Ackerman's success hard to measure

No standards set for superintendent

Unusual Provision In Superintendent contract

Oakland Tribune, April 20, 2005

News article covering ongoing labor dispute in San Leandro Unified School District had the following additional item about the superintendent's contract:

Cutter also said the board was working to resolve a conflict with teachers over a provision in Superintendent Christine Lim's contract that requires a "supermajority" vote (5-2) for the board to be able to fire her for cause.

Last month, the teachers' union sent a letter to Cutter, arguing that the provision was illegal. The state education code specifies that school boards are to use a simple majority vote.

Lawsuit filed to toss school chief's raise

Insufficient notice of special meeting that approved $26,000 pay increase alleged

Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle,June 23, 2005

Critics of San Francisco schools chief Arlene Ackerman sued Wednesday to try to have her contract voided, saying the public was not given proper notice of a meeting in which she was given a $26,000 raise and a big boost to her housing allowance.

The suit says the public and some school board members received only 22 hours notice of a specially convened meeting rather than the 24 hours notice required by the state's open-meeting law.

The suit also claims the board majority scheduled the Friday night, Nov. 12, meeting on Veterans Day weekend because Heather Hiles, a board member who backed Ackerman, had lost in the Nov. 3 election to Norman Yee, who was seen as a swing vote between pro- and anti-Ackerman factions. Hiles' term was set to expire about six weeks later.

The board voted 4-3 at the special meeting to grant Ackerman a $26,000 raise to $250,000 annually, boost her monthly housing allowance from $1,200 to $2,000, provide a new severance package of $375,000 and extend her contract by one year to 2008.

The suit was filed in Superior Court by former San Francisco Supervisor Matt Gonzalez and his law partner, Whitney Leigh, on behalf of a student, teacher, parent and taxpayer.

They want a judge to order Ackerman to return the money she has earned through the increase and for her to work under her previous contract.

Ackerman dismissed the suit Wednesday as politics. Gonzalez and Leigh, who are prominent Green Party members, are closely linked with three school board members who frequently clash with her and voted against her contract extension.

"I am not going to let this lawsuit distract me from the important work that I have to do," she said. "We've come a long way in this district, and part of the reason we've made this progress is I have had this unrelenting ability to concentrate and keep these distractions as far away as possible."

Leigh said Wednesday he was concerned because the district faced a $22.5 million budget gap for the 2005-06 school year and had closed five schools in recent weeks.

"I like Superintendent Ackerman, but this is just extremely bad public policy," said Leigh, who failed in a bid for school board in 2002 and denied the suit was politically motivated. "San Franciscans wouldn't have allowed this to happen if they'd had a chance to respond."

The suit was filed on behalf of Alan Wong, who graduated this month from Lincoln High, Jeremiah Jeffries, a teacher in the district, Tami Bryant, a parent in the district, and Jacques Fitch, a city taxpayer.

The suit maintains the meeting violated the state Education Code, which mandates that county superintendents have their pay raised only at a regularly scheduled meeting. Since San Francisco is both a county and city, the suit argues Ackerman is bound by laws regulating both district and county superintendents.

David Campos, an attorney for the San Francisco Unified School District, maintains that Ackerman is not bound by laws regulating county superintendents because they are elected, and she was hired by the elected school board.

Fred Blum, a lawyer with Bassi, Martini, Edlin and Blum in San Francisco, said that violations of the state's open-meeting law, called the Brown Act, were taken seriously by the courts but that some leeway could be given.

"It's a nebulous thing - if you almost get it right, and the part that you didn't get right doesn't lead to any significant reduction in the public's ability to participate, then the judge has the discretion to say it was good enough," said Blum, who is not a party to the case. "I wouldn't want to guess which way it was going to go."

Reaction among some of the board commissioners who were present at the Nov. 12 meeting was divided.

"It was a very political action by a lame-duck board," said Commissioner Mark Sanchez, a Green Party member and frequent critic of Ackerman's. "It needs to be looked into."

Commissioner Dan Kelly, an Ackerman backer who was president of the board when the contract was granted, said the public had been given proper notice. "It's really nefarious, and it's counterproductive and destructive to the operation of the school district for the zealots, the so-called progressives, to be attacking the superintendent in this way," he said. "It's kind of sad."

Against all enemies

Ackerman's aversion to debate is making it harder for the school district to grapple with serious issues

By Tali Woodward and Steven T. Jones, San Francisco Bay Guardian ,June 29, 2005

Superintendent Arelene Ackerman's long pattern of treating those who disagree with her as enemies has destroyed her relationships with key schools stakeholders and seriously restricted the district's ability to function.

Ackerman's battles with the elected San Francisco Board of Education have grabbed headlines for years, but this year she has simply stopped coming to many meetings, offering her recommendations on complicated and controversial issues, or engaging in more than cursory conversations with board members.

Lesser known but equally important is the devolution of her relationships with the teachers union, student groups like the Student Advisory Council, the Board of Supervisors, and the media (and not just the Bay Guardian, which Ackerman announced last week she would stop talking to).

At the same time, Ackerman has strengthened her ties to groups that have overtly conservative political agendas, from SFSOS to the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, which have become proxies in her political battles: staging press conferences and rallies on her behalf, blasting Ackerman's opponents in interviews and e-mail blitzes, and pumping up the indignation and turnout at public meetings.

Lately, the situation has come to a head in the form of this striking dichotomy: Ackerman works well with conservative political groups that want to influence school policy but not with the teachers who do the day-to-day work of educating the students, or the school board members elected by the people to supervise her.

Ackerman has done many good things since taking over a district plagued by corruption and neglect. She secured multimillion-dollar settlements from contractors who had defrauded the district, spearheaded campaigns to win new bond money and funding from the city, and improved student test scores.

In other words, she cleaned house and firmly cast her imprint on the San Francisco Unified School District. As a result, Ackerman won over many parents and others who expect excellence from the schools. Yet for all her successes in the portion of her job that entails giving orders and commanding respect, Ackerman has a deplorable history of building mutually respectful relationships or incorporating the views of others into her plans.

Instead, Ackerman simply shuts down in the face of dissent – openly challenging the motives of those with whom she disagrees and cutting off the dialogue. Just consider her relationship with United Educators of San Francisco, the union that represents all of the city's public school teachers.

It's a long-standing practice in many school districts for the president of the teachers union to meet regularly with the superintendent for a casual and free-ranging discussion. In San Francisco, those meetings have usually happened each month. Soon after current UESF president Dennis Kelly took office in June 2003, he and some other union honchos met for the first time with Ackerman. According to Kelly they were discussing a particular employee rule when Ackerman said, "You created the adversarial relationship."

"I was stunned," Kelly told us. "I asked, 'How did we do that?' " Ackerman then said that when Kelly and his slate ran for union leadership posts, they ran against her personally. Kelly said he did his best to convince her that he never targeted her and that he wanted them to work together.

But union leaders say the relationship has only gotten worse. Ackerman and Kelly met for about a year, though the meetings were inconsistent. Then, in August 2004, SFUSD director of labor relations Tom Ruiz told Kelly, "If we wanted to meet with the administration, we would meet with him."

