voiceofsandiego.org: Schooled... Grier Tapped for Houston Job

It's official: The Houston Independent School District voted unanimously to hire San Diego Superintendent Terry Grier moments ago.

Grier had long been rumored to be eyeing the Houston job, but had brushed off the talk. The Houston Chronicle broke the news that he was a finalist on Wednesday. Check out our article on what this could mean for San Diego Unified.

-- EMILY ALPERT

Mr. Frain . . . Mr. Grier gave up on our district. The teachers and the administrators, the children and the board of education remain. We will all be fine. The union leader is only as good as those she represents. We have an excellent core of educators in our district. Unfortunately our current superintendent is not able to stay with us and accomplish all that he may have wanted to. Houston offered him more money. It is not uncommon for people in his position to go where the money is. I'm sure he'll have his share of challenges in Houston and we should all wish him well. Let's all encourage the board of education to work diligently on behalf of the students to employ a new highly qualified superintendent. Good luck Mr.Grier!

Posted by Scott Mullin | reply to this comment
August 20, 2009 8:41 pm

I could not understand why a superintendent from Greensboro, NC would have been hired - especially one who was, reportedly, quite unpopular. I wrote to him about the deplorable, dangerous environmental (building) conditions in San Diego Unified schools. No offer to meet with me. Nothing. Where he is going, they have mold, also. Where he came from, there were mold problems (unaddressed properly). I hope this board of ed can hire a qualified superintendent with a concern for healthy school buildings, so our students can be safe and healthy in school. I hope they hire one with a good track record of working with teacher unions. Teachers are the backbone of any school system and deserve respect and support. Where would any of us be without the good teachers who helped make us what we are today? Lastly, the reading program in San Diego Unified has been a major mess.

Posted by Nonprofit Director Past SDUSD | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 8:16 am

The reading program doesn't work - as a past SDUSD Special and General Ed teacher, I have seen, from the time of Tom Payzant, a deeply flawed reading approach that FORCED teachers to use a whole language method. To this day, this is why children perform so poorly in SDUSD. Systematic, direct instruction for reading and phonics is missing. Rather, children are expected to read "literature" on their own, much of the time. The literature amounts to baskets of popular chapter books that were not developed for reading instruction. A superintendent who does not fall for the whole language approach, can reverse this terrible mistake in education, and can get along with the teachers (agreement with Bob Raines, above) is desperately needed. For information on San Diego Unified's mold problems go to link and view link on YouTube, to watch SDUSD district officials lying about the mold.

Posted by Nonprofit Director Past SDUSD | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 10:08 am

One more thought...in the southern states, the teachers unions don't have contracts. They have associations that are, therefore, weak. Perhaps it was a shock for Dr. Grier to be exposed to a teachers' union that is strong, with a contract. Teachers need this, as they work in a highly political climate and can be treated as they were in the 1800's without a contract. Perhaps Dr. Grier seeks that archaic climate, once again, and with higher pay. The board does have a historical problem finding qualified applicants and should NOT feel rushed. I suggest they hire someone who is a past teacher, exemplary, with administrative certificate and/or background, a PhD in literacy, with actual successful experience in the classroom in helping kids pass the CAHSEE, graduate, attend college. Someone dedicated to San Diego's kids. Not a fly-by-night. I know of one who fits the description above.

Posted by | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 10:23 am

Supers come and they go. Life goes on. Grier is the fifth super I've seen in my time with the district. Change occurs at the ground level, not way up top.

Posted by Poppa | reply to this comment
August 20, 2009 8:55 pm

Camile is the best thing to happen to the teachers union in a long time, go Camile!

Posted by electric_fish | reply to this comment
August 20, 2009 8:58 pm

Sorry but a super can have grand ideas, most of which are nebulous at best (lets raise test scores! Lets lower drop out rates! Lets close the achievement gap!), but it is the teachers who must be on board with these programs. You cannot have comprehensive change if no one wants it, and if mandated from the top. Teachers are not afraid of change, they deal with it year after year, but rather fear change for the sake of change with no purpose. If teachers have a clear plan for lowering dropout rates, closing achievement gap, then with their support, change will happen. But then again, no one has asked them. It is easier than you think.

