School scooper, Rob Siltanen, posted yesterday that the rumor mill was buzzing about School Superintendent Ardella Dailey stepping down as of January 2009. But in addition to breaking that tidbit of news he has some insightful questions for us all to ponder in light of the timing and the situation the school district is currently in. The Chief Financial Officer position is being vacated and the majority of the school board is up for election in November.
Of course, as reported by A Little Birdie, it has surpassed just being grist for said rumor mill and moved into a stark reality for our school district.
So what does this all mean?
Well, clearly a search committee needs to be established to find our next School Superintendent. I think we would all prefer that we didn’t go the “interim” route and prolong the process so it appears that the current sitting board will probably be the ones to start and possibly complete the search for a new Superintendent, as mentioned by Rob S. However, if the process has not been completed by November, perhaps it would be good, once the election results have been tallied, to include the newly elected School Board members in the process of selected a Superintendent. After all, these are the folks that will be working with the Superintendent and therefore should have the ability to be a part of the process of finding someone they find suitable.
The press release mentioned that the Board is currently working on a search process that will include community input, so it’s as good as a time as any to start piping up and telling the School Board what type of person should be driving the big AUSD ship through these next few years or so. From the last Superintendent search, Mike McMahon created a very interesting surveythat 90 individuals participated in, giving feedback as to what type of skills an AUSD Superintendent should have. I think a lot of those suggestions still resonate today, a few that caught my eye:
- I would like to have someone who works well with others, communicates well and wants to stay in Alameda a long time. I hate seeing waste in our school system. We need someone who is fiscally savvy and has a long-term vision for facilities and labor relations.
- The Superintendent is the highest ranking, most visible member of our school community. With that in mind I believe the new Superintendent should have a management level understanding of all of the specific areas listed above, but must have a knowledge of the community, schools, current personnel, and major problems facing this district. It doesn’t make sense to me to look outside AUSD because it would take an outsider many months just to get up to functioning speed and we don’t have the luxury of having that much time. We have decisions that should be made now.
- Obviously, strong managements skills. I think of the superintendent as being the CEO of the “Corporation”. They need not have each individual skill within the district, but have a good overall understanding of all the areas he/she manages. He/she must build a strong base of lower management to upper management and allow those with expertise in their field to do their job, until proven otherwise.
While I am torn on the idea that the future Superintendent should be someone from within the current AUSD community, I can see a benefit in both having an outsider come in to shake things up a bit, but can appreciate the institutional knowledge that is key with having someone that already understands the nuances of the organization. But if you can have someone within the organization that would be willing to make some dramatic changes, that would be the best scenario.
What I do think is really important for AUSD moving forward and when a candidate is considered is that the person be committed to transparency and getting information about AUSD to the general public. In the past, I would say that the school district has done a pretty mediocre job of making information easily accessible and while, thank goodness, that Mike McMahon has stepped in to provide Alameda as much information as possible, the onus should be on the school district, not a volunteer School Board member to make public relations an important part of daily operations.
Ideally, I think we would want a strong candidate from within the AUSD community that would be willing to make strategic changes. If anyone from outside the AUSD community is considered, I believe they would need to have impeccable credentials and come from a successful school district, because honestly, do we want someone from a school district that is doing worse than we are to shepherd us through these next few years?
A few names have been bandied about already, I know David Kirwin has suggested that outgoing CFO, Luz Cazares, be in the running for the position. One thing I have to say about her is that every time she presents something to the board, she makes it very easy to understand, which is not easy to do when it comes to school finances.
Another name that several folks have said should be considered is Sean McPhetridgewho was formerly the Director of Secondary Education, but I think someone might have mentioned that he has recently also left the school district to work on his doctoral dissertation. A quick google search turns up that he attended the Harvard Graduate School of Education’s Urban Superintendents Program.
The last name I have heard, so far, I imagine there will be more to come, is Laurie McLachlan Fry, who is currently head of Human Resources, but was previously the principal of Chipman Middle School.
The School Board, AUSD community, and Alameda in general should be in for an interesting few months, but this just further emphasizes the point that when we think about who we want to sit on the School Board that we get quality folks up on that dais because when they are tasked with some big issues, we want them to be able to handle it, even when it comes rushing at them all at the same time.
Shouldn’t the word “academics” be included in the school discussions? Rarely does it appear. Hope it makes a comeback.
Comment by Jack B — July 10, 2008 @ 7:52 am
RE: stark reality link
“If you have thoughts or ideas on how the School Board should in its search to replace Ardella, please visit Blogging Bayport and post your comments under Super Search.”
Since when has Blogging Bayport become sanctioned as the BOE search engine for AUSD employees?
Comment by Citizen X — July 10, 2008 @ 8:43 am
We should hire a gay, transgender, drag queen who likes big committees that never accomplish anything. That way, nothing would change around here and everyone would be happy.
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — July 10, 2008 @ 9:35 am
In opposition to Jack B’s comment, I hope that we hire someone who completely ignores academics. After all, we want things to stay the same around here
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — July 10, 2008 @ 9:39 am
Jack B. in what context would you have “academics” be included in a discussion about the future Superintendent? I would imagine that “valuing education and academics” would be a prerequisite for consideration of any candidate.
Comment by Lauren Do — July 10, 2008 @ 9:50 am
I want to see a total commitment to academic excellence in our schools as the top-most priority.
Just like a CEO’s goal is increasing shareholder value, I want to see improving academic performance as primary goal from top down.
I can’t assume anything because what I am seeing is a lot of focus on social issues. I’ve been searching for a prior post by Mike McMahon (can’t find it) that listed the values we should look for in school board members that, in my recollection, mentioned nada about academics. Can somebody else find that post?
Not knocking Mike because the transparency he brings to the table is beyond appreciated.
Comment by Jack B — July 10, 2008 @ 10:28 am
addendum… superintendent survey…
78% of respondents indicated “Human Relations Skill and Mgmt” as a must-have, while only 37% must-have for “Student Achievement Assessment Skills and knowledge.”
Comment by Jack B — July 10, 2008 @ 10:36 am
2 As you well know, contrary to what you suggest, Mike McMahon’s website is not “sanctioned as the BOE search engine.”
In fact, at the bottom of the home page, the site states the following: “This website is the sole responsibility of Mike McMahon. It does not represent any official opinions, statement of facts or positions of the Alameda Unified School District. Its sole purpose is to disseminate information to interested individuals in the Alameda community.”
There will be many means and opportunities for public input in this process. Is there really a problem with asking people to speak up here as one small part of that process? Were you just trying to be snarky?
Speaking of trying to be snarky, I guess that’s what 3 and 4 are were aiming (i.e., rather than trying to make helpful suggestions). Something about the use of absolute terms such as “never” in 3 and “completely” in 4 makes me think 3 and 4 were trying to be funny rather than serious. But they weren’t funny or serious. Oh well.
Comment by Not Tay Tay — July 10, 2008 @ 10:37 am
“Since when has Blogging Bayport become sanctioned as the BOE search engine for AUSD employees?”
Second that! Other than Mike McMahon, which other board member is here regularly? How many of the 70,000 plus residents read this blog, or any blog? What evidence is there that by writing comments here anyone has affected any decision ever? Mike, this is disappointing. I know you spend a lot of time online, I wonder if that has isolated you some from the rest of the world that gets information elsewhere. I understand some 30% of our student’s families cannot be reached reliably online. If the board is interested in people’s opinion, they should make it known they want people to call them, or send out an independent survey by mail.
Here’s the contact info for those here who want to be sure to share their opinion with the board by phone or mail:
Bill Schaff, President
2200 Central Avenue
510-523-5800 ext 11
510-522-6926 fax
wschaff@alameda.k12.ca.us
Term:2004-2008
Mike McMahon, Vice President
2200 Central Avenue
510-523-2263
510-522-6926 fax
mmcmahon@alameda.k12.ca.us
website: http://www.mikemcmahon.info/index.htm
Term: 2006-2010
Tracy Lynn Jensen, Trustee
2200 Central Avenue
510-865-6350 phone
510-522-6926 fax
tjensen@alameda.k12.ca.us
Term:2006-2010
David Forbes, Trustee
2200 Central Avenue
510-903-1049 phone
510-522-6926 fax
dforbes@alameda.k12.ca.us
Term:2004-2008
Janet Gibson, Trustee
2200 Central Avenue
510-521-1332
510-522-6926 fax
jgibson@alameda.k12.ca.us
Term:2004-2008
Comment by AD — July 10, 2008 @ 10:41 am
9 Um, Mike McMahon’s website does not say that posting comments there would be the **one and only** opportunity for public input because it won’t be.
This news is less than 24 hours old. The process for public input is unlikely to happen for months. I’m sure Mike was just trying to suggest a place where people could and would make comments now if they wanted before the whole public meeting/public input, etc. is set up.
Comment by Not Tay Tay — July 10, 2008 @ 10:58 am
I agree with AD!
It’s outrageous that a public official would try and add an additional method of public input. Especially one that is so ridiculous that AD doesn’t like to even engage in conversation there. I mean why bother with something so ridiculous.
Boardmembers should only accept emails as a method of input so that nobody can engage in any conversation about them. Perhaps we can codify this somewhere. There oughta be a law.
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — July 10, 2008 @ 11:02 am
As Board members we receive input, feedback, comments and suggestions in many venues and medium. The primary reason I am pointing people to this site is that there are individuals who have opinions and comments but feel they need to conceal their identity (AUSD employees, parents, etc). I fully expect that the public process that the Board conducts will include plenty of opportunity of traditional face to face input.
Comment by Mike McMahon — July 10, 2008 @ 11:02 am
In 10 I inadvertently deleted a sentence. The end of that posting should have said:
This news is less than 24 hours old. The process for public input, selection, etc. is still not set. In fact, the actual selection is unlikely to happen for months.
I am sure there will be *many opportunities for public input* before any selection occurs.
I’m sure Mike was just trying to suggest a place where people could and would make comments now if they wanted before the whole public meeting/public input, etc. is set up.
Comment by Not Tay Tay — July 10, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Mike,
I wanted to add that what I appreciate about you is your commitment to openness and your efforts to provide information in a neutral way. For this reason, I think your call for public comment on the Superintendent’s qualities to be posted on an opinion blog like Lauren Do’s is off base. The number of people posting here can be counted on your fingers and toes. A bigger number (but not everybody by far) read but won’t post, either because they are shy of writing publicly, are not sure how their opinion would be accepted, or because they perceive the blog as skewed and unfair, or just don’t take blogs seriously for whatever reason. We all know that vicious personal attacks erupt here at the drop of a hat. It is way too much to ask parents to submit themselves to the possibility of being publicly put down for the sake of providing their opinion to the school board, even if they don’t use their real name.