A few months later, Kelly says, he ran into former San Francisco schools superintendent Ramon Cortines at an event. When Kelly told him Ackerman hadn't been meeting with the union, Cortines agreed to help broker a truce. A meeting was set for Jan. 11 at 8 a.m.

After showing up more than an hour late, Ackerman told Kelly that "she felt we'd shown her disrespect.... I said, please give me an example, because we don't intend to show disrespect," he told us. "We don't necessarily agree on things, but we don't intend to show disrespect.... And I told her that we did not appreciate always being the target of attacks that were racially based."

Kelly was referring to a favored tactic of Ackerman's supporters, one that was practiced and perfected by former mayor Willie Brown, in which political groups allied with downtown financial interests inject accusations of racism into debates on seemingly unrelated topics. It is a tactic that can quickly derail substantive discussions.

"It's very harmful, and it achieves a gridlock that makes me suspicious of the people bringing it up," Sup. Tom Ammiano said of the tactic, which he endured as a supervisor, during his runs for mayor, and as a school board member.

Regarding the growing division between Ackerman and the school board, the union, and other stakeholders, Ammiano told us, "It has now devolved and deteriorated to the point where something has to give."

After Kelly spoke frankly with Ackerman about their relationship, Ackerman didn't show at a second meeting, Kelly said. Plans for a third fell apart. Cortines didn't want to talk about the specifics of these meetings, but he said he would be more than happy to arrange another if both parties were interested. He was also adamant that a superintendent should be in dialogue with the teachers union.

"Over the years, when I've been superintendent in various places, there were some tense moments. But I never allowed the conversation to cease," Cortines said. "If you want to improve schools, you need the teachers."

UESF vice president Linda Plack pointed out, "As teachers, we really care about student achievement. We have similar goals [to those Ackerman states]." Later she said, "I don't think she wants to understand how damaging her behavior is to the relationship. She wants to see it one way."

Ackerman's relationship with the Bay Guardian has apparently now ended in a similar fashion. As with UESF, this newspaper's relationship with Ackerman has always been a little tense, partly because we took issue with her policy requiring all district employees to get Ackerman's approval before talking to the media.

But after we did back-to-back stories in the past month reporting controversial statements Ackerman and her staff had made to SFSOS (see "Divide and Conquer," 5/25/05) and student leaders (see "Learning about Politics," 6/15/05) members, Ackerman secretary Tullah Carter responded to our interview request for this story by saying, "She said that she's not going to be granting any more interviews to the Bay Guardian."

Ackerman may have stopped talking with the Bay Guardian, the union, school board members, various political interest groups, and even members of the Board of Supervisors, but she still talks at them through political proxies like SFSOS's Wade Randlett (who would not comment for this story) or the Chamber of Commerce's Lee Blitch – which has been her preferred means of communication.

Ackerman has always had a close relationship with the business community, whose support she positively gushed over at SFSOS's annual luncheon on May 17. But she has strengthened and leaned on those ties all the more as her other relationships have deteriorated over the past two years.

When rumors that Ackerman would likely leave San Francisco first peaked, in September 2003, she called a press conference to counter them. Joining Ackerman at the podium was Blitch, creating a chorus that has sought to blame all discord in the district on the board, the media, progressives ... anybody but Ackerman.

UESF officials said that when they have raised questions about policies this administration is pursuing, they've been targeted by smear campaigns engineered by Randlett and others. Early last year, after Kelly publicly asked questions about Ackerman's Dream Schools initiative, the union was the object of one of SFSOS's e-mail blasts. Afterward, Kelly arranged a meeting with Randlett to discuss their differences.

"He said it was his job to protect the superintendent – at least through the November election," Kelly told us. And when Kelly again posed questions about Dream Schools at a board meeting, Randlett was there just minutes later. "He came down to tell us there was going to be trouble if we were attacking the superintendent. It was like being on the school yard again."

When asked why he thinks Randlett and others are frustrated with UESF, Kelly said, "I gather if you are in any way not being entirely subservient – well, I mean really it comes down to asking questions. When we went and talked [at the meeting], it was about problems with the program, not the superintendent."

For a long time, the strategy seemed to work. Ackerman had the support of a narrow majority on the school board and political support for pushing through reforms despite concerns from the union and community members. And it was easy for the media to blame the minority of vocal lefties on the school board for any discord.

"It's unfortunate that the media has given her a lot of cover," said school board member Mark Sanchez, Ackerman's most vocal critic.

After Ackerman board ally Heather Hiles lost her seat last fall, the lame duck board called an emergency meeting during which it approved a new contract for Ackerman on a 4-3 vote.

The new contract included an annual raise of $26,000, putting her salary at $250,000, among the highest in the country for school district superintendents. Even more provocative was the $375,000 severance package she would get even if she quit, which many saw as both pricey and designed to insulate her from the new board majority. Ackerman used the opportunity to stop talking to many board members and even stop attending many of the board's meetings.

New board president Eric Mar told us, "I've been trying to set a meeting with her for several weeks, and it hasn't come together. I've been making an effort to try to meet with her regularly. I don't think it's reciprocal."

Sarah Lipson has been the most soft-spoken of Ackerman's critics on the school board. For some time now, she's been the one who has been able to meet with the superintendent, the one who has tried to keep lines of communication open.

But over the past four months, Ackerman has cut off her regular monthly meeting with Lipson. "She's canceled every meeting without rescheduling," Lipson told us.

"We've always had disagreements, but we've always managed to work it out," Lipson continued. "Now she doesn't even look at me. It's worse than it's ever been."

Norman Yee, a moderate new addition to the school board, is restrained in his criticism of Ackerman but acknowledges observing many of the personal traits that make her hard to work with.

"I feel like we should have good relationships to be a functional organization. Could my relationship with the superintendent be better? Yes," he told us. Yee said he tries to keep his conversations with Ackerman short and to the point to avoid conflicts. "When I have a dialogue with her, I try to keep it real calm and just let her know how I feel about something without starting a big discussion."

He also said her frequent absences from school board meetings and her new approach of withholding recommendations on controversial items make it hard for the board to do its job, particularly as the district wrestles with a $22 million budget shortfall that is forcing school closures.

"Whatever her reasons are, it's really hard when she doesn't feel comfortable enough to even say, 'These are my recommendations.'" Yee said.

Media accounts of Ackerman's time as superintendent in Washington, DC, are eerily similar, telling a tale of a superintendent at war with her school board, hostile to the media, working the angles to get a lucrative contract with a no-fire clause, and aloof when dealing with parent groups and other district stakeholders.

"She's the ultimate in imperious administration," Marc Fisher, a Washington Post columnist who wrote about Ackerman's time in DC, told us in an e-mail. "Ackerman was oblivious to the political realities of the city and had almost no allies."

The tables continued to turn against Ackerman recently when a parent discovered an Education Code provision that seems to require superintendent contracts to be debated and approved at regularly scheduled meetings, not the kind of short-notice special meeting that spawned Ackerman's contract.