Posted by GH | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 7:00 am

Let's do all these things. Let teachers run their classroom. But let's give parents choice over their student's school and teachers and lets make teachers responsible for the results in their classrooms.

Posted by RB | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 8:09 am

Let's also make students responsible for their performance on standardized tests if we're going to use them for accountability purposes. If not, let's use them only for their intended purpose - one of many tools to drive instruction.

Posted by Poppa | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 9:33 pm

Yes, electricfish, "Camille is the best thing to happen to the teacher's union in a long time". And if the district existed to support teachers, that would be a good thing. Let me remind you, however, that the teachers are (believe it or not) merely the second most important part of education. I'm confident the while little ditty (ding-dong!) from Wizard of Oz is ringing in Zombro's head, the truth is our children lost their most important advocate yesterday. And you can bet the Union3 on our board is over the moon about their selection for a replacement super to finally complete the union control over our district, at the expense of our children's education. We parents will scramble like rats leaving a burning ship.

Posted by Paul M Bowers | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 7:14 am

Okay, so you are suggesting that the superintendent, who sits high atop the educational hierarchy, is more important as an advocate than the teacher who sits in the classroom with, yes, the most important beings in our educational community? And, you join in with Mr. Frain to demean the person who is helping to protect the children's welfare and suggest that there is a "little ditty (ding-dong!) from Wizard of Oz . . . ringing in Zombro's head." Hmm. The superintendent is important. The teachers are important. The union is important. We are all important. And we are all here to ensure that the students get the best education possible. I am a union member and a teacher and have children who attend schools in the San Diego Unified School District. They are getting a great education!

Posted by Scott Mullin | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 7:51 am

Yes, Mr Mullin, the Superintendent is a far better advocate for my child than the teacher's union. The teacher's union represents teachers- that's all. Teachers uber alle. Boss Zombro has demonstrated time and again her priorities- and I admire her tenacity and integrity. That's her job, and she does it extremely well. But as a parent, I'm charged with advocating for my child, who has no voice in the system. Yet. Parents have had it with the teacher's union- look at the comments- and we are unorganized. If parents were to be as organized as the teachers, imagine the possibilities. Please don't get me wrong- I support and encourage teachers. But not at the expense of our child.

Posted by Paul M Bowers | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 2:32 pm

In the interest of derailing this track and moving on to one that gets us somewhere, let's take a closer look at the thoughts of Frances O'Neill Zimmerman. I believe that her line of reasoning will lead us to a more fruitful set of solutions. Name calling has never resulted in improvements in the classroom environment. Let's find common ground on which to build our futures. Ms. Zimmerman is arguing for systemic solutions in repairing our community's manner of educating our young ones.

Posted by Scott Mullin | reply to this comment
August 22, 2009 4:43 am

Zombro's comments on Channel 4 news after the Pads game last night were beyond the pale. We should let her run the district as the only superintendent she will be happy with is one that parrot's her talking points (except when she wants a convenient patsy to take the fall). I am SOOOOOO glad we live outside the district and in one where teachers and administrators actually work collaboratively to make thngs work for the kids.

Posted by CMR | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 7:39 am

I have yet to see anyone at the District yesterday or today who is unhappy about his departure. As a district employee, my response is "Good Riddance"; as a parent, my response is a very fervent "Good Riddance"! My daughter's school lost a good Principal after Grier came here and tried to implement his "cohort" plan as though he were a autocrat - no warning, no conversation, no exceptions. Fortunately, his plan failed, but we still lost our Principal. Making unilateral decisions with no parent or employee buy-in is not the way of an effective manager. No wonder he brought so many cronies from NC. I assume they will leave with him to be his yes-men in TX.