In view of this, what other way of gathering opinions can you suggest, that would be perceived as neutral, reach a broad audience, and be clear that the opinions are solicited and will be considered by the entire board, and not just one member?
Comment by AD — July 10, 2008 @ 11:22 am
Isn’t it time for a reality check here?
If the School District had officially decided that it was going to accept public input solely through an independently run opinion blog, then yes, that would be good cause for outrage. If the District had decided to ignore all communications from those who cannot or do not wish to use a computer, that would also be cause for outrage.
However, what we have here is an individual Board member who uses his own time and resources to maintain electronic information about education issues, offering an additional channel for feedback, one that is completely optional. Nobody is being coerced into posting on a blog against his or her will, and nobody is being denied the opportunity to comment by mail, by telephone, or by any of the other official channels that already exist.
I am amazed that anyone would take Mike McMahon to task for offering more ways for citizens to participate in discussions of education issues, whether on a blog or anywhere else. As the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished.
Comment by Michael Krueger — July 10, 2008 @ 11:43 am
As an individual Board member I have never limited in my decision making by a lack of input from interested stakeholders. My biggest frustration comes when the Borad needs to make a decision and we have individuals who insist that they were not aware of the issue/decision to be made. So it has been mission in life to provide the public an opportunity to access to all of the information I receive as a Board member.
As for process of soliciting opinions from a broad audience for consideration by the whole Board, the Board will decide how much it willing to invest. For it to reach the high standard of neutrality with broad outreach would require significant investment.
Comment by Mike McMahon — July 10, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Right on #15! I don’t know of any Board Member in recent memory that has consistently provided information to people as well as Mike McMahon. Mike answers every email I send, which in these last couple of tumultuous years cannot have been easy. How can we not appreciate the fact that Mike’s own website is 100 times more informative than the district website?
Once again on our little island you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t…
Comment by Kerri L. — July 10, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
8 Contrary to what you say, oh snark detector NTT, Mike sanctioned Blogging Bayport on his website.
I ask again: Since when has Blogging Bayport become sanctioned as the BOE search engine for AUSD employees?
Blessed Mike is a BOE member and apparently in the Do pocket as well. If she had one, would he ask for readers to send in comments on a Pat Bail website? As an uninterested observer, it appears to me more appropriate had he asked for comments on his own “unbiased” web site.
There is an “official” mind set about the “progressive” agenda in this blog. Anyone who doesn’t toe the line is stuck in a “time Warp”.
I repeat Do’s own words in her opening statement: “Our family moved to Alameda, California about a year ago and into the new Bayport Alameda housing development. We thought the development was great and that Alameda was moving in the right direction when it came to developing new homes and commercial property. What we found out was that although our neighborhood was pretty progressive when it came to development, the rest of Alameda seemed to be stuck in some sort of time warp.”
Comment by Citizen X — July 10, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
Jack B.
I think this was the comment you were looking for.
And just wanted to point out that as Superintendent, Ardella Dailey had as part of her vision, from Mike’s site:
Academics and equity, I think that’s a pretty solid vision the majority of us can endorse without compromising educational standards.
Comment by Lauren Do — July 10, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
Cizine X - it hasn’t. Now go back to making your aluminum hats. Please.
Comment by notadave — July 10, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
#18, well said! The comment about “the rest of Alameda being in a time warp” is particularly galling. This blog reeks of that attitude towards the rest of Alameda … heaven forbid if you don’t agree with the views of the blogger and her cartel of yes-people.
Somebody has just got to get off her high horse.
Comment by Jason — July 10, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Oh goodness gracious, that “About” statement was written more than two years ago. Apologies that I haven’t been able to keep it updated to suit my ever changing opinions about Alameda.
Comment by Lauren Do — July 10, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Yes, that’s the comment.
Is there something wrong w/ schools aiming for academic EXCELLENCE, along w/ the other noble goals of that vision statement? When did we start leaving that out?
Should I just be happy w/ meeting standards while not compromising them?
*** I’m not picking on the district or anybody. Our experience so far in AUSD has been excellent, I am happy to say.
Comment by Jack B — July 10, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Cartel of yes-people? The cartel doesn’t seem to be working very well. I sure see a lot of people commenting here who disagree with Lauren.
Could it be that when people posting here do agree with Lauren they do so *because they agree with her on the merits of an argument*, not because of some alleged “official” mind set about an alleged “progressive” agenda held by a cartel?
Parsing wars are probably a waste of time, but I’ll take one more crack at answering the question 2 asked and 18 asked again: It hasn’t.
Mike may have “sanctioned” it but if he did so he clearly did so in his capacity as an individual, as is clear from the disclaimer on his website that I cited in 8.
The question asked in 2 and 18 should have included the subject of the verb “to sanction” (AUSD sanctioned? Mike McMahon sanctioned?) and should have used the active voice rather than the passive voice. Down with the passive voice, CX!
Comment by Not Tay Tay — July 10, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Working in this heat has given me such headaches the last two days I am taking a break, but reading the posts here can be just as painful or worse.
When the City was choosing a new master developer for the point, the woman who presented for SunCal referred to their polling of public opinion on the blogs. There was nothing official in that, but on a practical level one would be stupid to minimize the possible reach of opinions posted here.
Phil Bronstein of the Chronicle recently wrote about the clout the blogs had on changing the Council decision on bike riding in parks. I don’t doubt that emails from Bike Alameda members alone might have done the trick, but your get my point.
AD wrote: “The number of people posting here can be counted on your fingers and toes. A bigger number (but not everybody by far) read but won’t post, either because they are shy of writing publicly, are not sure how their opinion would be accepted, or because they perceive the blog as skewed and unfair, or just don’t take blogs seriously for whatever reason. We all know that vicious personal attacks erupt here at the drop of a hat. It is way too much to ask parents to submit themselves to the possibility of being publicly put down for the sake of providing their opinion to the school board, even if they don’t use their real name.”
With regard to personal attacks, AD’s claims are disingenuous in that the content of her/his posts are nearly as contentious any to be found. When it comes to “vicious personal attacks” the anonymous freaks, mostly hostile to Lauren, provide the lion share of blame.
Speaking personally, I may sport a pugilistic approach which is off putting to some, but rarely post with an alias except as a prank, particularly when taking on an individual.
The bottom line is that if a good idea is posted here it will likely be read by people such as public officials who the general public would like to reach, but who do not post here. To claim otherwise is obfuscation for a personal agenda.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 10, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Once again Citizen X you are not listening. The mere fact that you can use Citizen X to present your opinion is far less threatening then sending an EMail directly to me.
In a separate EMail to the 500+ individuals who are already contacted me in the last 5 years, I have asked them to direct their comments to me directly, as well as posting here if they feel the need for an alias.
Comment by Mike McMahon — July 10, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
Mike, why not on your website?
Comment by AD — July 10, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
One reason Luz stated for leaving is to work her way up to a superintendent’s position, so it would make sense to approach her. It would not be surprising if she wanted to get more experience under her belt before taking such a leap, but I don’t know more of her resume than I saw at meetings. I can’t think of another person in any department of the City or AUSD, including the two preceding CFOs, who has been any more clear, concise and effective in public presentations of really complex material.
I know of Sean’s credentials and have spoken with him and he is a terrific person with an impressive resume which might please Jack B.. A super ideal replacement for Ardella might in fact be a melding of Sean and Luz, but who knows if we can be accomplished.
I think the concerns Jack B. raises about academics are good ones, but he may not have been around when Dennis Chaconas was our superintendent. On the other hand, Chaconas was beloved by many for the academic vision he brought to the job, but was not known as a consummate people person. There were frictions with the City Manger (and others) over things like developer fees, but my sense was the rifts went beyond business. A conflict in styles.
I don’t have the deepest understanding of the issues, but I think it is fair to say that at times things like finances suffered under what some would say was Mr. Chaconas’s hyper-focus on curriculum to the neglect of some of his other duties as superintendent. Poor Dennis walked into the lion’s den in Oakland where some of these same mistakes were repeated, but that hole was largely dug before he showed up.
All this is not to frivolously beat up on a previous superintendent for kicks, but is stated as a warning to those who put a heavy emphasis on academics first, that innovative programs require funds and that we have a recent history at AUSD to be learned from in that respect.
I yearn to see the return of things like “developmental education” which existed at Paden in the early 1990s. Also, restoring the academies at Wood from that decade. But none of that before delivering basic educational services within our means.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 10, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Anyone can start a website or blog or whatever online. No government official (at least not here in the USA) can tell you otherwise. You are also free to link your website to any other website. You can say things that upset some people and you likely will read things that upset you. That is the price of freedom. Not all websites or blogs are successful. Many quickly die. Lauren’s has been a success…perhaps because it is a good one.
So, start your own blog! Make it better than Lauren’s. I do not know Mike McMahon personally, but I am sure that if you asked people to post comments on your blog about hiring a new superintendent, Mike would also read those comments and urge others to post there as well. In the free market of ideas, not all websites or blogs or publications will be successful.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 10, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Here are some questions that AUSD teacher/blogger Rob Siltanen had in his “scoop” post:
The single most important thing the School Board does is hiring AUSD’s Superintendent. So we should do all we can to make sure the Board gets this one right. (Oh, and by the way, remember that now we will be looking for not only a Superintendent but also for a CFO).
* One initial question about all of this is the timeline and procedure for filling these two critical positions. Ideally, wouldn’t the Superintendent position be filled before the CFO position? If so, will AUSD leave the CFO position vacant or look to hire an interim/acting CFO? Is there any chance we could lure back our former CFO Luz Cázares on an interim (or even permanent) basis?
* Since the “new” School Board (the majority of which will be elected in November) will not take office until January, it seems clear that the current Board will begin (and perhaps conclude) the process of finding and hiring a new Superintendent. How will that process work in the context of a political campaign for School Board?
For those who you would like send me an EMail instead of posting here, my email is mike.mcmahon@yahoo.com
Those comments will be handled like these prior community comments on various issues like budget reductions, kindergarten enrollment and the Encinal Jet:
http://mikemcmahon.info/views.htm#h
Comment by Mike McMahon — July 10, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
#28, good example of this blog being useful. Most of us going through the school system are going through for the first time (as adults, in Alameda) and don’t know the history. I would like to hear more if you get a chance.
Comment by Jack B — July 10, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
29 notanatiff (sic)…you never did bother scoring the results of your academic test. You remember, in your “if you can’t answer this, you’re not an Alamedian” comment. About the brick building, must the building be structurally brick or will you accept pre-stressed concrete faced with brick as being in the running for largest?