Attorneys Whitney Leigh and Matt Gonzalez filed a lawsuit June 22 seeking to invalidate the contract and force a new vote by the school board, a goal that was supported by the Student Advisory Council despite heavy-handed lobbying by the Ackerman administration.

The series of events has put Ackerman and her allies on the defensive for a change – and placed on public display some of the superintendent's less endearing traits.

The $400,000 spin machine

We've never found the folks on Ackerman's PR team helpful, but we didn't expect them to assert that SFUSD students are stupid

By Tali Woodward, San Francisco Bay Guardian ,June 29, 2005

Very soon after Arlene Ackerman came to town to oversee the city's public school system, it was clear that her administration was going to make public relations a top priority. Within a couple of years, the school district's single spokesperson had been replaced with a team of four who work to package Ackerman's policy initiatives, monitor the flow of information, and stage press events.

The Office of Public Engagement and Information also aggressively manages media coverage. Its staffers push fluffy stories and make it known that any kind of "negative" coverage is frowned upon and, ultimately, a disservice to the district's schoolchildren – to whom, they frequently remind anyone and everyone, the Ackerman administration is completely devoted.

Covering schools for the Bay Guardian, I've grown accustomed to the various tactics the people in the PR apparatus employ: long delays for even basic information, none-too-subtle suggestions that raising any topic they consider unpleasant might compromise future access, and admonishments to district staff not to talk to reporters without their clearance. I've also watched this PR team work relentlessly to cast anyone with questions about how the district is running as a political enemy who's not concerned with "the kids."

Ackerman's defenders have argued that the $400,000-a-year PR effort is necessary if city residents are ever going to regain faith in the San Francisco Unified School District. But the PR office has often seemed more akin to a corporate spin machine working to protect a sensitive CEO than a public service set up to disseminate information – or, for that matter, do anything for kids.

Then again, that's public relations for you. It's all about manipulating information and making your boss look as good at possible. At least Ackerman's PR team never seemed willing to personally attack SFUSD students.

Until recently.

In late May, a 17-year-old on the Student Advisory Council named Alan Wong – one of those unusual kids who attends committee meetings and debates budget priorities while his peers are playing video games or skateboarding – decided to take a stand on two raging district controversies. He drew up a couple of advisory resolutions for the body, which is basically a district-wide student council, to consider. One opposed a method of school reform that involves replacing teachers who work at struggling schools; the other criticized how much of the SFUSD's very limited budget goes into Ackerman's personal bank account. (Last fall Ackerman won a new contract guaranteeing her a $26,000 raise as well as a $375,000 payout should she leave her job, even by her own choosing.)

SFUSD staffers tried – and failed – to convince the students on the SAC to drop Wong's resolutions (see "Learning about Politics," 6/15/05, and Opinion, page 11).

And when Ackerman's administration had run out of ways to stall or blunt the measures – she even tried to postpone the meeting where the SAC was supposed to vote on the resolutions – her PR team swung into action.

They did not address the kids' reports that SFUSD staffers had pressured them to drop their resolutions (I had sent them a dozen questions about those accounts days before and was rebuffed with a statement that didn't even acknowledge the central issues). Instead, on June 13 Ackerman's special assistant Lorna Ho, who runs the PR office, distributed a press packet that sought to deflect questions by entirely reframing the issues. In it, the school district alleged that the SAC representatives were being "used" in some sort of adult conspiracy – not by district staffers, as the SAC members had told me, but by "certain adults ... trying to pursue their own political objectives." In other words, by people they see as enemies of the Ackerman administration.

"The district feels it is unconscionable that adults may be using the SAC as a political tool to embarrass the superintendent and are calling for that activity to stop," the press release read. But the packet – all 30 pages of it – contains little more than wild accusation.

In many ways, it was astounding – and in others, it fit nicely into a consistent and well-worn pattern.

'Facts'

There are some factual problems with the thick press packet. For instance, in a section helpfully headed "Facts," it states that at a June 6 SAC meeting "Jane Kim and other executive board members of UESF [United Educators of San Francisco, the union that represents local teachers] gave public comment in favor of the two resolutions."

Unlike any member of the PR staff, I was at that meeting, which I recorded. Kim – who, incidentally, is not a member of UESF, but a youth organizer who ran for school board last fall – did not speak in favor of either resolution. Instead, she said, in part, "My main purpose in being here is not to advocate for one side or the another, but to advocate for proper procedure and make sure that student voice is being properly heard at the meetings here.... I support whatever that vote may be."

The packet also contained a letter from Ackerman to the members of the SAC. "I have recently seen some very disturbing signs that certain adults are trying very hard to manipulate SAC members in order to pursue their own political objectives," it states. "I think this type of behavior is shameful, and I caution all members of the SAC to guard against being used to promote other people's agendas."

It's an interesting approach for Ackerman to take, given that her staffers were already publicly accused of doing the very same thing. But what makes it even weirder is that members of the SAC never received the letter. It seems it was written entirely for public – or at least, media – consumption.

Of course, this is minor stuff compared to the very ugly message at the heart of this particular press packet:

"We leave it open to public examination if it is plausible that the resolutions were indeed written solely by the student who originally submitted it [sic], or instead with the assistance of adults," the press release stated. The obvious insinuation is that drafting a policy statement – and trying to convince people to support it – is somehow beyond the capacities of a high school student.

"It hurts me that the district doesn't believe in our writing abilities, and has to think that somebody else is writing for us," SAC said president Theresa Muelhbauer.

In all 30 pages there was absolutely no evidence that Wong got help writing the resolutions – he also adamantly denies the charges. I asked several school board members, activists, and union leaders if they were involved in the drafting. All of them said no, although several said they later offered advice when Wong contacted them about the pressure SAC members were feeling from district staff.

The true conspiracy

The June 13 press release also included a suggestion to "note the e-mail correspondence regarding strategy between an adult and a SAC student member to gain additional press coverage, including plans to involve a Bay Guardian reporter who has written numerous negative articles about the superintendent's administration."

The attached e-mail, a personal message from Sunshine Ordinance Task Force member Bruce Wolfe to Wong, is largely about how to hold the meeting despite Ackerman's order to postpone it, not about a media "strategy." But after eight sentences about how to hold the gathering, Wolfe wrote, "Contact Talie [sic] Woodward about this when you have confirmation that the superintendent is making the order to cancel the meeting." Wong had also made a comment in the e-mail appended beneath about the "excellent press coverage" he expected Ackerman to get.

Now, one of my main duties as a reporter is to get people to let me know if something interesting is going on. Sometimes people contact me. Sometimes I even – gasp! – encourage them to contact me. But when I asked Wolfe about the e-mail, he said he mentioned me because I'd been the only reporter at the June 6 meeting.

How this could possibly be construed as evidence of a vast conspiracy is beyond me. The real mystery: How did the SFUSD press department get a copy of a personal e-mail from an adult who's not affiliated with the school district to a student representative who was not using an SFUSD e-mail address?

