I recently just heard that some tests and assessments on student achievement in a particular grade were cut due to funding. The issue of $$$ needs to be solved before anything else can be talked about or decided. How do we fix the economic crisis in education???
Paula and Shandell,
I couldn’t agree with you both any more. The unequal and seemingly nonexistant (in some arees) funding issues would make such an impact on our entire system. Re thinking the way our classrooms are structured would have a huge impact on our student achievements but at the same time, the lack of resources we currently have (or don’t have) is a bigger issue… it baffles me to think that we aren’t leaning towards major change, but towards more cutbacks… our education system is not only failing on our test scores, but its collapsing as a whole in front of our eyes.
I agree with all of you regarding funding. It just does not make any sense that funds are always pulled from education when the economy is having problems. I completely agree with Oksana on prison funding and that it should be, of all things, cut. As a society, our priority should be supporting children. Change in education will be difficult without funding priorities changing first.
I agree with funding and going an extra step to get support for the districts and the schools in general. I too will never understand why someone will pull funds away from education, when education is what the economy thrives on. If there is no funding in schools and if the education we are all gaining is being ripped to shreds, then don’t have everything based upon educated status. If they keep pulling things away, they will get high school diploma or less personal in the buildings and I doubt they will even budge for that. Change is hard. Change is hard in general with life and in a system where things have never changed. But I too believe that change will happen if someone steps up. Funding needs to be stepped up and maybe a change will happen.
Funding does go hand in hand with this issue. Lately, it seems like anytime money needs to be cut from somewhere- it always seems to be cut from our education system. Why don’t we cut from other areas, like our prison funding, for example? It’s frustrating, to say the least. Obviously, the current school structure we have is failing, a change needs to happen now…not 10 or 20 years from now.
I think we do need to reorganize the school districts, but I think 30,000 students per district is maybe still too many. I went to school in a district with one middle school feeding into a district with only two high schools. Although the schools weren’t in the same district, the small community and high parent involvement helped keep them unified in many ways. I think that having unified school districts helps meet the needs of kids throughout their years in school. A few weeks ago you mentioned the need for Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs at middle schools. Some of this interplay might be facilitated by having high schools and middle schools in the same district. However, the districts should also be smaller so that they can deal with issues specific to their communities. A district where all of the students are receiving free lunch has a very different set of problems than a basic aid district. For the same reason, district lines should follow current neighborhood and community lines as much as possible so that students live close to their school and their classmates. Creating a smaller focus allows for a more close-knit feel.
I do not know what needs to change in terms of school boards. I am confused about their purpose and I think that some of the other readers are correct in their assessment of the education system as being disabled by redundant bureaucracy.
Like Meg, I am unaware of whats needs to be done to change school boards & districts. What I do know is that something needs to change fast so we can close that achievement gap & place education as our highest priority.
In this article, Di Salvo states: “Most citizens of other states think this patchwork structure of school district organization in Silicon Valley makes no logical sense. Most of the educators I talk to agree, but few have considered ways to augment the system…”
Unfortunately, it seems that as a society we are terrified of challenging the status quo, even when normality is detrimental. We are adept at recognizing when change should take place, but are resistant to taking action. Thus, within schools, we are often left with nonsensical standard practices (e.g. redundant positions as mentioned in this article, unreliable measurements of achievement, school years based on the agrarian calendar, embarrassingly low teacher salaries, etc.) Within the classroom, good teachers alter their lessons when their students are not learning. Good teachers reflect on their practices, and recognize that they can continually find ways to better reach their students. This adaptability needs to happen on a broader scale. When we see that school structures or common practices are not working, we need to be aggressive in our willingness to challenge the system by taking action. I applaud San Jose 2020 on its reform efforts, and am very much looking forward to attending the launch at City Hall.
I would say that many of the comments on this thread fairly well demonstrate that there is not going to be any substantive reform.
“I’m all for reform . . . except we need more funding, we need to leave the unions calling the shots, we need more administrative rules for administrators to a administer, . . .”, blah, blah, blah.
As Mark Twain once said, “Nothin’ needs improving like other people’s morals.”
And likewise, nothing needs cutting like other people’s budgets.
Respected by whom?
> Respected by whom?
By the people who loathe you.
I am not that familiar with the structure of school districts and what really need to be changed. However, it seems that the san jose 2020 is what may help changed things!
I agree that we must do what is best for our children. I also agree with the statement that states that we should use “San Jose Unified as a model size”and discuss “the benefits of having four unified districts in San Jose with approximately 30,000 students per district.”
I went to private middle school and then on to public high school, so I have never really thought about the issue you bring up in this article. I do not really know if it is the school district that is the issue or just the size of schools in general. Would it be safe to say that large districts have more students and therefore larger class sizes? I really do not know the answer to this question, but if this is right I would say that ends up being the issue. Also when you are understaffed and underpaid. I have always found it to be so strange that you can live across the street from a school and not go to that school because the lines were drawn in such a way that you are in a different school zone. I also think that it is such a crime to take a middle school child, and because of where they live, they will end up going to a different high school then their friends. This happened to my mom and I know that she was crushed. At such an important time in their lives too. I think that having unity would allow teachers to interact with each other, and collaberate on ways to best advance student onto high school.