Comment by Citizen X — July 10, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
Mike McMahon … I, like many in our nation, am completely fed up with the dumbed down, bleached for content, politically correct, take a stance on nothing, BS that most politicians put out. I don’t know anything about your politics. However, the fact that you are here saying what you believe, in spite of whether the anonymous blog trolls (of which I am one) agree with you, makes me want to find out where you stand on the issues. I think that I’ll go take a look at your website now …
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — July 10, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
#33 Wow! I guess this gives teachers hope.
#32 How many nights have you been up thinking about the answer?
http://www.alamedasun.com/images/stories/vol6/March/top-01-redevelopment.jpg
(If I gave out the answers, the questions would no longer be of value.)
I don’t have any advice on hiring a superintendent, except that I think we need to pick someone with a strong stomach.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 10, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
If you are looking for where I stand on issues on my website it will be a difficult task. My website is not intended to promote any particular point of view but to provide a record of what actions the Board of Eduation. In addition, as I research various educational issues I attempt to learn what the best thinking is saying about those issues.
Comment by Mike McMahon — July 10, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
I have been rocked to hear that Ardella will be stepping down next January.
I have appreciated Ardella’s “Leadership-By Consensus” as opposed to the “My Way or the Highway” leadership style we had in the past. I think the BOE should again look within the District for a Superintendant rather than searching elsewhere for someone to entice with a higher wage package. It seems that type of search will only yield someone who will just as quickly leave AUSD for a better deal as our last Superintendant did. Ardella Daily had invested her career in AUSD and this community, and I am grateful that the BOE selected her. Thank you Ardella!
I appreciate hearing more of the past history lessons Alamedans experienced with AUSD because prior to the BOE search resulting in the hiring of Dr. Nashino, my knowledge of AUSD was vague and from hearsay. I knew we wanted to live in Alameda largely because of the schools. Long ago friends of mine who were working to “correct” the policies of the BOE in Fairfax where they lived, spoke very highly of Paden, which was a model they were seeking to recreate. We have felt blessed everyday since ’97 when we were finally able to move here. I hope Mark Irons and others with long term AUSD experience continue to enlighten us & remind us of local history so that mistakes of the past are not repeated. There are plenty of new ones we can learn from…
I have always appreciated Mike McMahon’s work, not only serving all of us as a BOE member, but the extra 9 yards of availing us more information on his website, and still finding the energy to participate with this and other Alameda Blogs. Please Mike – tell me where you post board packets - it would be sooo useful to be able to read the packets when the BOE agendas are posted. Thank you Mike.
I hope the BOE does not take the position that posting the meeting notices in AUSD offices is sufficient community notice. I am concerned that despite the passage of Measure H, the position of “Public information Officer” (or however AUSD phrased it) was not reinstated as were all the other budget cuts the BOE was advertising prior to the June 3rd vote. Honestly, I was always disappointed by how little info the AUSD PIO provided, (or how little I was able to discover), but I urge the Board to find a way to improve informing the public, and involving the public. Mike – your efforts over the years make you a supreme candidate for such a position, though I would hate to lose you voice on the Board.
As for BLOGGING BAYPORT, like A.D., I will not lose sight of when and how this blog began, and that our blog mistress and the majority of those who posted here were strongly opinionated in furthering the goals of pro-“H.O.M.E.S.”, pro high-density development, anti – Measure A, (at least at the Point, and the Landing for starters, and were vocally opposed to the ‘slate’ in the last CC election. Lauren helped those who were apparently feeding her the info she used to develop and promote blog pieces. (She was brand new to Alameda, and so the info came from somewhere and it was consistent and single tracked for the purpose.) This has ALWAYS been a site under the reign of pro-development friends willing to deepen the city debt with re-dev bond sales. Anyone wanting to slow development or to re-examine what the actions of the city dev dept could result in, were personally ‘attacked’ when their arguments could not be or just were not intelligently rebutted. This is not just my opinion. It is not debatable – it is there written in black and white – or however you choose to adjust your screen…
Lauren, I still want to thank you for opening this blog for discourse, even a bad discussion is better than no discussion. And despite all the baiting and venom spewing on both sides….from me as well… it does seem this site is still a ‘safe’ place to express opinions about what is happening to affect our community. For that I thank you Lauren. The rest is up to those of us who post here, the ‘how’ we say it, and the tolerance we show. I’m trying to learn to be less emotive, we’ll see how that works out. The 4th of July seemed to bring out a lot of flames and fireworks, I’m glad I was out of town.
Back to the point of this thread…
I think Luz Cazares has been such a blessing for AUSD as CFO. With her at the financial helm of AUSD it became possible to better understand the school district’s financial situation, how all the education revenue sources blend & merge or need to be kept separate, what kinds of funds can be spent where most needed, and which must be reserved for mandated expenses. She really informed all of us who are interested in following the money. AUSD and the BOE need to improve the openness of public financial books, and to improve clear and honest public communication. I was so disappointed to learn just weeks ago that Luz is leaving for another position. I understand her decision to take the position as “Assistant Superintendant in Charge of Finances”, since Luz has expressed her desire to one day be a School Superintendant herself.
Following the announcement that Superintendant Daily is leaving her position, AUSD’s BOE should immediately solicit Ms Cazares to apply for the position that Ardella Daily is vacating.
I am sure that this idea has struck most readers as well, and I believe that moving our CFO to the Superintendant chair would have overwhelming public support from those who have been watching the District the past several years. I hope she has not signed a contract which would prevent her from reaching her goals here in Alameda where we have already learned how much she puts into her job. By her actions as CFO, she has not just displayed her organizational and financial acumen, and her ability to disseminate complicated information in a way both the BOE and public could understand (i.e. She IS a great teacher too), but most importantly, she showed us her character; an asset indiscernible by strings of letters following one’s surname, or where such degrees were achieved. Doubtlessly in any position Ms. Cazares takes, she would invest herself to the same level of openness, investigation, guidance and willingness to follow the controls of existing law, and our BOE, and to do so in a way that will improve our system of education delivery to the very peak of possibility.
Comment by David Kirwin — July 10, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
“I have appreciated Ardella’s “Leadership-By Consensus” …”
Come on now … “leadership by consensus” is a bit of an oxymoron, is it not? With the present inability to make good things happen, shouldn’t we try for an actual leader this time? Unless, of course, we are shooting for more of the same …
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — July 10, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
Tay T.S. - It is within in your right to prefer a dictatorial system, but it is not my preference.
Comment by David Kirwin — July 10, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
Ms. Cazares did a very good job of posting numbers and informing the public as to where those numbers came from. A Superintendant however needs to have a back-round in education. In fact I would question anyones ability to do the job without classroom experience. If most of the districts money is spent on payroll and most of the payroll is spent on classroom teachers, shouldn’t the head of the district know what the force is up against? The chief of surgery in a hospital should know how to preform an operation. Not many Generals in the navy started out in that position. If you have a conservative numbers person as Super and a conservative CFO who will be making sure the education aspect happens?
Of course we need a CFO who is constantly reminding us to halt spending. On the other hand a Super who is always pushing for academic excellence is the way to go for that job. In business the old business partner adage of the “gas peddle and the brake” is perfect here. One complements the other. You can’t run a car without both peddles and having a great one in just one slot won’t work either.
Comment by Virginia — July 10, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
I have the utmost respect for Ardella Dailey. Beyond being the superintendent, she is a truly good person.
Luz Cazares does know budgets. That said, as an educator, I would not want the CFO to become our superintendent. Luz is a smart woman, but she does not know enough about the work in the classroom and at the sites. As an educator in AUSD, I have been impressed with some of the work that Luz has done but not with her understanding of my work. Yes, the budget needs to be balanced but the superintendent also has to know a lot about education that only comes from years of experience.
Luz has not been a teacher, an administrator or spent any significant time at the schools in AUSD. We are a district that can’t afford multiple levels of administration to get the job done so if Luz were to be in charge, she would not be working with layers of others who could fill in her gaps and there are significant gaps in her understanding.
Some may not think that a superintendent needs to have an education background. My first response is to disagree but I suppose that this might be short sighted on my part as I have seen many educators who are terrible teachers, principals and superintendents. However, I believe that there is an understanding that you have after teaching that you cannot grasp without having spent time in the classroom. There are issues that teachers and site administrators face on a daily basis that compounds the challenge of the work. Explaining what happens does not begin to capture the experience. Working at the district level detaches one from the reality of school life and if you have never been there at all, you really don’t know.
I want more than Luz has to offer. I want an educational leader.
Comment by sylvia kahn — July 10, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
ANT thanks, many nights. Sometimes the most obvious escapes the brain.
Comment by Citizen X — July 10, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
Jesus, Kirwin you been eating too much sugar or something?
Comment by Citizen X — July 10, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
kirwin must make a mean espresso.
Comment by jack b — July 10, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
“Tay T.S. - It is within in your right to prefer a dictatorial system, but it is not my preference.”
Therein lies the problem Kirwin … you seem to equate “being a leader” with “being a dictator”. You must come from the “everyone is special and deserves a trophy” school of thought.
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — July 10, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
“Following the announcement that Superintendant Daily is leaving her position, AUSD’s BOE should immediately solicit Ms Cazares to apply for the position that Ardella Daily is vacating.”
I agree. Since the CFO of the AUSD has done such a good job with our money so far, lets make her Superintendent .. oh wait, we’re broke
Comment by Tay Tay Shaniqua — July 10, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
Wouldn’t it help to edify the folks here what it is a superintendent is supposed to do, like a day-to-day job description? In simple, undressed words, if at all possible?
Comment by AD — July 10, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
39
Virginia, where were those Generals in the Navy when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Comment by Bluto — July 11, 2008 @ 5:50 am
Obviously the most important factor for selection in this city, is the gender and race of the applicant.
Comment by Citizen X — July 11, 2008 @ 8:56 am
At least there will be a search for a replacement this time. I was never comfortable with the fact that Ardella was appointed without having to compete for the job.
#49, Dennis Chaconas may have been a good superintendent from the perspective of teachers, but as an administrator he proved to be a disaster, both in Alameda and later in Oakland, which is still under State control due in large part to his irresponsible, incompetent malfeasance. Chaconas increased teacher salaries in Alameda and Oakland beyond the ability of the District’s to pay for the increases, which in Alameda’s case was the genesis for the original parcel tax, and in Oakland’s case was the primary driver of its fiscal meltdown.
I agree with Jack B that academics should be an important factor; it would be great if the new superintendent had an academic background in addition to proven administrative abilities.
Comment by Mike Rich — July 11, 2008 @ 9:50 am
Superintendent job description:
AUSD has 18 school sites, 1000+ employees and an $80 million annual budget.