On the night of the student vote on these resolutions, Wong trolled through his e-mail and found a record of the one time he'd forwarded the e-mail from Wolfe. He'd sent it to a SAC member, who says she didn't pass it on, and to two people who work for the nonprofit contracted to help run the SAC.

There's been a long-running controversy over whether Ackerman has placed a "gag order" on her district staff, admonishing them not to talk to members of the Board of Education or the press without getting clearance from her office. Though Ackerman has taken issue with the "gag order" term, she has repeatedly confirmed that she wants staffers to let her office know before they speak to the press. She has characterized it as a "courtesy."

Whatever you want to call it, restricting employees' speech is one thing. Having them collect information on political opponents – including those that aren't yet old enough to vote – and turn it over to what is, essentially, your propaganda operation? It's a whole new level.

Handling the press

As implied in the SFUSD's press release, I haven't had a particularly good relationship with the Office of Public Engagement and Information, which hasn't been happy with a lot of things this paper has reported.

Spokesperson Ho has called my editors to complain about my coverage of the school district, quibbled with facts even when she can't offer any reason to doubt them, and tried to get me to disclose how I've gotten specific information. I've done my best to navigate the whole thing – after all, it's part of my job. But no amount of following procedure seemed to help, as long as I was inquiring about something they'd rather the public not know about.

In case you're wondering why there's no comment from Ho or anyone else from the district in this story, it's because her office has chosen not to talk to us.

And though this paper has had a particularly rocky relationship with Ackerman's PR team, other journalists also say the PR department has tried to intimidate them and has complained to their supervisors that coverage is too "negative." Fearing that the working relationships will only worsen, these journalists are unwilling to talk about their experiences on the record.

But the PR team hasn't used these approaches only with professional journalists. They've also worked to intimidate student journalists from Lowell High School's paper.

In the fall of 2003, Nicole Hui, then an 11th-grader at Lowell, was looking into whether Ackerman had established a gag order. Hui told us Ackerman initially didn't return her calls. But once Hui got a copy of an e-mail from former assistant superintendent Winnie Tang describing the instructions given to staffers, Ackerman "decided to come to Lowell to be interviewed."

When Hui's story ran – under the headline "Superintendent Denies Placing Gag Order on District" – Ackerman and her staff complained about the reporting and the illustration that ran with it (a cartoon of Ackerman gagging someone with a piece of cloth). At least one PR staffer visited the school to register criticism. Like the SAC representatives, these students had raised issues that were politically uncomfortable for the superintendent.

"I didn't feel like we did anything wrong," Hui told us. "I thought, this is how people felt working under you – and we gave you the opportunity to refute [the allegations]."

Hui had to deal with the PR department again when she called a district teacher and was asked if she had gotten "permission" from the PR office to do the story. "I was like, I need permission? What about the First Amendment?" Hui said. She called Ho, who said she indeed wanted a "heads up" on any story involving the district. "Every time you call anyone at the district, they just forward you to Lorna Ho," Hui said. "I got kind of annoyed.... The media has its own right to actually go and interview people."

Schools chief is considering retirement

Conflicts with some board members worsening, she says

By Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle, July 27, 2005

San Francisco schools Superintendent Arlene Ackerman said Tuesday that her rocky relationship with some members of the Board of Education had deteriorated even further and that the attacks had grown so personal that she was weighing the possibility of retiring within a year.

In recent weeks, she has been sued by allies of the board members over her recent salary increase and was the subject of an unflattering cover story in an alternative weekly newspaper that endorsed two of the board members for re-election in November.

"It makes me feel badly that it's gotten so personal," she said in an interview with The Chronicle. "People say ignore it, but it's hard to ignore the frontal and back and sideways attacks."

Ackerman said she was strongly considering retiring within the next academic year, despite having a contract good through 2008. Her contract would allow her to depart with $375,000 if she determines her relationship with the board is unworkable, though she said the money wasn't her driving motivation. She makes $250,000 annually. "I'm trying to evaluate how much more I can get done in this very embattled (situation)," she said. "I don't want to see the district suffer because the board and I can't come together. If me stepping aside would allow this district to accelerate my progress, then I am preparing myself mentally and emotionally to do that."

Ackerman has frequently clashed with Board of Education Commissioners Sarah Lipson, Eric Mar and Mark Sanchez, who say her leadership style is top- down and that she doesn't listen to parents and teachers when making her decisions. They have also clashed with her over policy issues, including her support of standardized testing.

Lipson, Mar and Sanchez are three of seven board members. Commissioners Eddie Chin, Dan Kelly and Jill Wynns support Ackerman, while the newest member, Norman Yee, is a swing vote between the factions.

Former Supervisor Matt Gonzalez and his new law partner, Whitney Leigh, who are members of the local Green Party and allies of Green Party members Lipson and Sanchez and liberal Democrat Eric Mar, sued Ackerman last month over her contract increase last November. Their suit says the special meeting of the school board to raise her salary was illegal.

During her interview Tuesday, Ackerman said an outside lawyer that she hired to represent her would cost the district more than her raise.

A local paper that has endorsed Lipson, Mar and Sanchez in their campaigns also recently ran a lengthy story saying Ackerman was having a "meltdown."

Lipson agreed that her relationship with Ackerman was deteriorating but blamed it on the superintendent, saying Ackerman had canceled their monthly meetings. Mar and Sanchez didn't return calls Tuesday.

"We had a relationship where we were able to meet monthly, and even if we disagreed, we were able to disagree respectfully," Lipson said. "She's no longer keeping those meetings with me."

Lipson added that Ackerman hadn't been unfairly attacked.

"When you're in this job, you're always going to have people who disagree with you," Lipson said. "Like her, we (commissioners) get attacked often. As long as you keep doing what you think is right, you can look beyond those attacks."

Ackerman raise called illegal at court hearing

Rules for salary vote evaded, lawyers say

Cecilia M. Vega, San Francisco Chronicle, August 11, 2005

Lawyers suing to repeal a $26,000-a-year raise given last fall to San Francisco schools Superintendent Arlene Ackerman argued in court Wednesday that the city Board of Education had approved the increase during a meeting that violated state law.

The Board of Education that governs the 54,000-student San Francisco Unified School District voted to approve the salary increase as part of a contract extension during a special meeting in November that was scheduled for a Friday before a holiday weekend. The pact also includes a severance agreement that would pay the superintendent $375,000 if she is terminated or resigns, though she would be required to stay on the job six to 12 months while board looks for a replacement.

At issue in the case is whether that meeting violated the state Education Code, which requires county superintendents to receive pay raises only during regularly scheduled meetings.

The defendants "are saying that because some members of the public showed up (at the special meeting) that that was enough, which is ridiculous," said Whitney Leigh who, along with his law partner, former Board of Supervisors president and mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez, filed the lawsuit in June.

But attorney Robin Johansen, who represents the school board, disagreed.

"It sounds like this contract was entered into in a back room. ... That's simply not the case," she said in court. "There was discussion. There was public input ... so to suggest this was done under the radar was simply not the case."