Posted by SD Native | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 7:45 am

We have lost an advocate for the students. We are stuck with a union financed board with an adult and union focus. Hopefully, our new Education Secretary will get more charter schools here ASAP.

Posted by RB | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 7:46 am

Good riddance! Grier was just another union-busting, fund-raiding, job-shopper who had only his own monetary interests in mind when he came here (and left just as quickly). He grabbed up as much bonus money as he could manage before skipping town for the next gravy train. Thanks Houston, for exposing him for the trash he is.

Posted by JB | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 8:20 am

"Camile is the best thing to happen to the teachers union in a long time." That pretty much says it all. Is the SDUSD the GM of school districts? The parallels go on and on.

Posted by rrrr | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 8:31 am

The problem is NOT that SDUSD cannot KEEP a superintendent, but that we cannot seem to SELECT one! For some reason, our Board insists on selecting superintendents based on a business model and not on an educational one! Why don't we try to select a superintendent who is a "people person" who can work well with staff and parents and not one that rules in a dictatorial manner. Just a thought from an ex-employee who believes the best superintendent we've ever had was Tom Payzant and certainly not the likes of Alan Bersin.

Posted by Bob Raines | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 8:37 am

Amen to this post from a long-time now-retired perspicacious director of assessment at San Diego Unified. Public education is a people business. The paramount focus should be educating kids -- not Superintendent performance bonuses or car allowances, not union-bought Board majorities, Business-bought Board majorities or charter schools. We are having trouble doing this important work. There is too much scapegoating of teachers who are generally ill-prepared to deal effectively with increasingly stringent academic requirements plus the diverse complex cultural and social needs of many students. We should demand small classes, professionalized teacher preparation, truly professional expectations (qualifying exams) and commensurate professional pay. We need national academic standards and requirements for all students as they move from one level to the next. Parents would become confident rather than embattled. Dominance struggles between teachers' unions and anti-union business groups would become history.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 2:42 pm

Thank you for the intelligent voice of reason!

Posted by Dena Hause | reply to this comment
August 22, 2009 1:04 pm

" union-busting, fund-raiding, job-shopper ...ONLY monetary interests in mind-grabbed-bonus money-before skipping town for the next gravy train." I agree, Small schools committee didn't 'succeed, but "LAW has Changed in Selling schools,"& where $$$$ can go-possibly without Public (owners) being involved! ESP/Small Schools Committee has a meeting on the 26th-at Normal St., 2 pm. What's Grier's background of schools have in common with SD? What did he 'Accomplish' last & HAS already accomplished, but not yet 'boasted' about? WHO 'promoted' hiring him over other candidates? Perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye?

Posted by Look Deeper Andrew | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 9:20 am

Scott, Shelia Jackson shouted out at a Board meeting, "I wish I could fire the four of you." I was appalled! Find one negative comment that Dr. Grier made about teachers or the union. He has always been a gentleman. All of this unprofessional bashing makes San Diego look bad. We are the laughingstock of California because of the turnover in supes. And North Carolina is not a foreign country! All of these people with the ugly comments, send checks to pay for the costly search for a new supe. Our children should not have to bear the cost of the adults' issues.

Posted by Sally Smith | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 10:33 am

Yes, Ms. Smith, this is about the children, not the adults. I believe our children are in very good hands with the teachers in our district.

Posted by Scott Mullin | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 12:36 pm

The highest paid teachers in the country provide the students the with 37th best education in the country. Maybe we need the union label on every drop out.

Posted by RB | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 3:08 pm

According to a list of self-reported scores from a state whose standards exceed all of those but New York. Take a look at (say) Arizona's standards - California expects 3rd graders to do what Arizona's students do in high school.

Posted by Poppa | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 9:35 pm

Please provide the sources of your statistics. We are the highest paid and our students are 37th in the nation? Weren't we just patting ourselves on the back a few days ago for our outstanding test scores?