The Board of Education has evaluated the performance of past Superintendents based on the following criteria: district goals and objectives, Board-Superintendent relations, community relations, staff and personnel relations, educational programs, business and financial matters, professional and leadership development, and other mutually agreed upon objectives.
Comment by Mike McMahon — July 11, 2008 @ 10:56 am
Mike, can we add academic performance to that list?
Comment by Jack B — July 11, 2008 @ 11:11 am
Mike, what does the Supe do, like, daily? Who does s/he meet with? Who calls him/her for what? What are the maximum powers extended to him/her? What decisions can a Supe make/impose independently? Who is s/he accountable to and to what degree? What are some aspects of district operations s/he DOES NOT control? “Leadership”, “community relations”, “personnel realtions”, these are very vague criteria. Maybe you know what you are talking about but in order for an outsider to give an educated opinion about qualities of the next Supe, one needs to know what that position’s perimeters are. I do, anyway. Educate me.
Comment by AD — July 11, 2008 @ 11:44 am
Within District goals and objectives the Board and Superintendent establish academic performance goals.
For example, Ardella had four broad goals for the past three years:
Narrow and close the achievement gap in English Language Arts and Mathematics between our lowest performing students (African Americans, Latino and English learners, and Special Education students) and our highest performing students
Align the spending plan with educational objectives while ensuring the highest and best use of limited resources and long-term solvency
Ensure all students will be in educational environments that are safe and conducive to learning
Recruit and retain highly qualified and diverse staff and provide systems of support for and recognition of all employees
For each school year, the Board and Superintendent then agreed upon action steps and specific targets within those goals.
Comment by Mike McMahon — July 11, 2008 @ 11:48 am
The truth is we need a superintendant who has the ability to attract money. While the state is not going to come up with anything in the forseeable future and our community can barely pass a meager parcel tax, we need a superintendant that attracts money.
There are superintendants that have the knowledge and skill to attract funding from outside sources - grants, foundations, etc. At a recent lunch with a “scout” for a major foundation, my colleague and I asked, “why do some districts get funded who are light years behind the work we are doing around literacy in AUSD and we continue to scrape by?”. The answer was this - foundations fund superintendents. You need to have something to fund and the leader has to inspire funders to provide the money.
For the record, Dennis Chaconas was a phenominal superintendant from my classroom perspective! He was not a disaster in AUSD and I would work for him in a second given the chance. To have a superintendent come into my classroom, observe, and give me feedback was amazing! He was thoughtful, pushing and provided feedback that improved my teaching.
There are leaders out there who could bring to AUSD far more than we have and I hope we don’t short change ourselves.
Comment by sylvia kahn — July 11, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
Sylvia,
Glad to hear you stick up for Dennis. I certainly didn’t mean to imply he was a disaster, but he had a mixed track record depending on who you ask. The salary raise that teachers received before he left seemed far over due and I had the impression that he was able to continue his innovations for as long as he did, partially on the backs of teachers who deferred increased compensation longer than they should have. He immediately got into similar constraints in Oakland once he got over there.
Before he left us he came to the board for a raise from a pretty low salary for that position ( just over $100,000?) threatening to leave for Marin if he didn’t get it. Many students , parents and a number of teachers spoke on his behalf and I recall people saying how he knew students by name and had a presence in all the schools and in classrooms, which is quite fantastic. But I also remember how fast he bolted when Oakland offered him that job.
Was Dennis wooing grant money from foundations to keep up with the academic innovations he fostered in the district? I thought that toward the end of his tenure it was getting difficult to maintain the cost of many of the more innovative programs like the Wood Academies.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 11, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
p.s. to post 56- was it money issues that caused BRAVO and the academies to fold, or Dennis leaving, or other forces? A couple years ago when our kids were out of Paden I heard the mixed age classes there were getting eliminated because the teaching to the test pressures were making it impossible for the teachers to juggle multiple levels in one classroom.
I also know Dennis came from Oakland Tech and being Superintendent in Oakland was probably his dream job, so it’s sad he got there so late. What a mess. But my feelings about his leaving us were pretty negative because I felt we were left in the lurch.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 11, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
Dennis left because Oakland was his dream job. He grew up in Oakland and had always wanted to go back and work in the community that had educated him. I can completely understand and really respect that commitment. I was pretty upset with him for leaving. We were not in a settled place and the timing was awful. I have vivid memories of asking him if it was true and his reply was that I should not worry, it would all be ok. He was wrong – for all of us.
What I find funny is that many of my colleagues truly hated Dennis while he was here. Today they talk about how great he was and recognize that we did not know how lucky were when we had him. Mark you are absolutely correct about balancing the budget on the backs of the teachers although I will say on the backs of all the employees in AUSD as we are all paid below what our colleagues in other districts are paid, especially when you look at our health care premium. I do not however think this is the work of Dennis Chaconas. This district has been surviving off the employees for years and years. When I was hired in AUSD, it was not a well paying district and it has continued to get worse.
As for the BRAVO program, Dennis was surely the leadership that supported the creation of the program. He was a visionary and he loved a good debate on anything to do with teaching and education and preferred to have those discussions with those actually in the classroom doing the work. It was a pretty amazing time for those of us who obsess on all things education. Money was not the reason for the dissolution. Things are cyclical and we needed to go back to the drawing board and learn more about the process of learning to read so that we could address the needs of many of the students who are far below grade level. That work has been challenging and tedious but we have really upped the skill of many teachers across content areas.
What is different without Dennis is that now that we have the skill to go back and do some creative work, the District support and commitment to this work is long gone. Moving forward has once again become a site challenge where we have to prove ourselves to people who do not know our work. There are no conversations where a group of educators who happen to have different job titles get together and think and challenge each other.
Dennis did not go after the big money that I know of but we were not yet ready for them if he had. Today we have some amazing work happening across the district that should be the perfect vehicle for attracting money. Shockingly enough, opportunities for grants have been turned down without coming to the teachers who would be doing the actual work. This is a topic I could rant on for days.
Comment by sylvia kahn — July 12, 2008 @ 7:58 am
#55 - Sylvia, Isn’t this the task that AEF has outlined for itself? (Attracting outside sources of revenue from grants, foundations, etc for the District?)
Don’t innovative, motivated teachers have a plan for funding programs they wish to try? Without a funding plan their wishes for new innovative programs will always remain just that - wishes, and discussions of wishes. (And hopefully a lot of debate about why changes will help, to not promote change for the sake of change…) Within the school system bureaucracy I imagine it is always going to be difficult to fund new programs. Bureaucracies are not about leaping at change – Much credit to those individuals (and it always comes down to individuals) who were able to get the new math program together at Lincoln to help the math-challenged there. I think starting that program was funded with Measure A money too.
From all the threads on ACLC and discussions on Charter Schools, it became clear to me that the reason, or one of the main reasons, that the State created the Charter School laws was to give part of the bureaucratic system the freedom to be innovative, to facilitate trials of new programs, to create the ability and place for educational experimentation. This is the reason I am supportive of Charter Schools, where families have a choice between “the old standard”, and “innovative trials”.
When “individuals’ within the bureaucratic system see what is working in the “innovative trials” they then have enough solid data to move the bureaucracy toward changing “the old standard”.
Isn’t this how change always takes place in bureaucratic systems like AUSD?
Comment by David Kirwin — July 12, 2008 @ 8:35 am
“Hi, my name is Sean McPhetridge and I went to Harvard” has been mentioned as a candidate for Superintendent? Has anyone actually worked with the man? His attitude is dictatorial and he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He would be a disaster. Anyone who has to CONSTANTLY remind people that he went to Harvard in order to get respect has a competence problem. We need someone who can effectively get things done. His mediocre results at the Alameda Science and Technology Institute speak volumes about his abilities.
Comment by Please, say it ain't so — July 12, 2008 @ 10:25 am
60
Oh, I don’t know: “Before USP, Sean was a high school administrator after building a college degree program at San Quentin State Prison.”
He might fit right in. A good portion of the students here dress like they would rather be in SQP.
Comment by Citizen X — July 12, 2008 @ 10:36 am
The largest problem facing AUSD now and for the foreseeable future is financial. Of course adademics is the #1 issue for any school district, but currently our major challenge in achieving academic excellence is the fiscal situation, and our academic standing is pretty solid. I could argue that there is a great deal of academic expertise already within the ranks of ASUD’s administration. In order to complement that expertise, having a leader whose strength is in the financial realm makes sense.
Obviously we wouldn’t want a Superintendent who didn’t also have some level of expertise and understanding of the academic world and a healthy appreciation for the importance of academics, but Luz Cazares certainly sounds like someone who should be considered for the position. I don’t know her, but from what I’ve read she seems to be generally well respected. If that is the case, she could be a very effective leader of our school district.
While I can understand how people would like a Superintendent who takes the time to visit classrooms and get to know students, I think we need more than that right now. I thought Chacones did a fine job for AUSD while he was here and I was sad to see him leave, but that was a time when the district wasn’t facing the kinds of challenges it’s facing now. When he moved to Oakland and found himself in a situation where finances were challenging, he completely blew it.
It doesn’t seem like our financial situation is going to improve in the foreseeable future. It’s time for a Superintendent who can guide us through the financial challenges we will continue to face.
Comment by Jill — July 12, 2008 @ 11:04 am
So from reading what others posted here, I understand teachers liked Chaconas because, among other things, he gave them good pay. This brings up the question for me (sorry for the ignorance), when the unions negotiate with “the district”, who do they negotiate with–Superintendent, the Board, both? As I am of the opinion that, as a principle, raises should not be given beyond the means of the district and at the expense of programs for students, I’d like to know 1) how much say the Superintendent has in negotiations, and 2) whether the candidate’s attitude toward teachers pay demands is going to be a factor in the selection (considering our very constrained budget).
Pinching pennies of course is not the long-term answer, so I agree with Sylvia Kahn that the theme of the search should be “get us more money.” How much influence can a Supe have over state funding for the district? Are there potential candidates out there who are so well heeled politically that they would be able to get us more state money, even if it’s not the full fair amount? If a Supe can do that, I think it trumps all other qualities. Can this be a condition in the search, as well as a contingency on any Superintendent salary increases in the future?
I agree with David Kirwin, that AEF is who should be pursuing the grants as they’ve said they’ll do. The Supe should stay focused on the state’s money.