It is unknown when Judge Ernest Goldsmith will issue a written decision.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a student, teacher, parent and taxpayer. Leigh said he hoped the judge would order Ackerman to give back the money she had already earned under the pay raise and renegotiate her contract so that she worked under the previous agreement.

The award of the contract has been criticized as having been rushed through by a pro-Ackerman majority on the verge of losing its numerical edge on the board and for being too rich at a time of steep budget cuts.

"Our main concern is she's now talking about leaving the district," said Leigh, referring to Ackerman's recent announcement that she is considering retiring within a year. "She could walk away with $375,000 by quitting."

The contract adopted by the board during the Nov. 12 meeting runs to 2008. In addition to the salary increase that boosted Ackerman's annual pay to $250, 000 and the $375,000 severance agreement, the pact raised the superintendent's monthly housing allowance from $1,200 to $2,000.

Ackerman, who did not attend the court hearing Wednesday, has dismissed the lawsuit as being politically motivated. Gonzalez and Leigh are both prominent Green Party members with ties to three school board members who voted against the new contract and regularly spar with the superintendent.

The superintendent has her own legal representation in the case. Her attorney argued Wednesday that the state law under which the case has been filed applied only to raises awarded to elected county superintendents and therefore didn't cover Ackerman, who is an appointee of the Board of Education and not an elected official.

Alan Wong, the 18-year-old student plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the public's interest had been overshadowed by all the politics surrounding the case.

"She got a $26,000 pay raise when we've been laying off teachers," he said. "We've closed schools. How is this responsible?"

Ackerman says she'll quit as schools chief

She and Board of Education agree they're incompatible

Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle, September 7, 2005

San Francisco schools Superintendent Arlene Ackerman resigned on Tuesday, marking an end to a tenure noted for rising student achievement and renewed fiscal health in the public school system, but marred by charges that she was autocratic and excluded parents and teachers from important decisions.

In a private meeting with Ackerman Tuesday night, the Board of Education voted unanimously to mutually invoke a controversial "compatibility clause" in Ackerman's contract, meaning both the school board and Ackerman agree they are incompatible, according to board member Dan Kelly.

Exercising the clause allows Ackerman to walk away with $375,000 as long as she stays on the job for an additional six months to one year. Ackerman said she intends to leave her post June 30, 2006, after six years on the job.

At an emotional press conference held at San Francisco Unified School District headquarters on Franklin Street, Ackerman, 58, the first African American and first female superintendent of San Francisco's schools, read a prepared statement outlining the "tremendous strides" the district has made since her arrival.

She avoided mention of the ongoing infighting between her and three members of the school board that led to her departure.

Flanked by Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Rev. Amos Brown, as well as all seven members of the school board, Ackerman choked up while discussing the hardship her job has caused her family. During her tenure in San Francisco, Ackerman weathered a divorce, and her father in Missouri suffered a stroke.

Ackerman also became teary-eyed while bidding farewell to the city's students.

"To the beautiful children in this magnificent city by the bay, I want you to know that you are my inspiration. I come to work each day as a servant for you," she said. "Continue to work hard and make education a priority in your life. I promise you, you won't be sorry."

Ackerman received a standing ovation and cheers from the audience, which included her staff, parents of students in the district and several members of the African American community.

Newsom said he was saddened but not surprised by Ackerman's resignation considering the ongoing bickering that has gone on between her and a faction of the school board. He said it was a shame to be losing "the architect" of the improvements within city schools.

Ackerman has consistently fought with board members Eric Mar, Sarah Lipson and Mark Sanchez over ideology and their belief she is a top-down manager.

They have battled over a variety of issues, including Ackerman's Dream Schools initiative, which aims to overhaul low-performing schools by giving them a more rigorous curriculum, longer hours and Saturday school, but also by requiring all teachers at the schools to reapply for their jobs to signal their commitment to the revamped program.

Lipson, Mar and Sanchez -- along with leadership of the teachers' union -- have fought the reapplication requirement, saying it is a slap in the face to educators who have dedicated their careers to working in difficult schools.

The three also say Ackerman is too big a supporter of state and federally mandated standardized tests and should use her clout to speak out against them. Ackerman says they are a good measure of student achievement, and she is more concerned with seeing scores rise than in challenging the tests themselves.

For her part, Ackerman has been irked by what she views as the three board members' politicizing of the school day, including calling for a war protest and a ban on irradiated meat, which isn't served in any of the district's cafeterias. In one interview with The Chronicle, she likened them to bothersome gnats.

The divide grew deeper over the summer when former Supervisor Matt Gonzalez, an ally of Lipson, Mar and Sanchez, filed a suit against Ackerman's new contract, which includes the controversial compatibility clause. The suit was dismissed last month, though an appeal has already been filed.

Mar said Tuesday he felt a "tremendous sense of relief" that Ackerman has resigned.

Lipson said, "I think she's been unhappy for a while in the district, and I think everyone's focused a little too much on the infighting ... It will be time to refocus ourselves on making sure that our students get a high quality education."

Ackerman's supporters -- Kelly, Eddie Chin and Jill Wynns -- were upset over her resignation. (Swing vote Norman Yee occupies the seventh seat on the board.)

"The board has made her working conditions intolerable ... She's being forced out -- let's face it. This is not a voluntary resignation," Kelly said. "The work is so far from over -- it's just a shame Arlene doesn't get to stay here and finish it. She's a tremendous leader, a tremendous educator and a wonderful human being."

Soon upon arrival in San Francisco from the helm of Washington, D.C.'s public schools in the summer of 2000, Ackerman began unearthing widespread corruption in the district's facilities department from previous superintendent Bill Rojas' reign. She joked later she had arrived in the "wild, wild West."

Ackerman called in the city attorney's office and the FBI, which resulted in settlements last year against companies involved in the fraud and a recouping of more than $50 million for the district.

The improved financial picture in the district helped convince city voters to approve a $295 million facilities bond for the district in 2003 and a mandated annual contribution of city money for the district in 2004.

Ackerman has also seen test scores improve for all groups of students each year for the past five years, making San Francisco's scores the best of any urban district in the state for the past two years. The district is a finalist for the Broad Prize in Education, a national contest for urban districts with an award of $500,000 in scholarship money.

However, the test scores and grade point averages for African American students continue to lag far behind their white and Asian American classmates.

To address the discrepancy, Ackerman created the Dream Schools initiative and Star school initiative, which involves giving more money and resources to the lowest-performing schools. She said Tuesday that 85 percent of the Star schools were showing signs of academic improvement.

Ackerman has faltered, however, in her ability to reach out to parents and teachers and has made several decisions about individual schools without seeking the input of families and staff involved. She has also been accused of not taking criticism well and has called those who oppose her racist on occasion.

Ackerman, for her part, considers her job one well done.

"I take great satisfaction in knowing that the school system is much better and stronger now than when I came here some five years ago," she said in her statement. "Like so many others, my heart will always remain in San Francisco."

Divisiveness still plagues schools chief

Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle, September 8, 2005

It was a common refrain at San Francisco schools chief Arlene Ackerman's resignation announcement Tuesday night: Let's put the political infighting behind us. But Wednesday it was clear that the divisiveness behind her decision to quit raged on.