Posted by Scott Mullin | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 10:07 pm

He's a gentleman? How do you know this? You've never been behind closed doors with this so called gentleman who thinks that we are a bunch of "stupid flip flop wearing San Diegans"

Posted by AM | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 8:58 pm

I have observed teachers, male and female, wearing flipflops and other unprofessional attire to school. It is a fact. Students internalize that this is appropriate work apparel because they see their teachers dressed in sloppy clothes. Any employer would have a poor impression of an applicant if that's how the applicant showed up for an interview, much less to the workplace. If Dr. Grier expects professionals to dress professionally I don't think that is asking too much.

Posted by Sally Smith | reply to this comment
August 24, 2009 9:16 am

We have lost some very good superintendents of our schools (except Bersin) and it will become increasingly more difficult to attract talent due to the turnover, the State and Local economies, and the labor-oriented school board. Certainly, teachers are the back-bone of our ed system and City Schools is awash with plenty of good ones. We are also stuck with many poor teachers protected by the unions from meaningful performance evaluations and dismissal for cause. Can someone tell me why so many of our Charter Schools prove to be excellent in working with challenged students (some challenged to be stellar and others challenged to survive) without the requirement to have union teachers? Although I am a strong liberal/progressive, I'll never again vote for a school board member that is corrupted with significant campaign contributions from teacher unions or other labor contracts (e.g., MM and S)

Posted by NorthParker | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 11:31 am

CONTINUED RESPONSE TO NORTHPARKER - (2) Many charter schools enjoy a boost to their "excellence" because they can use admissions criteria that ultimately may discourage low-performing students from attending. (3) It's been documented in charter school research and studies (again, a very simple Google search) that charter schools routinely encourage parents of special needs students to take their students elsewhere. So when charter schools get to cherry-pick their students and neighboring district schools are stuck with the leftovers, if you will, that may say something about test scores. (Yet many charter schools on the southside are still not performing above neighboring district schools.) (4) Increasingly, more teachers at charter schools across the country and in San Diego are organizing unions. Why? Because they hate educational progress and students? I think not. (CONTINUED)

Posted by MT | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 2:19 pm

(CONTINUED) I'd suggest that it's because they know that charters can better serve students when teachers have the security and protection of their own union -- when teachers can speak up against administrators for students' interests without fear of being fired for it, when there's not a revolving door of teachers coming in and out of the school because they get burned out working 70-80 hours a week for $35k a year (with no sign of a raise in sight) and still having to pay out of pocket for their health insurance.

Posted by MT | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 2:26 pm

NorthParker can you please give me empirical evidence that shows charter schools are more effective. I think that too many folks are falling victim to "pop" educational policy often promoted by celebrity education officials who want to test out their new magic bullet on our students. Charter schools im afriad for the most part are a gimick that is no better than public schools. What you always hear about are the few outlier charter schools that are actually successful. For instance, in California, a RAND Corp a 2003 report found that classroom-based charter schools exhibited lower test scores than traditional public schools or other types of charter schools, controlling for observable student characteristics.

Posted by AllReformersandNoTeachers | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 2:34 pm

A couple of points about Charters here in San Diego. Since their inception in the mid 90's 1/3 of all Charters have failed, number one reason for the failures was financial fraud, all the money that goes to Charters comes from the general fund which is for all the students in the district. All the money lost thru financial fraud is not recoverable. I agree there are poor teachers, but with any profession Dr's lawyers, nurses there will always be a % that are not good.And as far as the teachers union backing certain candidates I doubt very seriously that there are more teachers union members then there are registered voters, so somebody other then the teachers voted for the school board members. So why not direct your anger at the voters who elected the board. I doesn't matter how much money was spent the voters had a choice.

Posted by zollner | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 4:28 pm

Good points -- on both charters and the school board!

Posted by MT | reply to this comment
August 24, 2009 8:46 am

Camille Zombro is a good example of why my children go to private school.