Comment by AD — July 12, 2008 @ 11:28 am
First, Dennis did NOT give us good pay. Second, Sean McPhetridge is one of the best things that EVER happened to AUSD. I have worked with him and would follow him to another district in a second if he asked. At his “farewell” party, the diversity of staff was like nothing I have seen. He has a following that includes staff from all bargaining parties and that is hard to achieve. If you are going to attack someone publicly, have the courage to say who you are and don’t hide behind an alias - unless you really don’t know what you are talking about and don’t want to be called on your own crap. My opinion is that whoever wrote the inaccurate comment about Sean either has not worked with him or is not a good educator or both.
For the record, I am sitting in a room with multiple district teachers and none of them have ever heard him talk about Harvard (of course, who really cares? he is so smart, of course he went to Harvard)and all are in agreement that he is amazing!
Comment by sylvia kahn — July 12, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
Dennis Chaconas deserves full credit for his ability to partner with Arthur Andersen. First, Michael Doyle was lead facilitator from Athhur Andersen who lead a year long community visioning process. The product of that work is still revelant today. Second, the joint partnership between AUSD and Arthur Andersen resulted in the precursor to Alameda Community Learning Center.
Interestingly enough, his success with corporate partnership did not translate over to community support as the District was not able to pass $50 parcel tax in the late 90s.
Comment by Mike McMahon — July 12, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
A little history lesson-
Prior to the 1970’s AUSD had had 2 superintendents in 40 years. The school board was not elected, but appointed by the city council all very oldie moldy Alameda.. Then the school board courageously dared to bring in an OUTSIDER and things began to happen. Parents were welcome in the classroom. A community attitude survey involving a host of volunteers met for one on one interviews with parents. An unheard of community forum on a wide range of issues on many aspects of education was held, with discussions ranging from facility needs to educating for the 21st century. (not too many people were thinking about the year 2000 in the 1970’s). With the shift to an elected school board, coupled with a forward thinking superintendent who focused on involving the community in the education of its children, a new era in Alameda education emerged—not without great controversy including a failed school board recall. But the die was cast. A state funded program called Early Childhood Education was accepted and implemented not universally across the district, but in sufficient numbers to ensure its eventual inclusion in most schools –no longer were classrooms the exclusive purview of the teacher in charge, behind closed doors, safe from not only the peering eyes of parents, but also from the supervisory/evaluating eyes of the principal. Committees were established of parents, community members and teachers where there was a shared discussion of curriculum and encouragement and funding for the implementation of well thought out new programs. (There are still some veteran teachers in the district who were part of this process). A sea had occurred in Alameda with the advent of a new superintendent.
The political winds of conservatism forced a change in the school board, and this outsider was banished—fired summarily, replaced by a member of the old guard. The honeymoon did not last, but the door had been opened and could not be closed. AUSD had begun its forward progress, and that could not be undone. It was a critical turning point in the life of the district, and a new superintendent was required for this remarkable community to develop an educational system that was responsive, responsible, creative, forward looking.
Several superintendents later, we are again at a critical juncture in our district. Will we retreat to the non-thinking “lets just keep on doing the easy thing”, or will we take this opportunity to choose an educational leader who will offer creative solutions to continue to move us forward, always responsibly, within the realities of funding, but not constrained by them to do nothing?
Comment by Barbara Kahn — July 12, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Hey Barb. Thanks. BTW: I just saw Steve Gomes at the tennis courts and he says hi to you and Mel and Sylv.
Comment by tony daysog — July 12, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
66 Hey Barb, Thanks. BTW: I just talked to a reasonable sea fareing teacher who mentioned that the, “… sea (that) had occurred in Alameda…”, was more of a tsunami of failure that has left AUSD flooded with the flotsam and jetsam of what it was in the past. The elected school board is not responsive to the city, the “forward” looking superintendents have left a crop of ignorant, illiterate students (and teachers,except for the few that make the pages of Alameda Mag) unable to compete In the world, I give you:
ABC News
“The longer kids stay in American schools, the worse they do in international competition. They do worse than kids from poorer countries that spend much less money on education, ranking behind not only Belgium but also Poland, the Czech Republic and South Korea.
This should come as no surprise if you remember that public education in the United States is a government monopoly. Don’t like your public school? Tough. The school is terrible? Tough. Your taxes fund that school regardless of whether it’s good or bad. That’s why government monopolies routinely fail their customers. Union-dominated monopolies are even worse.”
“Will we retreat to the non-thinking “lets just keep on doing the easy thing”,
Judging from the results of the new regime maybe it’s time to find a Super from the “old regime”.
Comment by Citizen X — July 12, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
Nice to see you again, JR.
Comment by Bluto — July 12, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
#68
You make an excellent argument for the necessity of the public being served by their government to get and stay involved.
If you don’t care what you get, why would those in charge care what they give you?
Barbara, thanks for expressing your opinion of some of the history of AUSD. Could you attach the names of the line of Supers you refer to? Thanks.
Comment by David Kirwin — July 13, 2008 @ 10:20 am
68- Yours is the kid of post, anonymous for starters, which make vague criticism, flaunts your contempt for public education and taxes, but offers absolutely no practical suggestions for rectifying any of the things you criticize. Don’t know what guard you may be associated with, but it doesn’t matter because it’s obvious you aren’t going to offer anything useful, just innuendo about some what some teacher allegedly says, etc.
Here’s a flight of abstraction, groggy Sunday morning second cup of java:
Despite the awful chaos which our Iraq and Afghanistan occupations have become, some say it is absolutely necessary to see our effort through for reasons like those who have already sacrificed for the effort to date, or because we are duty bound to bring democracy to the world.
Rather than send 18 year olds who often didn’t fare spectacularly in school to risk life and limb to impose a Jeffersonian democracy on a people who aren’t necessarily prepared to implement it wholesale, it would be great to take those billions to use on PUBLIC education at home where we could work on a more perfect union by giving everybody opportunities for both advanced education and vocational training.
X, may want to scoff at taxes, but in many countries with which he complains we don’t compete a resident can get a PhD on the public dole.
If we abandon public schools and stop taxing people at all for that purpose, legions of former public school kids are not going to suddenly come marching from schools like Head Royce and scorch the world competition.
Quit making knee jerk ideological excuses about government monopolies and roll your sleeves up and do something constructive.
I hate posts like 68 which is why people like X make them and I hate being sucked into making responses like this one, but I need to clear my mind so I can re-approach how to get something meaningful done to help move us forward.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 13, 2008 @ 10:44 am
B. Kahn,
Even if others who date back as far as your history lesson would differ with your precise perspective, at least the rest of us have some overview of the history before we showed up. Thank you.
Sylvia Kahn mentioned that she would work with Dennis Chaconas again in a minute and I earlier referred to Dennis not being a “people person”.
On the former: It seems discussions lend themselves to controversy easily in Alameda and I have assumed that the Chaconas era was best considered done. With prospects like Sean Mc Phetridge, it would be nice to start new. But when Mr.C left we ended up with Dr. No, so I am thinking never say never (except to bringing the likes of Dr. No back). Dennis was passionate and he has to have learned a lot since being here.
On the latter: People have said worse things about Ardella here than my referring to Dennis C. as “not a people person”. Who am I to make that pronouncement? Maybe a nobody, or somebody who speaks too loosely. I just wanted to say I don’t mean it as a grave criticism, but on a wish list of perfect candidates I would look for people I have considered consummate people persons. In our district that would be Rosemary Holmes who went from Paden Principal to Lincoln, now retired, and Judy Goodwin who has followed her.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 13, 2008 @ 11:23 am
Judy followed Rosemary from Paden to Lincoln, but thankfully has not retired.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 13, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Over the next 30 days, you too have a wonderful opportunity to be a School Board member. Simply go to Alameda County Registar of Voters and pull filing papers and comlete them by August 13.
At the end of the filing period, I would be really interested in hearing people’s opinion on Rob Siltanen’s questions from his post:
Since the “new” School Board (the majority of which will be elected in November) will not take office until December, it seems clear that the current Board will begin (and perhaps conclude) the process of finding and hiring a new Superintendent. How will that process work in the context of a political campaign for School Board?
Comment by Mike McMahon — July 13, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
#74
Mike, I think this is a very difficult question.
Perhaps ALL who submit papers to run for BOE should be involved in the selection process, and that the final selection not be made until after the election, and be made by those who succeed in being elected to the BOE with those who’s seat is not being contested.
It should go without saying that the new BOE members would not ignore the opinions of those presently on the BOE just as those retiring from the BOE should respect the opinions and honor the requests or choice made by those who will be working with the new Super.
Comment by David Kirwin — July 13, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
Rosemary did some amazing things at Paden but she was never the principal at Lincoln or any middle school. The admin at Lincoln went Nick O’Donnell, Mike Janvier, Keith Normora, Barbara Nakasoni( a Dr. No gal)and now Judy. I don’t think I missed anyone there. Paden has had quite a few administrators since Rosemary left. The current principal, Tom Rust is the best thing I have seen in years! As a parent, I am thrilled – so much so that I am going to go and work for him next year!
As for citizen X -Again, someone who won’t identify themselves.
I was a product of the “old regime” as were many of the teachers currently in AUSD. So, as a member of the crop to which you are criticizing, I would say this - I am an excellent teacher, I have excellent students and you are ignorant to make such an insulting statement. My memories of being a child during the old regime are vivid in that - my teacher got very angry when my mother wanted to volunteer in the classroom and she let me know, the principal would not let us walk into Paden through the front door (still not sure why) and decisions did not have anything to do with education. I can’t imagine that citizen x knows a great AUSD teacher who thinks our district is ” flooded with the flotsam and jetsam of what it was in the past” - there are more great teachers and administrators here than there have ever been and we have more kids going to more prestigious colleges than before. We have two high schools that continue to rank well in the country. Considering our pay scale, we are beyond lucky! Citizen X should come show us how to do it right if he/she knows so much.
We have amazing teachers in this district and my education here under the old regime did not prepare me for college the way our students who leave EHS and AHS are prepared.
Comment by sylvia kakhn — July 13, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
I agree that we are lucky to have so many talented and committed teachers in AUSD.
At Lincoln, prior to Judy Goodwin, I remember that a committed group of teachers circulated a petition, and took what I consider personal and professional risk to remove an administrator that they believed did such a poor job that it so unacceptable that they were willing to ‘put it on the line’ to have that person replaced. When the AUSD Administration failed to take action, the teachers joined with parents took their effort to the local press to elevate public awareness of the problem. Then AUSD took action.
Anyone remember the details?
Comment by David Kirwin — July 13, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
Sylvia – and other AUSD teachers,
What are the factors you would require in a Super candidate?
We know administrative and financial acumen is vital. You have stated that classroom experience is important to you, and now it appears in post #76 that you think principal is vital. What about ESL experience? Or Special Ed experience. Because you seem to prefer innovative teaching methodologies - what experience do you want a candidate to favor for that? Can you list your “requirements” How would you rank these and other candidate experiences?