This topic returns me to my previous mention of research and proposals offered by Berekeley Law Professor Goodwin Liu who proposes a new school funding framework based on four principles.
First, revenue allocations should be guided by student needs. Dollars should be allocated so that all students, including English learners, low-income students, and students with disabilities, can meet state standards for academic achievement.
Second, revenue allocations should be adjusted for regional cost differences. California is a large state with tremendous diversity. Education dollars need to have the same purchasing power from region to region, especially when it comes to hiring and retaining high-quality teachers.
Third, the system as a whole needs to be simple, transparent, and easily understood by legislators, school officials, and the public.
Fourth, reforms should apply to new money going forward, without reducing any district’s current funding level.
“Our plan drastically revises how the state distributes money to local school districts,” says co-author Michael Kirst. “It provides more resources and flexibility for schools to meet the accountability requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act and state laws.”
To implement the core principles, the co-authors propose a reformed finance system with these components:
* Base Funding: Each school district would receive a set amount of money to buy books, maintain facilities, and hire qualified teachers and staff.
* Special Education: The plan would seek to equalize special education aid across the state.
* Targeted Funding: A single funding program would direct greater resources to school districts with higher concentrations of disadvantaged low-income and non-English speaking students.
* Regional Cost Adjustment: All funds would be adjusted by a regional wage index to make sure that education dollars have the same purchasing power across the state.
* Hold Harmless Condition: Districts would not lose money under the reformed system; reforms would be phased in gradually as new money became available.
The state faces a 10 percent across-the-board education budget cut this year. But the report cites state projections showing that a decline in enrollment will make more money available per pupil over the next five years. “There will be new money in the system,” says Liu, “so we have to reform the system now if we want that money to make a difference in the future.”
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/2068.htm
“In the City of San Jose there are 19 school districts serving approximately 120,000 students.” Wow thank you for this fact. I did not realize how many school districts and student we have. It might be beneficial to split the districts up but I think we are paying way too much for administrative overhear. A superintendent makes between 160k-200k right? Plus the assistant! I think the wealth should be spread out a little more evenly or not at all. I do not understand why is EDUCATION not a PRIORITY for people? Education is our future.
Changing the way our districts are structured would have an impact on each and every student. Schools need to be run more like the successful corporations. We need to cut unnecessary spending, hire top talent, and provide a top notch product- an excellent education.
It is crazy how big SJUSD is, especially compared to other districts. I think it would be very beneficial to split this district up. As long as there is successful leadership is doing so and making sure that it does not affect a student’s education in the process. With smaller districts within San Jose, I can see that there would more attention paid to these particular schools and students. I would be all for this change. The question is, will they?
I think that the children should always be most important. There seems to have always been a battle over land, since the beginning of time. People feel they have rights, and have selfish views on what they feel is best for them rather than the community at large. If everyone was concerned about having the best society for tomorrow than we should do what is best for the children, all children.
I do not understand how having more kids in a district will help. I always thought smaller was better, smaller classes, for example. I would think that if there were 30,000 students in a district they would likely be lost as a number trying to get them through “the system”.
Also with fewer leaders, are there as many people doing checks and balances making sure they are doing their job?
I like the idea that there would be more money available for education if there was a merge between districts. This would be from not stretching the budget so much and that is a good thing. But I guess I am unsure about how it will work.
I think that change is long overdue. I had no idea there were 19 school districts within SJ. I believe our leaders have the courage to begin this discussion, but the question is do they have the courage to actually change anything? I hope so. I’m excited to see what happens at SJ 2020.
I’m not so sure if large school districts will be able to function well. But the school system as it is, is not very efficient so I say why not try it.
“The benefits would be enormous as we merge, consolidate, strategically plan and execute a vertical slice of neighborhood schools in one geographic region balanced by ethnicity and race as equally as possible”. I really like the idea of having a well balanced school with all types of ethnicities. It might help with the fight to eliminate the achievement gap.
I can understand that consolidating districts and eliminating duplicate jobs can save money but I need more information to believe that San Jose Unified is the model to follow. I also need to learn more to be convinced that larger, unified districts will improve student achievement.
Having unified districts creates more closely-knit communities which I think can better provide their students with a consistent stream of attention and help they may need. The community and system remains familiar to students and their families. Each student progresses within their respective districts. It is like smaller communities within a larger community. The smaller communities can better focus and target issues specific to their community. I think this is more beneficial to students. With issues such as bullying, or gang violence, a smaller school district may possibly limit the growth and spread of such issues.
I already posted this message and am not sure why it was not placed on the blog. I respectfully ask that it be added. Thank you.