Posted by larry | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 1:06 pm

IN RESPONSE TO NORTHPARKER - First, you wrote that teachers are the back-bone of our education system, yet you also wrote that you will never vote for another school board candidate that is backed with ("significant") campaign contributions from teachers. That's outrageous! What a thanks to teachers! I would really like to dare readers to point out AT LEAST one decision that the supposedly "union-controlled" school board did that was harmful to students but beneficial to teachers. Please! Second, you wrote that charters are "excellent" without unions. A few points on this: (1) Many charter schools aren't excellent and an astonishingly high percentage fail in there first years -- you can find those facts in an easy Google search, and even in past stories on this site. (CONTINUED IN NEXT POST)

Posted by MT | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 2:19 pm

MT says, "I would really like to dare readers to point out AT LEAST one decision that the supposedly "union-controlled" school board did that was harmful to students but beneficial to teachers." I think that the board harms students by NOT instituting an effective way to evaluate teachers. The funny thing is that they could do this without harming teachers. Once they knew who were the super teachers and who were the uninspired teachers, they could make sure all teachers were assigned appropriate jobs. This would mean differences in pay. Is this bad for teachers? It's great for some, not so great for others, but certainly not harmful for any. And it would be WONDERFUL for the teaching profession. I think the union fights this idea because their friends might be among the downgraded teachers.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
August 22, 2009 12:41 pm

First, I said that MANY charters are excellent -- even some who work with the most difficult students who gain admission solely through lottery. Now, you want some decisions that harmed students by the school board: 1)MM and S funds will not go so far to build and renovate schools because of the union-only contracting stipulation. 2)increasing class sizes 3)shorter school days and shorter school years--the half day once a week is particularly bad for kids 4)giving teachers time off for "professional development" during the school day and bringing in substitute teachers --why can't teachers have their professional development during the three months that they are off. I volunteer in the public schools and I know that some teachers won't even bend down to pick up a piece of litter in the hallway, because the union says its not their job.

Posted by NorthParker | reply to this comment
August 22, 2009 3:05 pm

Actually, NORTHPARKER, I asked that you point out decisions that the school board made that were BAD for students, but GOOD for union teachers. I asked for this because you are claiming that the school board is somehow union-controlled. You provided these examples: (1) Prop S labor agreement, (2) class size increases, (3) "short" school days, (4) allowing teachers to attend training on some school days (instead of requiring teachers to do so during the summer). Are these things BAD for students, but GOOD for teachers? As for (1), the school board's labor agreement does not benefit teachers as teachers or as union members. I suggest that it benefits all San Diegans because it says wage, safety, healthcare, and training standards for contractors who win Prop S bids. Despite what's widely been reported in the Union-Tribune, it does NOT limit Prop S contracts to union-only contractors. (CONT.)

Posted by MT | reply to this comment
August 24, 2009 7:59 am

Have you done any research on why schools in other countries do so much better? They do not teach full time. They are given time for professional development which include going over each student, developing plans together to help those children not succeeding and so forth. Do a Google search. In this district, teachers get 45 minutes to 50 minutes of prep time and a half day every other week. Perhaps if we did what foreign schools did, our country would have better results.

Posted by Robin | reply to this comment
August 24, 2009 11:57 am

Continued. I am a supporter of unions--just not public employee unions in schools, universities, city, state and county government. Most school administrators rise through the ranks -- why would they exploit teachers -- it doesn't make sense. Public school teachers in California make a good living and they really don't put in more hours than professional people with comparable education and experience in the private sector. In fact they practically have guaranteed employment for life whether they work hard and well versus doing just a little as possible. And, I would be more than willing to support substaintially higher taxes, to obtain higher teacher pay, more instructional time for students, smaller class sizes, and merit review. It is the influence of the public employee unions that keeps me and many others from supporting higher taxes for better schools.