I think it obvious what the #1 issue will be for the foreseeable future in Alameda’s school district.
Comment by David Kirwin — July 13, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
71
“:X, may want to scoff at taxes, but in many countries with which he complains we don’t compete a resident can get a PhD on the public dole.”
That was ABC News I quoted from that was doing the complaining, notice the quote marks. Do you really want more PhD candidates in this country studying on the public dole? Most already are.
66
“–no longer were classrooms the exclusive purview of the teacher in charge, behind closed doors, safe from not only the peering eyes of parents, but also from the “supervisory/evaluating eyes of the principal.”
The loss of teacher autonomy has its flip side. I firmly believe that teachers should have total autonomy in their classroom. The idea that the “peering eyes” of parents, each having his own idea of how his kid should be taught and who also has a direct line to the principal if those ideas are not followed, leads to a chaotic classroom with a teacher unable to teach.
“Parents were welcome in the classroom…”, in my school only with the permission of the teacher.
The supervisory/evaluating eyes of the principal” is a different matter. I believe each principal should have the autonomy in his school as the teacher has in his classroom, i.e. teacher hiring and firing authority within his/her school and with an appeal process that resides within the school district. Outside representation by Union or other entities should be extremely limited.
Give me a Super who can bring these changes and watch the schools improve.
Comment by Citizen X — July 13, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
#66- Wow ABC! I’m humbled. Same guys who brought us WMD which don’t exist right? If most PhDs are getting education on public funds how about some more quotable material to prove it, eh genius?
If our entire system and economy weren’t so messed up I would be happy if like Japan you could get a good education on public money. (I am repeating what I heard Tom Hartmann say on his radio program).
Comment by Mark Irons — July 14, 2008 @ 8:21 am
DK,
Let’s all run down and register to run for BOE so we can have direct in put into the superintendent’s selection, in case we are elected. Somebody call Vernice Boon quick!
Comment by Mark Irons — July 14, 2008 @ 8:27 am
X- rereading your great quote, is there any indication or do you know how education is paid for in Belgium, Korea, etc? Does it talk about whether the schools are public in those countries? It does say the cost is less. How do you compare a private school in South Korea to Alameda High? I don’t think you do because they are probably talking about public schools in Asia, aren’t they. Monopolies? All it says is that our public school students don’t compete well. And that is as a whole, because you know that plenty of our our kids compete very well.
Your whole whining post proves absolutely nothing.
Comment by Mark Irons — July 14, 2008 @ 8:34 am
# 80
Thomson Financial News
Japanese government keeps economic assessment unchanged in July
07.14.08, 3:55 AM ET
TOKYO (Thomson Financial) - The Japanese government has kept its overall economic assessment unchanged in July, saying recovery of the world’s second-largest economy is pausing but was concerned that business conditions have deteriorated.
The government last month downgraded its view of the economy for the first time in three months, citing slowing exports and growing downside risks to corporate earnings.
‘While the economic recovery appears to be pausing, there have been weakness recently,’ the Cabinet Office said in its latest monthly report released on Monday.
It also maintained its short-term outlook that the Japanese economy is expected to recover moderately ‘as the U.S. economy picks up and Japanese exports recover.’
Excerpt from:
The Science and Technology Resourses of Japan: A Comparison with the United States
Chapter 4. Higher Education
Financial Support to Graduate Students
Although no national comparative data are available on financial support to graduate students, recent studies show that Japan has traditionally provided little financial support for graduate students. The costs for graduate students in Japan’s national universities include a $300 entrance exam, a $3,000 entrance fee, and a $4,500 tuition payment per year. About 26 per-cent of masters students and 59 percent of doctoral students receive “scholarships” (which are actually interest-free loans that have to be repaid after graduation). Japanese graduate programs provide no tuition waivers for students in science and engineering (Sienko, 1996). In contrast, 70 percent of S&E graduate students in U.S. universities are supported by research assistantships, teaching assistantships, fellowships, and traineeships from federal and university sources (NSB, 1996). Only 30 percent are self-supporting, mainly in the social sciences. In the United States, financial aid includes tuition waivers in a large majority of graduate programs.
Comment by Citizen X — July 14, 2008 @ 8:55 am
#83 Assistantships are work exchange, not public dole. The Wikipedia article (though brief) on fellowship implies a level of work exchange as well as financial support for recognized talent, and traineeships are by their nature work exchange. Not exactly public dole.
Tuition waiver is not exactly public dole, either. Private colleges as well as public recognize that it serves the best interests of humanity and nation to make it easier for students to stay in school. Graduate education fuels innovation, advances knowledge, and leads to increased earnings.
In fact, the benefits of education are such that I would support free higher education for all who are willing to learn, with suitable weeding of slackers. I believe that the increased earnings of educated individuals over their lifetimes would provide tax income to offset the costs of the provided education.
BTW, 4,500 yearly even in 1996 is a bargain for grad school (based on my limited look at grad scool tuitions done well before 96).
Comment by J. Michael Bergstrom — July 15, 2008 @ 2:04 am
# 84
“I would support free higher education for all who are willing to learn, with suitable weeding of slackers.”
Roger that! Would you also suitably “weed out” a few in lower education who are unwilling to learn?
Comment by Citizen X — July 15, 2008 @ 8:18 am
I have tried (and failed) to set up one of those “pingback” links to a recent posting on my blog at http://robsiltanen.com.
So instead, I’m just leaving a long comment here that happens to be the text of my posting entitled “Involve McPhetridge in Superintendent Search!” For any who may be interested, here it is:
With so many changes, challenges and opportunities confronting AUSD, it can be difficult to keep up and to think carefully about “what’s next.”
For my money, above all else, the selection of our next Superintendent will be the single most important decision in shaping all that is to come.
I realize the School Board has not yet even set a timeline or decided on the process it will use to search for a new Superintendent. Still, I don’t think it is ever too early for the public to begin giving input. At least on “Super Search” at Blogging Bayport Alameda (posted July 10), that process has already begun.
Already part of the discussion on “Super Search” are debates (1) whether an “inside” or “outside” candidate would be better and (2) whether educational leadership or financial acumen should be most important in a candidate. Barbara Kahn also posted some really interesting historical perspectives in “Super Search” comment #66. Supporters of Sean McPhetridge, Luz Cázares, and even Dennis Chaconas (version 2.0?) have already chimed in.
I do hope everyone will keep an open mind while we work our way through whatever process the Board establishes. In the end, we may (or may not) find strong candidates from “inside” as well as “outside” AUSD. We may find candidates who are leaders, experts in education and financial whizzes. At this point, no one really knows who all might be out there or where low-paying-but-public-school-supporting-and-H-passing AUSD may stand in “the market” for Superintendents.
Wherever this uncertain road ahead may lead, the one thing of which I am sure is that we must involve Sean McPhetridge in the process. Even if he is not interested in becoming AUSD’s next Superintendent (and, as I explain below, I hope he will be interested), his knowledge, skills and experiences are uniquely important assets that AUSD should bring into this most important decision to the greatest extent possible.
Here’s why I hope Mr. McPhetridge will not just help with the process, but will actually apply for the job: He is smart and bold and tough and reform minded and thinks strategically about the long run. His career path and professional “actions” speak louder than any words ever could to his dedication to excellence and equity. Among other things, he was a high school teacher and later an extraordinary Vice Principal at Alameda High. He is genuinely respected, liked and trusted by teachers and staff across AUSD. Fairly or unfairly, it would take months (or years) for an “outside” candidate to get fully up to speed on the lay of the land in AUSD and to build the trust and credibility with skeptical stakeholders that will be necessary for us to move ahead through restructuring, union negotiations, and all the rest that we must overcome in this short breathing space that the passage of Measure H has given us.
Since “Harvard” did come up in the “Super Search” comments, I’ll acknowledge that a few years ago Mr. McPhetridge did in fact leave AUSD for Harvard’s Urban Superintendents Program. (He subsequently returned to AUSD to join the district office and to be Principal of ASTI). I know enough people who went to fancy schools like Harvard to know that having a fancy school credential doesn’t guarantee anything, but in this case, it turns out that Mr. McPhetridge gained some great skills and ideas back there. Thankfully, he just doesn’t run around telling people he went to Harvard.
I expect that some may object to Mr. McPhetridge on the grounds that this would be his first Superintendency so that he is not sufficiently “experienced.” Please. I hope everyone who believes in that argument will be voting for the “experienced” Mr. McCain over the inexperienced Mr. Obama in November. (I know many will vote for Mr. McCain, but I hope not based solely on his “experience.”) As I said above, no one knows who our candidates for Superintendent will be. But in times like these, if it comes down to it, I’ll take a smart, bold leader who embraces change and who is known and respected in Alameda over a cautious “experienced” caretaker-style “outside” Superintendent in a heartbeat.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — July 17, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
#85 Well, no. Here’s why: Many kids take a while to find themselves, many mature at rates that are not a good fit with the K-12 education system, and many develop learning problems during puberty (that is, many problems existing become acute at puberty). If a child is not disrupting the education of the others I’m inclined to keep them in school until the age of majority. Those who are disrupting the education of others tend to be dealt with by mechanisms in place in the school system. Judging from the drop-out rate, a whole (dismaying) lot of the slackers are self selecting themselves out of the expect-at- least-a-minimum-effort school environment into other, I fear more often not so productive, environments. I don’t think post secondary education should be just another year in the series. Student desire and suitability should be a component of the process, as well as mechanisms for late entry and re-entry into the educational system.
Comment by J. Michael Bergstrom — July 18, 2008 @ 1:26 am
Rob - (#86) - “Already part of the discussion on “Super Search” are debates (1) whether an “inside” or “outside” candidate would be better and (2) whether educational leadership or financial acumen should be most important in a candidate. Barbara Kahn also posted some really interesting historical perspectives in “Super Search” comment #66. Supporters of Sean McPhetridge, Luz Cázares, and even Dennis Chaconas (version 2.0?) have already chimed in.
I do hope everyone will keep an open mind while we work our way through whatever process the Board establishes. In the end, we may (or may not) find strong candidates from “inside” as well as “outside” AUSD. We may find candidates who are leaders, experts in education and financial whizzes. At this point, no one really knows who all might be out there or where low-paying-but-public-school-supporting-and-H-passing AUSD may stand in “the market” for Superintendents.
”
We can also add that Alameda is a wonderful small town community (at least currently, unless re-development and increased density removes our close-knit community, we also have great students who are more cooperative than in many surrounding communities, and it means something when our teachers prefer to teach here for less pay than to deal with the onus where they offer higher pay.