A divide was already forming among city Board of Education members about the timing of Ackerman's departure and how to replace the superintendent.

Parents were signing a petitions asking Ackerman to forgo accepting her $375,000 severance.

And African American and other community leaders are gearing up for a recall of the three board members they say unfairly ousted Ackerman.

For her part, Ackerman declined to comment Wednesday.

The superintendent announced her decision to quit after five years on the job -- a tenure marked in recent years by ideological differences and personality conflicts with three of the school board's politically most left-leaning members: Sarah Lipson, Eric Mar and Mark Sanchez.

She and the board met behind closed doors Tuesday night and mutually agreed they were incompatible, which according to a "compatibility clause" in her contract allows the superintendent to walk away with the severance pay as long as she stays on for six to 12 months to allow the board time to find a replacement.

In her resignation speech, Ackerman said she planned to stay on the job until June 30, which would mean she would continue to claim her $250,000 annual salary in addition to the severance.

Sanchez, Ackerman's most outspoken critic on the school board, said Wednesday that it was a lot of money to pay someone who he says is already abdicating big decisions. In the spring, Ackerman refused to weigh in on which schools to close to help bridge the budget gap.

"We should cut our losses," Sanchez said, adding he would like to have a discussion with the board about Ackerman's leaving earlier than planned and having her deputy, Gwen Chan, appointed interim superintendent.

Board member Dan Kelly, perhaps Ackerman's most outspoken supporter on the San Francisco Unified School District's governing body, said an earlier departure date for the superintendent would have to be negotiated with her according to the terms of her contract and asked, "What's the point of rushing?"

In terms of the type of superintendent they'd like to bring in, Sanchez and Kelly also disagreed. Sanchez said he'd like to "think outside the box" and was interested in hiring two leaders: one to head the educational side and one to head up finances.

Kelly, however, said he supported hiring a traditional superintendent trained in education -- one much like Ackerman herself.

The school board and Ackerman are next scheduled to meet behind closed doors Tuesday to discuss the transition.

Meanwhile, Richard Reynolds, a leader of the Parent Advisory Council, which advises the school board, was circulating a petition asking Ackerman to reject her $375,000 severance pay.

It reads in part: "I know you care about the children in our district. I also know that you of all people know that SFUSD's financial situation is poor and that every dollar counts. ... Please don't let everyone see you chased out with our children's money clutched in your hands."

Reynolds said he planned to publicly present the petition to Ackerman at a school board meeting within the next three weeks.

Also Wednesday, the president of the San Francisco NAACP, the Rev. Amos Brown; police Commissioner Doug Chan; head of the moderate-to-conservative political action group SFSOS Wade Randlett; and head of the Chinese American Voters Education Committee David Lee met to discuss getting a recall of Lipson, Mar and Sanchez on an upcoming city ballot. After the meeting, Brown declared, "It's on."

"We decided for reasonable, sensible, solid citizens of this city to stand up and stop the madness," Brown added.

He and the others face a daunting task, though. They must get the signatures of 10 percent of the city's registered voters on three separate petitions -- one for each school board member they want to oust. In addition, the November race saw Mar and Sanchez comfortably win re-election.

Dennis Kelly, leader of the United Educators of San Francisco, which represents teachers and classroom aides and is in contract negotiations with the district, hinted Wednesday he'd like to see Ackerman leave sooner rather than later.

"I think right now we need some clarity on what the authority of the superintendent is going to be going through the rest of her term," he said. "It's hard to know really who we're dealing with at this point, so to the extent there's confusion now about who's in charge, then it is not helpful."

He said her resignation could prove beneficial to the district if her replacement would agree to be at the negotiating table, which Ackerman has not done. He said having the district negotiators needing to check everything with Ackerman before decisions were made had significantly slowed down the process.

The United Educators has been a political supporter of Sanchez, Mar and Lipson as well as Ackerman backers on the board.

There is fairly widespread agreement on one issue: that with so much conflict over the past few years, nothing could have been done to prevent Ackerman from leaving at this point.

"I think it had escalated to the point where a decision had to be made," Lipson said Wednesday. "Everyone -- the city and the district and everyone involved -- was so focused on the superintendent and the board and personalities that we just lost focus, and something needed to happen to get us back on track."

Ackerman backer Dan Kelly agreed, saying it was a "done deal" ever since Mar and Sanchez were elected to the board in November 2000.

"It's what Eric and Mark have been driving for since they got on the board," he said. "The argument is over -- the superintendent has fallen on the sword. Let's move forward -- let's just do it."

Deluded board fails to act

Editorial, San Francisco Chronicle, January 23, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO has too many schools. It needs to bring operations, staff and budgets in line with reality. Yet it won't.

As an indecisive school board demonstrated, the reasons are plain and unpleasant. Facing hundreds of angry parents and children waving homemade signs, school leaders took the easy -- but wrong -- route.

The panel closed or merged more than a dozen schools on a staff-suggested list of 26. It was a half-step that means a rerun next year.

For years, the schools have shed students as families have left the city. In 1998, there were 62,115 pupils; now it's down to 56,578. Housing costs, everyday living expenses, and the school board's own irresponsibility may drive even more families out of town.

The public-school system should have a lot to offer. It has launched a $295 million rebuilding plan, loyally supported by voters who believe in the best. There is a wide span of choices -- language immersion programs, arts-themed schools and high-performing academic mainstays. Test scores are inching up.

But the city must adjust to reality. On the block are schools that have small enrollments and echoing, empty halls. Fewer students mean less money from Sacramento, as much as $5 million this year. The board, which has long known the problem, acknowledges these enrollment drops, but won't act.

Another delay is worse than futile. What parent will allow a child to go to a school next fall that was targeted, but spared this time around? Also, labor trouble with teachers becomes more likely. The union wants a 12 percent raise, but the district claims it has saved only enough for a 4 percent increase. This kind of uncertainty could drive more to the exits.

Almost as disheartening is the behavior of the rest of City Hall. Mayor Gavin Newsom, absent from the fight until the final weeks, at last defended the closures, but after the sides had hardened. He opposed a Hail Mary plan from Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi to send the school board $5.3 million to postpone the inevitable.

Then the hard job of merging and closing schools can begin. Special programs, teachers and classmates don't need to be pulled apart if the process is done right. But it has to start now, not in the hazy future, as a deluded school board thinks. These leaders are failing a key test.

Schools chief's credit conflict

Some commissioners call Ackerman's charges excessive

By Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle, February 9, 2006

Outgoing San Francisco schools chief Arlene Ackerman racked up $45,625 in credit card charges in 2005 -- mostly in meals, airplane tickets and hotels -- which have been reimbursed by the San Francisco Unified School District at taxpayer expense.

Ackerman, a member of many national education organizations, took 32 work-related trips around the country last year, often staying in luxury hotels and eating at high-priced restaurants.

While in San Francisco, she paid for scores of working lunches and dinners -- frequently at such well-known restaurants as Jardiniere, Hayes Street Grill, Palomino and Morton's.