Posted by NorthParker | reply to this comment
August 22, 2009 3:41 pm

(CONT.) Prop S funds would go farther if contractors could get away with paying employees $10 an hour with no healthcare (and in this economy, it wouldn't be too difficult to find some takers), but it's better for San Diego if SDUSD insists that Prop S funds encourage good jobs, not bad jobs. As for you (2), increasing class sizes: Yes, bad for students, but it is NOT good for teachers. In fact, teachers/union members campaigned AGAINST class size increases. Teachers initiate union grievances EVERY YEAR over SDUSD violating their rights to small class sizes (because our class size is protected in our union contract). In this case, I suppose we could say that it's unfortunate for students that the school board is NOT controlled by union members because if it were, surely class size would not have been further increased. (CONT.)

Posted by MT | reply to this comment
August 24, 2009 8:15 am

(CONT.) As for your (3), NorthParker, "shorter" school days: The current school board did NOT decrease the school year or the school day (the state sets minimums on this). So your point is not evidence that the current school board is "union-controlled." Increasing the school day/year may or may not be a good idea, but just like anyone else, if teachers are required to work even longer hours, they should be compensated for it. Your (4): again, the current school board did not create a policy of allowing teachers release time on workdays for training -- it's long existed, so it's not evidence that the board is "union-controlled" and so is making decisions that are BAD for students but GOOD for teachers. Teachers have the right to 2 days of release per year for training. Readers can decide whether that's good or bad for students.

Posted by MT | reply to this comment
August 24, 2009 8:21 am

In an effort to cut from the budget, the school board voted to increase class size, but then didn't issue pinks slips to the "extra" teachers. Where is the savings? A few lucky students and teachers will have the benefit of very small class sizes (15), but the majority will have huge increases (24). All in the effort to save jobs, union jobs.

Posted by itsbarneysfault | reply to this comment
August 27, 2009 12:39 pm

During all the Hoopla and Hullabaloo about another $300,000 administrator leaving for more money- We forget that that our schools are a democratically run government with some 7,000 professional teachers in the classrooms. Our elected Board of Education lead by one of those educational professionals will figure this out for the best interests of our children Brother Spathas and his Downtown Elite need to accept that Superintendent Gier left for the greener pastures of Houston’s “Money” link As to predictions of a City School’s train wreck without Gier The Animals sung it true “One Monkey don’t stop no show” link More

Posted by John Stump | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 3:15 pm

Neither Terry Grier nor Camille Zombro has defied my expectations. Well, maybe I did expect Grier to be a bit more reform-minded, but it looks like reform will be impossible in this district for some time to come, and I blame both sides equally. The school board itself reflects the administrator/teache divide; we can't get the full five-member board to put politics aside and make necessary changes. What if the board went into seclusion, without any input from the political establishment? Maybe they would come up with some solutions then. Of course, they'd all be thrown out of office once their backers realized they had put students first, but wouldn't it be something they could be proud of?

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 4:47 pm

Well said Maura!

Posted by itsbarneysfault | reply to this comment
August 27, 2009 7:47 pm

What about the November court case against Grier? Case Number: 37-2008-00085860-CU Date Filed: 06/18/2008 Case Title: Grover C Duke vs. Terry Grier Case Status: Trial Set Case Category: Civil - Unlimited Location: Central Case Type: Civil Rights Judicial Officer: Steven R. Denton Case Age: 429 days Department: Next Event Type: Civil Jury Trial Next Event Date: 11/13/2009

Posted by CourtReport | reply to this comment
August 21, 2009 5:56 pm

SDUSD hired attorney Mark Bresee as its general counsel less than a month after this case was filed in 2008. At the time, Terry Grier had been around for several months. I doubt that this case explains why Terry Grier left, but it does help explain how Terry Grier thinks. In my experience, superintendents and board members are likely to simply turn cases over to their lawyers without informing themselves about them, and education attorneys like Mark Bresee understand their assignment to be to win the case rather than to make sure that the district isn't violating the law. I'll bet Houston also chooses attorneys from the National Council of School Attorneys, and handles legal affairs the same way they are handled here. I'm sorry but not surprised that Terry Grier didn't settle; it seems he is a remarkably typical superintendent after all.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
August 22, 2009 12:05 pm

What was the case about?