I look forward to learning more about the candidates listed in your post.
..and here is the timeline for the search:
2008 Superintendent Selection Process
July 8 - Board is notified of Superintendent Decision to Leave Effective January, 2009
July 9 - Official announcement about Superintendent Dailey Leaving is released
August 12 BOE Meeting - Superintendent Search Update
September 8 and September 22: Community Meetings
CSBA will be conducting one on one interview with selected community and district stakeholders during the day. In the evening, CSBA will be facilitating broader community meetings at one West End school and one East End School. The purpose of the community meetings will be to solicit input about what the Board should be looking for in selecting the next Superintendent.
October Board Meeting
CSBA will present a summary of community input at a Board meeting.
October 22 - Application Period Ends
Candidates will need to submit their application by this date.
November 15 and November 16 - Interviews
The November dates give the existing Board the flexibility to accommodate newly elected Board members in the process.
Comment by David Kirwin — August 2, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
“CSBA will be conducting one on one interview with selected community and district stakeholders during the day.”
What the hell is a “stakeholder” and who defines that word?
Comment by Citizen X — August 3, 2008 @ 9:34 am
stakeholder n. a person having in his/her possession (holding) money or property in which he/she has no interest, right or title, awaiting the outcome of a dispute between two or more claimants to the money or property. The stakeholder has a duty to deliver to the owner or owners the money or assets once the right to legal possession is established by judgment or agreement.
STAKEHOLDER, contracts. A third person, chosen by two or more persons, to keep in deposit property, the right or possession of which is contested between them and to be delivered to the one who shall establish his right to it. Thus each of them is considered as depositing the whole thing. This distinguishes this contract from that which takes place when two or more tenants in common deposit a thing with a bailee. Domat, Lois Civ. liv. 1, t. 7, s. 4; 1 Vern. R. 44, n. 1.
2. A person having in his hands money or other property claimed by several others, is considered in equity as a stakeholder. 1 Vern. R. 144.
3. The duties of a stakeholder are to deliver the thing holden by him to the person entitled to it on demand. It is frequently questionable who is entitled to it. In case of an unlawful wager, although be may be justified for delivering the thing to the winner, by the express or implied consent of the loser; 8, John. 147; yet if before the event has happened he has been required by either party to give up the thing deposited with him by such party, he is bound so to deliver it; 3 Taunt. 377; 4 Taunt. 492; or if, after the event has happened, the losing party give notice to the stakeholder not to pay the winner, a payment made to him afterwards will be made in his own wrong, and the party who deposited the money or thing may recover it from the stakeholder. 16 S. & R. 147; 7 T. R. 536; 8 T. R. 575; 4 Taunt. 474; 2 Marsh. 542. See 3 Penna. R. 468; 4 John. 426; 5 Wend. 250; 2 P. A. Browne, 182; 1 Bailey, 486, 503. See Wagers.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
Comment by laquan white — August 3, 2008 @ 9:49 am
# 90 OK, so if the stakeholder supposedly has no fiduciary (or other) interest in the 2008 Superintendent Selection Process outcome, why is CSBA delegated as the facilitator for the selection process. They certainly have no record of facilitating the selection of anyone in this school district who meets the following Siltanen criterion:
“But in times like these, if it comes down to it, I’ll take a smart, bold leader who embraces change and who is known and respected in Alameda over a cautious “experienced” caretaker-style “outside” Superintendent in a heartbeat.”
Now, I know from his # 86 that Mr. Siltanen’s considers Mr. Obama the prototypical antithesis of, “a cautious “experienced” caretaker-style” candidate but I doubt he’ll be available as a viable candidate for the AUSD Superintendent job, at least not this go-round. So that leaves Mr. McPhetridge as Mr. Siltanen’s second choice: “I hope he will be interested, his knowledge, skills and experiences are uniquely important assets that AUSD should bring into this most important decision to the greatest extent possible.” (interesting that when the rubber meets the road, Mr. Siltanen’s derision of experience in comparing Obama to McCain does not extend to Mr. McPhetridge’s experience in the minutia of Alameda school operations - perhaps they vote alike)
The question is, why does CSBA have any role whatsoever in our selection of a Superintendent for our schools? Where does this vaunted “local control” begin or end?
Comment by Citizen X — August 3, 2008 @ 10:44 am
Superintendent Survey
September, 2005
The School Board hired the California School Board Association (CSBA) for the search for a permanent Superintendent. The CSBA conducted interviews with Alameda stakeholders. The consultant used a form that contained open ended questions in three areas. Using that form I developed my own online survey.
90 inividuals took the survey with 51 Parents, 22 District Employees and 29 Community Members classifying themselves (multiple classifications allowed).
Below are the results from that survey.
Skills
Experience
Personal Traits
Skills
Important Very Important Must Have Response Average
Curriculum Development Skills and Knowledge 20% (18) 43% (39) 37% (33) 2.17
Student Achievement Assessment Skills and Knowledge 23% (21) 40% (36) 37% (33) 2.13
Human Relations Skills and Knowledge 3% (3) 18% (16) 78% (69) 2.75
Fiscal Management Skills and Knowledge 12% (11) 29% (26) 59% (54) 2.47
Technology Skills and Knowledge 50% (44) 39% (34) 11% (10) 1.61
Community Relations Skills and Knowledge 10% (9) 22% (20) 68% (62) 2.58
Facilities Management Skills and Knowledge 35% (31) 42% (37) 24% (21) 1.89
Total Respondents 90
Comments
work well with administrators and teachers in addition to community. recognize and address problems with key personnel. ability to recognize areas in which he or she is not strong and to hire trustworthy personnel to create balance.
I would like to see someone who has a long term commitment to our community.
Unquestioned integrity and commitment to achievement for all students. Retain our best and embrace all to make sure that we lose no one student
real “meat”–no fluff; cheerleading squad isn’t always right
I want to have a Superintendant who is from AUSD, and not a temporary transplant who plans to stay for a short while and who takes a year or more to get to know the schools and teachers. I have worked with superintendants since 1965 and the best ones were from our district. It is crucial that the superintendant knows Alameda. Nishino didn’t even know that Alameda was an island for six months!
1. Leadership 2. Strategic planning 3. Effective in making organizational change 4. Knows how to drive to results
I think that one of the great things about Chacones is that he had a vision for excellence. He wasn’t great at the administration side but her had a bold vision. Nishino seemed to have strength in finance but not much else…. Ideally the new Superintendent would be able to create a great bond with teachers and parents. Also, I want him/her to focus not only on the improving education for the lower performing students but ensuring that we continue to provide excellent education for the high performing children. I will say that Alameda HIgh does a great job of having “tracks” for high achieving kids but it doesn’t seem that the middle schools do. Also, it seemed that as a district we were really onto something when we created magnet schools that pulled from across the island. I’m not suer why we have abandoned Bravo program, The Wood Academy etc. Thanks for asking for my input
Leadership skills in the sense of being able to inspire and coach others to perform their best; knowledge of and experience with principled negotiation; personal time management skills; interpersonal skills, including ability to have “Difficult Conversations” (another book in the Harvard Negotiation Project series)
Familiarity with the Alameda community
Committment to arts education and the drive to make it happen. Committment to expanding GATE program so that high-achieving children can thrive instead of being bored as they are now.
Communication skills with youths and teens. Mediation skills for issues with parents/teens for school personal issues.
We are all also looking for a School District that reflects an integrated approach to education. So much of our past has been teachers vs. Superintendent vs.district office vs. parents. Are there no templates or models out there to help guide us to this next level?
Must spend time walking the campus on a daily basis
Someone who can be looked up to and be a leader in education who will lead our school district into providing an excellant education for the children of all incomes and cultures who live here. Not a good ‘ole person or a person of a certain race or culture, but selected because they are the best.
Basic pedagogy! How kids work and learn. Critical thinking. Creativity in problem solving.
Community involvement and an attachement to the community. Must live in the community.
The affinity and connection with children/students and their needs, including students with disability. Placing student improvements and enhancements top of priority when considering budgets. Should understand that their position is to serve the students in preparing them to meet the challenges and grooming them to be future leaders of the community/country.
Ability to judge skill and talent in the hiring of principals. Ability to converse with parents one on one.
We do not have thecapacity to spread ourselves so thin. We need to narrow our focus, define the leverage actions and stay the course.
Technology skills are not a big deal to me - that can be delegated. But it would be good if they can figure out how to use email.
Direction and focus of the community and district - the immediate and future goals. Long term committment and dedication.
Ability to speak with parents and community and to be openly and honestly available to parents. I have not seen this in the past… Being shuffled around the district office is not acceptable
I would like to see a superintendent who is committed to raising achievement for all students in Alameda. In particular, I would appreciate a superintendent who understands how to raise achievement for immigrant kids, English Learners and kids at the bottom of the heap and HAS HAD EXPERIENCE DOING SO.
Wide curious, open mindedness toward multiple methods of meeting students needs. Willingness to allow more than one perpective to be heard. Respect and acknowledge success of all employees. Not just those that promote a certain program.
1. Openness to innovation, ability to work with active community resources and groups from all backgrounds and community sectors. 2. Ability to be accessible to and open to public and news inquiries, enter into community dialogues and discussions of community issues affecting education. 3. Ability to work harmoniously with unions, staff, teachers at all levels. We need open communication, cooperation, and transparency.
Specifically, a “customer relations” approach to running the District. I feel that the culture at the District, which has been long held, not just with our last superintendent, as been one of the staff “doing us a favor by being there”. Rather, I would suggest that the attitude be that we are their “customers” and their goal is to work toward our goals and state, federal standards. Too often we are told “to butt out” and “don’t give out my number”. I find that unacceptable ~ none of us are above the checks and balances that should be in place.
A strong background in special education
I would like to have someone who works well with others, communicates well and wants to stay in Alameda a long time. I hate seeing waste in our school system. We need someone who is fiscally savvy and has a long-term vision for facilities and labor relations.
The Superintendent MUST have personal knowledge of AUSD and it’s functions, someone who has been working in AUSD for years.
Someone who visits campuses and gets to know and appreciate her/his employees.
I would hope that her philsophy of education extends beyond the classrooms and school buildings into the community and that she sees the potential for the district to make a postive impact on parents as well as children.
Knowledge of the local community and experience dealing with the variety of stake holders.
The Superintendent is the highest ranking, most visible member of our school community. With that in mind I believe the new Superintendent should have a management level understanding of all of the specific areas listed above, but must have a knowledge of the community, schools, current personnel, and major problems facing this district. It doesn’t make sense to me to look outside AUSD because it would take an outsider many months just to get up to functioning speed and we don’t have the luxury of having that much time. We have decisions that should be made now.