I, like the author, also believe that school districts need revamping. Whether we are discussing the bureaucracy of education, local decision making, or equitable student distribution, we can always find room for ample improvement. The way in which we approach this change, however, is my principal concern. At this time in many U.S. schools, districts still utilize the antiquated agrarian calendar. Although this can be easily criticized as an obsolete model for the education calendar, some might actually enjoy and benefit from this academic calendar. Would this be wrong?
The oddly formed school districts of San Jose were also enumerated in the article as being old-fashioned and illogical. I happen to see eye to eye with the author on this topic. I would like to state that if one reviews the California congressional districts, it is quite easy to recognize other rather oddly shaped districts that historically and presently grant some power while wresting it from others. Various attempts have been made to alter this obvious abuse of power, but change in California, as in most states, only seems to be desirable for those in the minority. Would it be wrong to promote change in this area?
I believe that serving children should be the primary component in any new legislation relating to education. I also believe that this same legislation should not be formulated solely to strengthen individual political power or increase a politician’s vote tally in the coming years.
In spite of the hope I have that individual teachers, parents, and politicians can contribute greatly to equality for those within their spheres of influence, I am also cognizant of the rampant desire of those in power to maintain their power and of those that have little to feel entitled to ever larger quantities of benefits. Turf wars are saliently represented in the aforementioned dichotomy. I do not attempt to feign a vast knowledge on the subject of reorganization of school district lines, educational organization, or school boards. I do, however, wish to demonstrate that any changes made in the system will obviously affect some citizens positively and some negatively. A monumental decision regarding school district reform could be heralded by some as a historic achievement and by others as an unfair usurpation of local power, choice in school district, and livelihood. It is my hope that the leaders of San Jose will strongly consider the transcendent nature of their decision.
Joseph,
I knew you wouldn’t dare reply to my question above. My wallet now has
ten dollars more in it.
I dont think it would be wrong to promote change . . . . but it always seems to have good intentions and ends up in the same spot. but we will see, hopefully I am proved wrong.
I would bet that the per capita funding for public schools today is significantly higher than it was ten years ago, AND that the student performance today is very little improved, and probably worse.
That is, assuming someone could find a consistent, objective performance measuring standard that hasn’t been monkeyed with by the educrats.
I am sure that the arguments being put forward today are basically the same arguments of ten, twenty, or thirty years ago. AND these will probably be the same arguments ten years hence.
We need more money. We need more money. We need more money.
We can’t do better UNTIL we get more money.
This is educrat fantasyland and not the way things work in the REAL world.
Do a better job, and THEN the customers show their approval by buying your service or product. And THEN you get more money.
Improvement FIRST. And THEN you get the money.
There are people who value education. And they show their high regard for quality education by sending their kids to schools that they KNOW will provide a quality education.
People who value education include San Francisco public school teachers who disproportionately send their OWN kids to private schools.
It includes people like Bill and Hillary Clinton who sent THEIR daughter Chelsea to, first, PRIVATE Sidwell Friends School, and then Stanford University, a PRIVATE university.
It includes people like Barack and Michelle Obama who send their daughters to Sidwell Friends school.
It includes people like Bill Clintons mother, who sent Billy Bubba to a private Catholic School.
And Barack Obama’s grandmother, who sent him to elite Punaho High School in Hawaii.
Yes, educrats and liberal bigwigs know how to get better education than they are providing to the masses. But the masses don’t need a quality education. They only need to know that Barry and Bubba love them, “feel their pain”, have a great big sack of “hope and change” for them.
Not only is funding down significantly from 5 years ago, but check out funding disparities between districts. The average district in San Jose gets less than $7000 per pupil in operating expenses, while Palo Alto has over $13,000 per pupil. The state $/pupil is 48th in the nation. Connecticut and other states provide on average over $12,000 per pupil. California is barely half that. How can we expect to get the same results for half the money?
School districts all over the state ARE improving, despite these long odds. What measure do you plan to use when you ask for improvement FIRST. Is it API scores? If so, scores are steadily rising. Or will you then use that as an argument that schools don’t need more funding.
The whole idea that schools need to improve and then then our students will get the resources they deserve is silly and short sighted. Remember, each child only gets one crack at a quality education. Is it your child we will shortchange?
Why would one choose a private schoolk, because you get what you pay for. A private school tuition is at least double what the state provides to educate each child. If the public schools had the same resources, the outcome would be better. Almost everyone I know who sends their children to private school does so because facilities and resources are better there. How is this not an issue of dollars? And how can schools solve this problem BEFORE they get the funding they need?
I didn’t realize that only Dems and Liberals send their kids to private schools. Thanks for pointing that out.
> I didn’t realize that only Dems and Liberals send their kids to private schools. Thanks for pointing that out.
Always happy to help out underinformed liberals, Whizzer.
By the way, is your name in any way significant of your urination skills?