Posted by the secretary | reply to this comment
August 25, 2009 7:38 pm

What San Diego needs is a district break-up. Imagine you were designing municipal services from scratch today. Would anyone in their right mind propose a school district of 140,000 students? The only beneficiaries of a large system are the labor unions and the top paid bureaucrats. Strange fact: The public remains critical of the "system" yet often proud of their own child's school. This paradox can only be resolved by restoring a sense of ownership to the citizens. 5-7 school districts based on geography would be big enough to have economies of scale and small enough to be responsive to the public. Big enough to prevent parochial interests from dominating and small enough to demand that citizens own the challenges of public schools. The new districts would be able to offer a full complement of programs.

Posted by Al | reply to this comment
August 22, 2009 5:07 am

(CONT"D) The historic obstacle of segregation is less a factor today than many realize. It would be near impossible to draw boundaries in San Diego that are racially or economically homogenous. The bogeyman is not the mythical Interstate 8! Consider, for example, trying to draw a boundary on the I-15 corridor. Mira Mesa, Scripps Ranch, Tierrasanta, Clairemont and possibly Linda Vista are all north of the 8. It would be hard to label such a district as anything other than diverse. The same could be said for a beach area district that included Pacific Beach, La Jolla, UC, Clairemont, and possibly Linda Vista. Or use the I-8 as a corridor; OB, Point Loma, Mission Hills, Linda Vista etc..No responsible party wants a segregated outcome. There are many voluntary ways to further integration and opportunity within and among smaller districts.

Posted by Al | reply to this comment
August 22, 2009 5:31 am

(CONT"D) I say continue the mapping exercise in all communities based on geographical common sense. Sure, opponents might claim that the middle class is trying to escape the responsibilities of educating the poor and disadvantaged. Yet I don't think this has to be the outcome. First, let's all acknowledge that the current system is largely failing disadvantaged kids. Secondly, if we can build support in all neighborhoods of San Diego for a break-up, poorer communities would be empowered by greater local control over the system. The programs they demanded for their children would likely be far more effective than centrally planned "one-size-fits-all" blueprints. Lastly, since state funding is basically on a per student basis the middle class communities would not be walking off with any assets. Compensatory programs from the state and local governments would remain disproportionately in the communities where children have the greatest needs.

Posted by Al | reply to this comment
August 22, 2009 5:56 am

Through it all, the teachers teach. That says more than anything. Is it really a surprise that SD has money-mongering, resume-building school supers? Look at the leadership elsewhere in SD. This isn't a city, it's a pilfering ground for profiteers.

Posted by Alex Finlayson | reply to this comment
August 22, 2009 6:00 am

Shelia Jackson and the teacher's union have proven too bad for our school district. Shelia Jackson needs to go. The silver lining in all this is that San Diego votes my pay more attention and vote Ms. Jackson out next time around

Posted by Bill Weeks | reply to this comment
August 22, 2009 9:29 pm

Bersin was basically hired by the Port District and the Chamber of Commerce. They put monies into funding the school board members that would support Bersin's policies. Look at what happened to Fran Zimmerman. Thankfully she won even though businesses supported her opponent. He used money inappropriately, and nearly bankrupted the district. No one seems to bring this point up. The school board may be tilted the other way, but it has been less than a year. Just maybe, they will do better than the Port District and the Chamber of Commerce did in choosing our board members. "A black eye...?". She was endorsed by big business. It is easy to take a few disgruntled teachers and use them as examples of the superintendent's policies. It is another thing when most 7000 educators feel that the teacher's (more educators) union represent them. Teachers are not the enemy.