The credit card receipts were released to the school board this week in response to reports that some staff members, who have not been publicly identified, raised questions about Ackerman's spending. Those reports set off another battle between Ackerman and some members of the school board.

Ackerman was blunt on Wednesday: "I have nothing to be ashamed of. People can nitpick if they want to, but I didn't do anything I think was wrong."

Ackerman's Diners Club account is authorized under her contract, which says, "The district shall pay or reimburse the superintendent for reasonable expenses."

There don't appear to be any illegal or improper uses of the card, such as for personal items, but critics on the school board said some charges weren't reasonable.

Some of the school board members who have butted heads with Ackerman frequently over the years said she was wrong to opt for pricey choices when the district is dire financial straits. The board voted last month to shut several schools, and the district now faces tense negotiations with the teachers union for a new contract.

"It just seems astronomical to me," said board member Eric Mar. "Some of it is very lavish given that we are a public agency in a financial crisis and serving children."

Other school board members, though, said Ackerman's travel and professional interaction is worth it because she has greatly improved the district's reputation locally, in Sacramento and nationally.

"I think the whole thing is silly," said board member Jill Wynns. "This is the cost of doing business and doing it well."

Ackerman, who took the helm of the district in 2000, announced last fall she was retiring at the end of this school year because her relationship with some school board members had become unworkable.

Her deputy, Gwen Chan, took over as interim superintendent this month, and Ackerman is now working as "superintendent emeritus," advising Chan and using up her sick and vacation days. She will continue to receive her $250,000 annual salary, a $2,000 monthly housing allowance and other benefits until June 30. She will then get a $375,000 severance.

Ackerman's credit card use became an issue last month when school board member Sarah Lipson asked to see copies of the superintendent's charges. Lipson said she was told by members of Ackerman's staff that some charges were questionable.

"It's my responsibility as a board member to look into it," Lipson said. "I never said I went into it thinking it was fraudulent, and I'm not saying that now. But after a cursory look, some of those expenses seem unreasonable and irresponsible."

Charges include $1,743.78 spent on a reception at San Francisco's Argent Hotel for members of the Council of Great City Schools and their spouses. Ackerman said participating districts rotate hosting the receptions -- and that some of the board members questioning her spending habits attended the reception.

Ackerman also spent $812.82 for two nights last February at the JW Marriott Hotel in Washington, D.C., for the National Governors Education Summit. That month, she spent $1,564.40 on a United Airlines flight to Washington, D.C., for a Black History Month celebration at the White House; she spent $510.36 at the Madison Hotel while on that trip.

In San Francisco, she paid for lunches and dinners with lawyers, school board members, city officials and others, including one lunch with this reporter. (It is The Chronicle's policy not to accept free meals from public officials.)

Lipson said she didn't know what, if any, action she would take. Several board members said they were partly responsible for never exercising their right to review Ackerman's credit card charges and said they might implement an expense review in the future.

Ackerman supporters Wynns and Dan Kelly said previous Superintendents Ray Cortines and Bill Rojas had charged similar amounts on their district cards.

Wynns, the senior member of the board and the head of the budget committee, said Cortines had come under scrutiny for spending on a retreat and that Rojas had charged a political contribution and travels to New York to pursue his doctoral studies. Wynns said both men reimbursed the district for those charges.

Ackerman has reimbursed the district about $4,000 over the past year, including a check for $1,512.60 submitted after Lipson's request to review the expenses. Sometimes, educational organizations hosting Ackerman reimbursed the district themselves -- for a total of a few thousand dollars.

Ackerman said she has no problem with her credit card expenditures being reviewed, but that it should be been done in a more above-board matter and should not have been leaked to the press. She has hired a lawyer who has threatened to sue the board on her behalf over the issue.

Ackerman said she is no longer using the credit card and has given it to a school board member she trusts for safekeeping until the matter is resolved.

Search firm picked for school post

By Jill Tucker, San Francisco Chronicle, December 14, 2006

The search for a new San Francisco school superintendent will be conducted by the firm of Hazard, Young, Attea and Associates, the Board of Education decided Tuesday.

The company, of Glenview, Ill., has worked to identify candidates for top administrative positions with dozens of school districts across the country including those in San Diego, Antioch and Los Altos.

The firm helped the San Diego County Office of Education in hiring for its top job Randy Ward, the former state administrator of the Oakland schools.

"I am very pleased we hired a firm of their national caliber to do a very aggressive national search with us, and to build in a strong community engagement process as well," said board member Eric Mar in an e-mail.

Mar and other board members Sarah Lipson, Norman Yee and Mark Sanchez voted to hire the firm.

The California School Boards Association was the other firm considered for the consulting job. It had the backing of board members Dan Kelly and Eddie Chin.

Board member Jill Wynns did not vote because she is a member of the school boards association's executive board.

The search firm will work with the board to identify a description of the job and then conduct meetings across the city to get community feedback, Mar said.

The board is expected to conduct interviews in the spring and select a candidate before July.

S.F. would challenge schools innovator

By Jill Tucker, San Francisco Chronicle, June 7, 2007

If Carlos Garcia becomes the next San Francisco schools superintendent, one thing seems clear -- he won't be boring.

More than one person says he's "a bull in a china shop," and they're among those in Las Vegas who like him.

The former Clark County School District superintendent is the only finalist for the position in San Francisco, and the school board is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to offer him the job and on the terms of a contract.

Garcia would come with experience -- five years in Clark County, the fifth largest school district in the nation, and six years combined as superintendent for Fresno Unified and Sanger Unified districts in Fresno County. He also was a social studies teacher and a principal, running San Francisco's Horace Mann Middle School for three years until 1991.

Yet, overseeing San Francisco schools would pose a host of challenges sharply different from those he faced in Las Vegas from 2000 to 2005.

The Clark County School District has a $2 billion annual budget to teach 300,000 students spread out over 8,000 square miles. Every year, enrollment surges by 10,000 children, and the district builds an average of one new school every month. Conservatives sit on the school board, and sex education is abstinence-only.

San Francisco has $500 million for 56,000 students attending schools over 47 square miles, and it loses about 1,000 children every year. Green Party progressives sit on the school board, and the high schools hand out condoms.

Both districts, however, struggle with significant populations of English learners and low-income students.

In Las Vegas, those in the education community say Garcia, 55, isn't easily intimidated by problems or politics and is likely to tackle San Francisco's challenges as he did in Las Vegas: quickly, creatively and sometimes without tact.

Las Vegas locals still recall how Garcia more than once called the entire state of Nevada "cheap" because it fell short of the national average on school spending.

Garcia declined to be interviewed for this story, saying he first wanted the school board to complete the hiring process.

By turns, those in Clark County who know or worked with Garcia called him courageous or cowardly; strong-willed or weak; the best superintendent ever or the worst.

It's not unusual for school superintendents, especially in urban areas, to have harsh critics as well as keen admirers. Garcia is no different.

If his past is any indication, San Francisco would get a schools chief who wouldn't put much stock in the status quo.