I feel that the Superintendent should be an individual who has been an active member of the Alameda learning community…. An individual who has lived in Alameda, raised children in Alameda schools and has been actively involved with the school as a teacher and a principal. We do NOT want a commuting Sup who doesn’t grasp the essence of the community. Bay Farm 1st grade teacher
Ability to relate to all community groups and bring them together to support the children of Alameda.
Hey Mike, I will be coming to a few of the meetings and want to share some of my feelings as an employee, past union president, parent, and Equal Opportunity Committee member and some of my insights in sitting on the districts hiring panels for the past 12 years.
INTEGRITY, HONESTY, AND A LACK OF POLITICAL AGENDA
Diversity. Lack of arrogance. Time for each child and teacher.
I think the next superintendant should be a uniter who really involves others in the decision making process. Prioritizing our scarce resources should also be important, since it is very clear that the budget will be inadequate to the needs of AUSD. I also have a strong preference for a superintendant who lives in the community. I think it makes a real difference if senior management is connected to Alameda in daily life.
I would like to have a super who is progressive thinking. There is too much emphasis on test scores and technology is not the answer. I don’t want my kids sitting in front of a computer, instead of instructed by a caring teacher. I think the physical atmosphere can have a great impact on students desire to be at school, and the middle schools and high schools look terrible. There needs to be a caring maintenance dept, who have the kids (not easy maintenance) as a priority.
Motivational, charismatic and able to connect with the community. High expectations for staff and student achievement. Ability to bring people together and unify them around common goals. Good follow through on legal issues and compliance issues as well as ethical.
I would like to see someone who has a demonstrated ability to work well with our teaching professionals.
I would like to see skills in developing programs for marginalized children. For instance, he or she should be able to recognize and develop locally a program to teach ADHD children to read. At risk children need special attention, and this should be a priority.
A vision for education.
Understanding of special education in terms of the District’s duty to provide every student with the tools to succeed & be independent. This is a fundamental right. Too often special ed has been a scapegoat for financial problems — because people who often lack the time & savvy to self-advocate aren’t likely to protest.
I think that experience and expertise working with a diverse community of families and students is most important. Next the ability to inspire and make the best use of teachers and administrators in the District.
L E A D E R S H I P AND COMMUNICATION, NOT ONLY WITH THE DISTRICT, BUT WITH THE KIDS, PARENTS, AND COMMUNITY G U T S TO GET RID OF THE CRUMMY PEOPLE!
I spread out the top ones figuring we can’t have must haves on everything. The most important to me is someone who is trying to reach out to the comunity and talk to parents and the community. If they have the right management skills they can hire the right people for the positions such as technology. Someone who gets real equity. I am saddened at what is offered to chipman compared to Wood and Lincoln. The truth is the equity there is in better management and staff than the other 2 schools.
Ideally our next superintendent would not only be graced with good academic and fiscal knowledge BUT would be able to personally implement forward thinking ideas. The superintendent should be able to unite city officials, school board, teacher union, parents and students to achieve a STATED common goal (other than higher test scores). Yes, students need to be able to recognize who the superintendent is!
an appreciation and awareness of equity an ability to develop relationships with administrators and teachers participation in the community approachability
Knowledge of the Alameda community
Experience
Important Very Important Must Have Response Average
Teacher 18% (14) 31% (25) 51% (41) 2.34
Principal 23% (18) 37% (29) 41% (32) 2.18
District Fiscal Position 49% (36) 36% (26) 15% (11) 1.66
District Personnel Position 61% (44) 25% (18) 14% (10) 1.53
District Curriculum Position 48% (36) 43% (32) 9% (7) 1.61
District Technology Position 81% (55) 18% (12) 1% (1) 1.21
District Assessment Position 66% (48) 29% (21) 5% (4) 1.4
District Special Education Position 77% (51) 23% (15) 0% (0) 1.23
Total Respondents 82
Comments
worked at sites that serve students from low SES, title 1, etc. It is not possible to truly understand the challenges faced if you have only head about them… must be lived.
The district needs a fresh face and new perspective. Where it’s going now started a few years ago and can be carried forward by a competent experienced person.
If the candidate has been in a classroom for a significant amount of time, She or he will have a better understanding of current education. The person should not have the majority of his/her experience in private schools.
I do not believe the candidate must have followed any single career path. Many distriicts have moved business leaders into the superintendent role–some with good results and some without those results. Similarly, many who have experience in education have succeeded while others have not. Helpful experiences would include: - successful leadership in an environment with a wide variety of stakeholders who want different things - experience with different functions is helpful because a leader need not be expert in everything but they need to know how to utilize and respect all the different functions–this is easier if they have experience in both line/staff roles and or in multiple areas (principal, district, etc) - experience fixing something that is broken - experience implementing a change successfully - experience starting something from scratch
I am concerned and frightened by the selections to choose from under “Experience” for Alameda’s Superintendent of Schools. Howabout educational leadership? School redesign? Community involvment? All must haves…
Affiliation with local community groups
Experience working with the Board of Education and other elected officials (someone with Distict-level experience who has “staffed” the Board - not the less regular interaction typical of principals). Which position is less important than the direct interaction and, therefore, understanding of how a board works.
I don’t see particular experience as being as important as the type of person they are and what their actual skills are.
With a great team the superintendent needs to know when to be a leader and when to follow. One person can learn if surrouned by a strong team.
Private sector management of resources and personnel, demonstrated sense of vision!
The best would have experience “in the trenches” as a teacher and perhaps principal, and have some knowledge of the other positions, as well as a variety of jobs which exposed him/her to how the world works in a non-education setting.
I presume candidates are being promoted up from within the Alameda district. i don’t know whether or not that is necessary - bringing in a very qualified person from outside the district might cause resentment and difficulties; but limiting ourselves to someone from within the Alameda district may not work if we don’t have anyone with across-the-board qualifications
Very active in their local community and knowledge of the different groups and trends that their city has/are going through. Being active during good and hardship struggles that a city experience. Positive relationship/experience with all levels of their departments and the district.
Direct experience in some of the above areas is less important than a full understanding of and support for thosae working in technology, special ed, facilities, etc. Union leadership experience might help generate credibility with teacher ’s unions…
Obviously, strong managements skills. I think of the superintendent as being the CEO of the “Corporation”. They need not have each individual skill within the district, but have a good overall understanding of all the areas he/she manages. He/she must build a strong base of lower management to upper management and allow those with expertise in their field to do their job, until proven otherwise.
Business experience would be an asset
Proven track record of staying in budget and getting the job done.
This can only be done by someone who has been working in the district for year like Ardella Dailey.
Must be a people person!
I would hope that she would have the understanding that not all children and families are created equal and that some children require addtional services to reach their learning potential. i am not referring to Special Ed. I am referring to the many children who are “punished” by the educational systems failure to meet their needs because of funding and lack of vision and leadership. These are often children born into poverty, violence and non priveledged ethnic groups.
Experience with local community
All of the positions listed seem too specific. We need someone with a broad background of district experience and knowledge, not necessarily in one specific area. You left off Assiatant Superintendent.
Needs to have had a variety of principal positions and other district position to have a broad view of the school district.
Leadership
I have an overwhelming bias that a superintendant should have at least some experience at the high school level. If he/she has never worked in a high school, I do not believe a successful superintendancy is possible. The most complicated issues of curriculum, credits, graduation requirements, UC approval, extra curricular activities, standardized testing all come in high school.
Experienced at working with staff.
They need to have come up through the ranks and have experience in ANY cabinet level position. They need to be able to relate to both elementary and secondary issues - without bias. Both levels of programs have very diverse needs which sometimes don’t relate to each other. Training in Organizational Developement / Leadership (Masters and or Doctorate) - preferably doctorate in Educational Leadership.
Community outreach is very important as a background skill.
Non-education experience. Superintendent has to have perspective that extends beyond the ivy tower. A large part of the job is community relations.
Experience with Labor Relations and alternative and small school development would be good.
I’m interpreting “fiscal position” and “personnel position” loosely, not necessarily meaning head of those specific departments, but a position that oversees substantial district personnel and finances. For example, prior experience as a superintendent would cover that “must have” requirement.
What else is there?
Personal Traits
Important Very Important Must Have Response Average
Trustworthiness: To act in a manner that makes one worthy of trust and confidence 2% (2) 14% (12) 83% (69) 2.81
Truthtfulness: To act with personal responsibility and mental accountability 2% (2) 13% (11) 84% (70) 2.82
Active Listening: To listen attentively and the intention of understanding 2% (2) 29% (24) 68% (56) 2.66
No Put-Downs: To never use words, actions, and/or body language that degrade, humiliate or dishonor others 5% (4) 27% (22) 69% (57) 2.64
Personal Best: To do one’s best given the circumstance and available resources 6% (5) 30% (24) 64% (51) 2.58
Caring: To feel and show concern for others 9% (7) 41% (33) 51% (41) 2.42
Common Sense: To use good judgment 6% (5) 12% (10) 82% (67) 2.76
Cooperation: To work together toward a common goal or purpose 4% (3) 16% (13) 80% (64) 2.76
Courage: To act according to one’s belief 15% (12) 27% (22) 58% (47) 2.43
Curiousity: A desire to investigate and seek understanding of one’s world 23% (18) 31% (24) 46% (36) 2.23
Effort: To do your best 10% (8) 26% (21) 64% (52) 2.54
Flexibility: To be willing to alter plans when necessary 10% (8) 23% (19) 67% (55) 2.57
Friendship: To make and keep a friend through mutual trust and caring 42% (32) 29% (22) 29% (22) 1.87
Initiative: To do something because it needs to be done 6% (5) 30% (24) 64% (52) 2.58
Integrity: To act according to sense of what is right and wrong 4% (3) 18% (14) 79% (63) 2.75
Organization: To plan, arrange and implement in an orderly way 9% (7) 27% (21) 65% (51) 2.56
Patience: To wait calmly for someone or something 28% (21) 36% (27) 37% (28) 2.09
Perservance: To keep at it 13% (10) 29% (23) 58% (45) 2.45
Problem-Solving: To create solutions for difficult situations and problems 4% (3) 22% (18) 74% (61) 2.71
Responsibility: To respond when appropriate, to be accountable for your actions 4% (3) 9% (7) 87% (69) 2.84
Sense of Humor: To laugh and be playful without harming others 29% (22) 23% (18) 48% (37) 2.19
Total Respondents 83
Comments
Be truly thoughtful, reflective and forward thinking in your decision.
Alameda’s schools need a unifying leader who has a strong public presence and the ability to lead. He/she must be able to articulate goals in a meaningful way