Posted by Robin | reply to this comment
August 24, 2009 12:05 pm

I agree with Bill Weeks - Shirley Jackson and the Teacher;s Union have ruined the climate of this district. They are both "pro teacher" and not "pro student." Dr Grier was a good leader - Houston will benefit from his Leadership. I truly think he found it impossible to work/deal with Camille Zombro, Shirley Jackson and her cohorts - Barrera and Evans. It's a shame our school district has had to deal with the economy and now we will start the year without a Superintendent. SHAME on Zombro, Jackson, Evans and Barrera. Why don't you start thinking of the students in SDUSD. Listen to your Administrator's and Parents not just Camille and the teachers. The Board should do a better job of representation of all the masses.

Posted by Sandra | reply to this comment
August 24, 2009 6:58 pm

sandra, uh, i'm sorry to tell you but the climate has not been good for a long time. If there is any shame,its on Grier for leaving and a system that allows him to do so. What do you mean representation of 'all the masses?' how many masses are there? There was not nearly as much rancor under Paysant and Pendelton and they worked well with teachers---climate was pretty good. Don't you think teachers just might know a little something about what works well in the classroom? It's too bad Cohn left b/c he probably would have worked very well with this school board and it's too bad the previous board had to choose supt. Grier knowing new board members were coming in who may not agree with him. That's why they chose him. It backfired on them though b/c now he's following the $. money grubber

Posted by perspectivo | reply to this comment
August 26, 2009 7:55 am

I'm interested in the idea that Terry Grier was unable to work with the board chosen by the voters. What's up with that? Heaven knows that elected officials from the White House to the tiniest podunk school district can sometimes be ruthless or senseless or downright clueless. However that may be, an administrator's job is to work with whoever happens to be in charge. (I am describing a worst-case scenario; I believe the union-friendly board members currently in office are quite sensible and aware, and not ruthless.) Maybe Terry Grier didn't get to be the Czar of Everything, making unilateral decisions, but there was never anything stopping Terry Grier from sitting down with teachers and parents and creating a new culture in San Diego schools.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
August 26, 2009 2:45 pm

Sensible and aware? Ha ha ha, thanks for the laugh this evening.

Posted by itsbarneysfault | reply to this comment
August 27, 2009 7:45 pm

You're welcome--and thanks for the cue to qualify my statements about the union-friendly board members. I did not intend my words "sensible and aware" to be interpreted as rich praise, but rather as my belief that these board members have the basic abilities needed to govern. I am concerned, however, that these officials are allowing California Teachers Association to think for them. In Chula Vista a couple of days ago CTA took a page from extreme right-leaning Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford in thumbing its nose at stimulus funds. CTA doesn't want California to participate in the Race to the Top at this time because it wants to protect the current inadequate teacher evaluation system. Jackson, Evans and Barrera might want to consider that even loyal Democrats are getting sick of CTA's opposition to school reform.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
August 29, 2009 8:48 am

For all of you who are here to call people names Maureen Dowd had some wonderful thoughts today: link

Posted by Scott Mullin | reply to this comment
August 26, 2009 1:15 pm

The current teacher eval. system is not that bad. By the time a teacher completes his or her fifth year of college and after say, a year in their first job, often as a sub, they know if teaching is for them or not. So, first, there is self-eval. Then if someone decide teaching is a career path for them, they are evaluated every other year and are deemed either 'effective' or 'ineffective'. If 'ineffective' they are given an opportunity to redeem themselves through a remediation process. This is important b/c there are many good teachers who need that extra remediation in the beginning and then can move on to become excellent teachers. Good teachers are encouraged to stay in the profession. We need good teachers! We cannot afford to lose them. You think supts. are important? Try running a school w/out good teachers. sad, theyarenotappreciate

Posted by prospectivo | reply to this comment
August 29, 2009 9:18 pm

Grier Tapped for Houston Job

-- EMILY ALPERT

Related Links