"I think if they want a leader who can endure the controversy that comes from change, he certainly fills the bill," said Clark County Superintendent Walt Rulffes, who served as Garcia's deputy superintendent. "If they want the status quo, I don't think he would be comfortable with that."

In the coming months, the new San Francisco schools superintendent will have to grapple with a range of issues and inherited problems.

The district and teachers union stand at an impasse over a new contract. Enrollment continues to decline, causing budget crunches and leaving some schools half full and in danger of closing.

An achievement gap is also a priority -- African American students are among the state's lowest urban performers on standardized tests.

And by the fall, the San Francisco school board is expected to decide whether to bring race back as a factor in the student assignment process, determining which students get into the most desirable schools.

In choosing Garcia, the San Francisco school board won't be getting a lapdog to face such issues, said Phil Halperin, president of the Silver Giving Foundation and part of the community task force involved in the selection process.

"This is not a caretaker superintendent," said Halperin, who is familiar with Garcia's background. "They're bringing somebody in who they think can tackle these issues head on and who has a vision of how to do that."

Yet Garcia didn't get immediate results in Las Vegas. During his tenure, test scores were stagnant or declined. Dropouts were up.

In addition, he started his time there with a slur that some in Clark County say they never forgave.

In a 2000 radio interview, a group of African American students asked Garcia about racism.

"N -- come in all colors," he said. "To me, a n -- is someone who doesn't respect themselves or others."

Garcia said he meant the statement as a condemnation of racism, albeit badly communicated.

Elementary Principal Linda Reese said she decided at the time to dislike Garcia "intensely."

Over the next five years, Reese watched her school, Lee Antonello Elementary, burst at the seams with nearly 800 students as the diverse population grew in the surrounding neighborhoods.

And she watched Garcia.

It took what she said were a lot of good decisions before she changed her mind about him.

"If people judge him by what he did ... there was some serious success involved," said Reese, who is in her 28th year with the district. "Maybe it wasn't perfect, but it was creative."

In 2001, Garcia divided the huge district into five regions, each with a local superintendent and administrative staff -- a controversial plan to bring decision making closer to communities.

At the time, the state's legislature considered splitting Clark County into more than one district, which likely would have segregated students by ethnicity and income.

Garcia kept the district intact while localizing power with administrators placed within the regions. Supporters say the decision made the administration more accessible.

"It was a gamble," Reese said. "He was willing to do that. You can't make a difference otherwise."

Critics say it was a disaster.

"It created layers of bureaucracy," said Elise Wolff, a retired teacher and administrator who has a Henderson elementary school named after her.

Dividing the district was just one of many controversial changes Garcia introduced, said Steve Augspurger, executive director of the Clark County Association of School Administrators.

"He was a very visible superintendent," he said. "He attracted alienation by the things he did or said."

But Garcia is also a "man of great courage," Augspurger added.

Garcia took it upon himself to confront the Nevada Legislature, pulling together the state's 17 school superintendents to create a united front for more money, an effort Nevada state Superintendent of Schools Keith Rheault said was an impressive achievement.

It was no small feat, given the historical alienation between Nevada's more rural northern counties and the suburban south, Reese said.

As Garcia argued for more money, he was forced to cut $90 million from his district's budget during his first years in office. He increased class size from 28 to 29 students in grades 4 through 12 to save money.

It was a move that could have alienated the teachers union, but the Clark County Education Association got on board with Garcia's moves.

"He did have a good open-door policy," said John Jasonek, executive director of the union. "I can't say he just dropped them on us."

Jasonek said he wished Garcia had stayed to "finish the job he started," which included much less acrimony in the bargaining process.

During his tenure, Garcia also implemented an eighth-grade requirement to take algebra and added extra class periods in high school to give at-risk students a chance to catch up on credits.

He started full-day kindergarten in the lowest-performing schools, shifting federal Title I money -- special funding for low-income students -- to fund the program. Yet he also offered the program to wealthier families, charging them $300 for the privilege.

All were met with some resistance.

Critics said the changes did little to improve student achievement.

Many others said Garcia's efforts are now starting to bear fruit, and improvements don't happen overnight.

Now test scores are up and dropouts are down in Clark County.

"The man had ideas, and a lot of them worked," said parent Buffy Kilarski, whose three children graduated from Clark County schools. "He comes on really strong at the beginning, and it tends to alienate people. He's like a bull in a china shop. He's out there. He's in your face. His heart is with the kids."

Garcia left the district in 2005 to take a job as a vice president for McGraw-Hill Education Co. -- six months after the Clark County board gave him a 6-1 vote of confidence and a 2 percent pay raise.

A few months before he resigned, he said he hoped to retire with the school district in 2010, according to media reports.

"I consider this job the challenge and opportunity of a lifetime," he said in January 2005. "Nothing could top this."

A year later, Garcia was reportedly a finalist for the Los Angeles Unified district superintendent's post.

In a brief interview with The Chronicle for a May 26 story, he said he missed the world of public education and wanted to get back to it.

"Its' something that I have a passion for and that I believe in," he said. "Something I really missed."

He said if he gets the job, he doesn't plan on going anywhere else.

Working in San Francisco would be a "dream come true," he said. "I'm interested in ending my career in a pretty dynamic place."

This story has been corrected since it appeared in print editions.

Offer expected for schools chief finalist

By Jill Tucker, San Francisco Chronicle, June 9, 2007

The San Francisco school board is expected to offer a finalist for the job of district superintendent a compensation package -- including a $255,000 annual salary -- that is worth less than that paid to former Superintendent Arlene Ackerman.

In addition to the salary, the proposed three-year deal would give Carlos Garcia, the former schools superintendent of Nevada's Clark County, a $30,000 signing bonus, $2,500 monthly housing allowance and $8,000 yearly auto stipend.

If approved Tuesday by the board, the contract would also give Garcia incentives to stay at least the three years.

After two years, he would receive a lump sum for his retirement, and after five years, he and his spouse would receive lifetime health benefits.

In total, some board members said Friday, the contract is worth about 85 percent of what Ackerman received at the end of her contract in 2006.

When she left last year, Ackerman was earning $250,000 in salary, but the district's contributions to her retirement accounts meant her total compensation exceeded the proposed amount for Garcia, said board member Jill Wynns.

"This is a fairly modest compensation package for a superintendent," Wynns said.

Across the country, the average salary for a superintendent in a district with 50,000 to 100,000 students is about $216,000, according to the Council of Great City Schools.

In California, even much smaller districts often exceed that figure.

The new Palo Alto Unified superintendent, Kevin Skelly, will initially earn $225,000 annually, with raises increasing his pay to $260,000 by 2010.

Garcia's housing allowance is a modest monthly amount, considering housing prices in San Francisco, Wynns said.

"Housing support for big city superintendents is very common and is becoming the industry standard," she said.

Garcia worked as a vice president for McGraw-Hill Education Co. after resigning from the Clark County district in 2005.

If he accepts the district's offer, he would begin his employment with San Francisco Unified on July 16.

The board will meet at 5 p.m. on Tuesday.